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.

Primary Classification and Phylogeny of the Polemoniaceae, with Comments on Molecular Cladistics

Verne Grant
American Journal of Botany
Vol. 85, No. 6, Part 1 (Jun., 1998), pp. 741-752
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2446408
Page Count: 12
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($12.00)
  • 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.
Primary Classification and Phylogeny of the Polemoniaceae, with Comments on Molecular Cladistics
Preview not available

Abstract

The system of classification of the Polemoniaceae currently in use was published by Grant in 1959 Much new evidence concerning relationships in the family has been obtained by numerous workers since 1959, and the old system is in need of revision A revised system down to the genus level, based on conventional and unconventional characters, including molecular evidence, is presented here Nineteen genera are grouped into eight tribes and two subfamilies Three new tribes are described: Acanthogilieae, Loeselieae, and Leptodactyloneae. Several genera are transferred to new groups. The phylogeny of the family is discussed in the light of both the older and new evidence. The approach used in constructing both the 1959 and new systems is that of evolutionary systematics. Two recent (1996, 1997) family-wide surveys of cpDNA and rDNA use cladistic methods of analysis to arrive at sets of major groups Some of this molecular evidence has been adopted for the present revised system. However, much incongruence still exists between the new sets of clades, on the one hand, and the present revised system or the still-viable parts of the 1959 system on the other hand. The incongruences call for an examination and comparison of the contrasting methods of evolutionary systematics and molecular cladistics. A fundamental flaw in the 1996 and 1997 treatments is the attempt to classify plants on the basis of single-gene gene trees.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
741
    741
  • Thumbnail: Page 
742
    742
  • Thumbnail: Page 
743
    743
  • Thumbnail: Page 
744
    744
  • Thumbnail: Page 
745
    745
  • Thumbnail: Page 
746
    746
  • Thumbnail: Page 
747
    747
  • Thumbnail: Page 
748
    748
  • Thumbnail: Page 
749
    749
  • Thumbnail: Page 
750
    750
  • Thumbnail: Page 
751
    751
  • Thumbnail: Page 
752
    752