Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Restriction Fragment Analysis of Pine Phylogeny

Steven H. Straus and Allan H. Doerksen
Evolution
Vol. 44, No. 4 (Jul., 1990), pp. 1081-1096
DOI: 10.2307/2409568
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2409568
Page Count: 16
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($4.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Restriction Fragment Analysis of Pine Phylogeny
Preview not available

Abstract

We used restriction fragment analysis of chloroplast, nuclear, and mitochondrial DNA to study phylogeny in the genus Pinus. Total genomic DNA of 18 to 19 pine species that spanned 14 of the 15 subsections in the genus was cut with 8 restriction enzymes, blotted, and then probed with up to 17 cloned DNA fragments-which were mostly from the chloroplast genome of Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco). A total of 116 shared characters, the majority representing single point mutations, were subjected to Wagner and Dollo parsimony analyses, coupled with bootstrapping and construction of consensus trees. The hard (subgenus Pinus) and soft pines (subgenus Strobus) were distinct. The soft pines in section Parrya, represented by P. longaeva, edulis, monophylla, and gerardiana, were the group closest to the hypothesized root of the genus. They were also more diverse and more closely related to the hard pines than were their descendents in section Strobus, represented by P koraiensis, albicaulis, griffithii, and lambertiana, all of which were remarkably similar. Except for a strong clade involving P. canariensis and pinea (section Ternatae), the hard pines were weakly differentiated. The high similarity within the most speciose groups of pines (sections Strobus and Pinus) suggests that the bulk of the genus radiated relatively recently. In contrast to a recent classification, P. leiophylla was not associated with section Ternatae; instead, it appears to belong in section Pinus, and showed a high similarity to P taeda of subsection Australes. Subsection Oocarpae, represented by P. oocarpa and radiata, appears to be a natural group, and is related to subsection Contortae, represented by P contorta. More extensive restriction fragment studies will yield many new insights into evolution in the genus. Other methods, however, such as DNA sequencing or fine structure analysis of restriction site mutations, are likely to be necessary for rooting pine phylogenies with respect to other coniferous genera, and for estimating divergence times.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1081
    1081
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1082
    1082
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1083
    1083
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1084
    1084
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1085
    1085
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1086
    1086
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1087
    1087
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1088
    1088
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1089
    1089
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1090
    1090
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1091
    1091
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1092
    1092
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1093
    1093
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1094
    1094
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1095
    1095
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1096
    1096