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.

Phylogeny of Hippophae (Elaeagnaceae) Inferred from Parsimony Analysis of Chloroplast DNA and Morphology

Igor V. Bartish, Niklas Jeppsson, Hilde Nybom and Ulf Swenson
Systematic Botany
Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 2002), pp. 41-54
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3093894
Page Count: 14
  • 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.
Phylogeny of Hippophae (Elaeagnaceae) Inferred from Parsimony Analysis of Chloroplast DNA and Morphology
Preview not available

Abstract

We here report the results from two parsimony analyses of all 15 recognized taxa in Hippophae (Elaeagnaceae), one based on chloroplast DNA (cpDNA), and one based on a combined data set of morphological characters and cpDNA. The genera Elaeagnus and Shepherdia were used as outgroup taxa. In general, the results are congruent with a previous RAPD study, and partly with some of the previous proposed classifications. Monophyly of Hippophae is strongly supported. The most widespread species, H. rhamnoides, is, in spite of low support, most likely monophyletic and distinguished by a single molecular synapomorphy. Due to weak internal support, we refrain from recognizing any sections within the genus. Three taxa, first published as nomina nuda but used by several authors, are here validated and/or described. These are Hippophae neurocarpa subsp. stellatopilosa, H. goniocarpa, and H. litangensis. The latter two were originally suggested to form one species with two subspecies, but they are clearly not monophyletic, a single lineage of evolution, but rather are sister to two different species in the analyses. Together with earlier information from isozymes (unpubl. data) and RAPDs, we believe they are results of two independent hybridisations and we describe them as species. In conjunction, a maternal mode of cpDNA inheritance is suggested.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
41
    41
  • Thumbnail: Page 
42
    42
  • Thumbnail: Page 
43
    43
  • Thumbnail: Page 
44
    44
  • Thumbnail: Page 
45
    45
  • Thumbnail: Page 
46
    46
  • Thumbnail: Page 
47
    47
  • Thumbnail: Page 
48
    48
  • Thumbnail: Page 
49
    49
  • Thumbnail: Page 
50
    50
  • Thumbnail: Page 
51
    51
  • Thumbnail: Page 
52
    52
  • Thumbnail: Page 
53
    53
  • Thumbnail: Page 
54
    54