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.
A Molecular Phylogenetic Study of the Subtribe Glycininae (Leguminosae) Derived from the Chloroplast DNA rps16 Intron Sequences
Jeongran Lee and Theodore Hymowitz
American Journal of Botany
Vol. 88, No. 11 (Nov., 2001), pp. 2064-2073
Published by: Botanical Society of America, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558432
Page Count: 10
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
Phylogenetic relationships among 13 genera of the subtribe Glycininae, two genera of the allied subtribe Diocleinae that were included within Glycininae by Polhill, and two genera of the subtribe Erythrininae as outgroups were inferred from chloroplast DNA rps16 intron sequence variation. Pairwise sequence divergence values ranged from identity between Teramnus mollis and T. micans and between T. flexilis and T. labialis to 7.89% between Pueraria wallichii and Pseudeminia comosa across all accessions. Phylogenies estimated using parsimony and neighbor-joining methods revealed that (1) Glycininae is monophyletic if Pachyrhizus and Calopogonium (both Diocleinae) are included within Glycininae; (2) the genus Teramnus is closely related to Glycine, and Amphicarpaea showed a sister relationship to the clade comprising Teramnus and Glycine; (3) the expanded Glycininae including two genera of Diocleinae is divided into three branches, temporarily named I (comprising the rest of the examined taxa), II (Pueraria wallichii), and III (Mastersia), but their relationships are equivocal; and (4) the genus Pueraria, regarded as a closely related genus to Glycine, is not monophyletic and should be divided into at least four genera (a hypothesis supported previously by Lackey).
American Journal of Botany © 2001 Botanical Society of America, Inc.