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.
Phylogenetic Relationships of Rutaceae: A Cladistic Analysis of the Subfamilies Using Evidence from rbcL and atpB Sequence Variation
Mark W. Chase, Cynthia M. Morton and Jacquelyn A. Kallunki
American Journal of Botany
Vol. 86, No. 8 (Aug., 1999), pp. 1191-1199
Published by: Botanical Society of America, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2656983
Page Count: 9
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Genera, Botany, Taxa, Ovules, Carpels, Phylogeny, Phylogenetics, Botanical gardens, DNA, Limonoids
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
Sequence data for plastid rbcL and atpB from members of Anacardiaceae, Burseraceae, Cneoraceae, Meliaceae, Ptaeroxylaceae, Rutaceae, and Simaroubaceae were analyzed cladistically to evaluate the familial and subfamilial circumscriptions of Rutaceae. Taxa representing all subfamilies and tribes were sampled. The analysis shows that Rutaceae are paraphyletic, with Spathelia and Dictyoloma (Rutaceae), Harrisonia (Simaroubaceae), Cneorum (Cneoraceae), and Ptaeroxylon (Ptaeroxylaceae) forming a clade sister to all other Rutaceae. Circumscription of Rutaceae to include all of these taxa is recommended. This analysis indicates that Simaroubaceae and Meliaceae are the outgroups closest to Rutaceae. Correlation of the molecular phylogenies with biochemical data indicates that chemotaxonomic information is more reliable than fruit type as an indicator of familial and subfamilial circumscriptions. The subfamilial classification needs revision; none of the subfamilies of more than one genus is monophyletic.
American Journal of Botany © 1999 Botanical Society of America, Inc.