You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis 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.
Phylogeny of Encephalartos: Some Eastern Cape Species
P. Vorster, F. H. Van der Bank, M. Van der Bank and M. Wink
Vol. 70, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2004), pp. 250-259
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4354477
Page Count: 10
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Species, Biological taxonomies, Plants, Genetic distance, Plant morphology, We they distinction, Genetic hybridization, Biology, Phylogeny, Leaves
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
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.
Preview not available
A group of eight species of Encephalartos, comprising E. altensteinii, E. arenarius, E. horridus, E. latifrons, E. lehmannii, E. longifolius, E. princeps, and E. trispinosus, from the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, was studied by analysis of iso-enzymes, ribosome DNA, and ITS 1 and 2 genes. The reason for this investigation was that the morphology of the vegetative and reproductive parts, though very distinctive in this geographical region, do not correlate, and it was hoped that molecular data would elucidate evolutionary relationships. The three sets of molecular data were found to agree to a remarkable degree. It was concluded that the vegetative morphology was misleading but that the cone characteristics agree with molecular data and provide insight into the interrelationships of these species. Thus, E. princeps was concluded to be relatively remotely related to the vegetatively similar E. lehmannii, and E. arenarius is not at all close to E. latifrons even though the two species are easy to confuse when not in cone.
Botanical Review © 2004 New York Botanical Garden Press