COMMENTS ON THE GERBERA-COMPLEX (ASTERACEAE: MUTISIEAE)

2006·2.7 MB·English

by  Hans V Hansen

COMMENTS ON
THE GERBERA-COMPLEX
(ASTERACEAE: MUTISIEAE)
Hans V.Hansen
Garden
Botanic
Copenhagen
University of
2B Farimagsgade
Oester
DK DENMARK
Copenhagen
1353 K
ABSTRACT
New
The recent transier ol Chaptalia h\ntonn to Gerhera is doubted, as is any transfer of World
On
members to the Old World part of the Gerbera-complex. a biogeographic basis seems more
it
probable that Gcrbera an Old Woddclade, while Chapf a Trichodinc, and!, hlcracioidcsisome-
is (la,
New
times considered to be a Gerhera) are World groups. The geographic distribution of Leihnitzici
Am
(North America, Asia) and hlysperma spathulata (W. Austraha) enigmatic. Additional input of
is
data needed for a full understandmg of the phylogeny in the Gerbera-complex.
is
RESUMEN
Gerbera esdudosa,comoloescualquicrtransferencia
LarecientetransferenciadeCht^ptalii:! hi nfonii a
Mundo
de elementos del Nuevo a la parte del complejo Gerhera del Viejo Mundo. En base a la
biogeograf parece mas probable que Gerhera es un clado del Viejo Mundo, mientras que Chaptalia,
ia
Trichodine.yT. hieracioi(ies(a vecesconsideradocomo unaespeciedeGe rbera) son grupos del Nuevo
Mundo. La distribucion geografica de Leihnltzia (Norte America, Asia) Amblysperma spalhuJata
y
(Oeste de Australia) es enigmatica. Se necesitan datos adicionales para una completa comprension
de la filogenia del complejo Gerhera.
Nesom
2004b) and
In recent papers, Katinas (1998, (2004a,b) discussed the ge-
neric position of Chaptalia hintonii Bullock within the Gerhera-complex (the
scapose complex of Mutisieae subtribe Mutisiinae sensu Cabrera 1977). Their
OTUs
com-
discussion continues the long-standing debate regarding within this
LM
plex. To recapitulate briefly, Jeffrey (1967) used to point out characters of
and
taxonomic mainly pubescence
value in the group, pertaining to cypselar
When SEM
up Hansen had
pappus-hairs. took similar studies 1985, 1990)
(e.g,
I
my
from
been introduced, but conclusions deviated those of
little Jeffrey.
Nesom
(1983) contributed with his study of the Ge?^bera-complex
first
(Nesom
(American Leihnitzia) and next focused on Chaptalia Vent. 1984a,b,
&
Nesom
2004a,b; Cabrera 2003), while other w^orkers have also published
1995,
Sancho
studies dealing with the scapose group (Katinas 1998, 2004a, &r
b;
Katinas 2002; Moraes 1998; Hind 1999, 2001; Roque 2005). All these studies, with
their general access to living material, have amplified our knowledge about the
Gerbera-complex.
The complex and
includes about 100 species, evidently takes subtle char-
it
SIDA 539 -543. 2006
22(1):
540
BRIT.ORG/SIDA
22(1)
acters to delimit monophyletic groups within This noteworthy view
in of
is
it.
wide
its distribution; Trichodinc Cass., Lidia Zardini, and Chaptalia Vent, in the
New Wodd, L
Lcihnitzia North America and Gcrhcra
Cass, in Asia, in Africa,
L
Madagascar, and Asia Gerhera sensu Hansen PcrcUcium W.
1990), in Cape,
(i.e.,
Am
and
L/ec/ih'iteiaFreynin
Asia, hl}/spcrnia spat /luIi^fcUA.Cunn. ex DC.)
D.J.N.
Hind in W. Austraha. h has been disputed whether Amhlysperma within
falls
the limits of Inchociinc (Hind 2001, and implicitly Hansen 1990, contra Zardini
1975 and Katinas 2004a), and whether the transfer of TrichocJinc hicracioides
(Kunth) Ferreyra (Ecuador, Peru) to Gcrhcra by Zardini (1974) correct. The
is
most
significant problem, however, with Chaptalia, which no complete
is for
revisionary treatment Burkart (1944) only considered genus
exists; part of the
in detail.
Nesom
(2004a) and Katinas (2004b) remarked while would
that
Jeffrey
complex
split the into smaller genera, suggested the recognition of one large
1
genus (hence Gcrhcra). This an The
calls for explanation. relatively ancestral
position within Asteraceae of Mutisieae (however circumscribed, but
at least
& &
excluding subfamily
Barnadesioideae Bremer
(Benth. Hook.f,)
K. R.K.
now
Jansen) supported by morphologic and molecular Of
evidence. relevance
is
here that part of the classic Mutisiinae in studies indicated be mono-
is all is to
with Gcrbcra-complex
phyletic. the placed advanced
in a relatively position.
Actually, the Brazdian monotypic genus Lulia (Zardini 1980) Trichocline
(i.e.,
nervosa by monocephalous, non-scapose between
Less.), its albeit habit, stands
the Gcrbcra-complex and group includingMutisiaLf.,Chaetanfhera
its sister (a
&
Ruiz Duidaca and Don Kim
Pav, Blake, Pachylacna D. in 2002; Lulia
S.F. et
al.
was
not considered).
Hansen
In (1991), anticipated these aspects and then reasoned that
if
1
and
Mutisia Chactanthcra are not into minor taxonomic would
split units,
it
not be logical to split the Gcrbcrc^-complex either, hence all species should
fall
my
within Gcrhcra. This explains way reasoning which was
of not versus
Jef-
frey (1967), but simply an alternative provided by reasonin
cladistic
Katinas (2004b:938-939) presented a key to the scapose group with seven
genera (including Lulia, but with Amhlysperma sunk and
into Trichocline
awaiting complete
a revision of Chaptalia). In this key there were
autapomorphics each genus wt
for (if accept that Trichocline has a special type
of cypsela hairs). However, there a complication in Katinas's key couplet
is
6,
since Gerhera (sects. Gerhera, Parva, and Isanlhus) do not have the
p.p.
apomorphic
state 'tnmorphic rays.' This precisely where the problems with
is
Gerhera
current
(in sense)
its arise.
&
Nesom Nesom
Nesom
(2004a, 1995; Cabrera 2003) has maintained
cf.
that Chaptalia hintonii belongs The which
to C/icipta/i*^ sect. Chaptalia. traits
Katmas move
led Gerhera
to to (all florets bilabiate, outer ray florets long,
it
ray florets wath staminodes) can be found various Ch and
in aptalia, the cypsela
HANSEN, COMMENTS ON THE GERBERA-COMPLEX 541
C
hairs in hintonii do not deviate in morphology from those in Chaptalia sect.
C
Chaptalia (the lyratijolia group).
p.p.
Nesom namely
beheve that has the strongest point, that the 'deviatmg'
I
C
traits in hintonii do not disrupt its alliance with Chaptalia sect. Chaptalia.
C
which
Rather, hintonii possesses states are parallelisms/reversals to those in
As Nesom seems more probable on biogeographic
Gerhera, indirectly argues, a
it
Gerhera an Old World while Chaptalia, Trichodine, and the
basis that clade,
is
New
enigmatic hieracioides are World groups (not overlooking problems with
T.
W
Amhlysperma and which divided between Asia
Australia Leihnitzia,
in
is
and North America).
Evidently, various authors during their close survey of taxa detect excep-
taxonomy and
tions to the currently used thus find reason to allocate this or
We
know
we
whether push
that species. But the question the case too
is far.
more today than we did in Hansen (1990) and hardly disagree on the polariza-
tion of states. Hence, a matrix with all relevant placeholders in the Gerhera-
OTUs
complex ultimately should be prepared, because only then
treated as
it
will be revealed, the addition of new characters can disrupt the unity of (some
if
the currently recognized taxonomic groups. Presumably, however, the con-
of)
known
number
burdened with
sensus tree will still be polytomies, since the of
much
synapomorphies so small. Additional input of data therefore wel-
is is
come. However, along with the detection of amplified variation in ray floret
may
morphology, cypselar vestiture, the selection of relevant characters
etc.,
A
cause more and more debate. good example the presence of trichomes on
is
and one
corollas in 13 species of Trichocline, three of Onoseris, investigated spe-
of Uechtritzia (Sancho &r Katinas 2002). this information of phyloge-
cies Is
netic relevance or not?
Nesom now
(2004a:932) has suggested that Chaptalia LieherJzuhna
sects.
may
(Cass.) Burkart and Loxodon (Cass.) Burkart possibly be separated at ge-
among
neric rank, other things due to their distinctive cypselar vesriture.
The
Katinas (2004b) likewise predicted taxonomic alterations at generic rank.
discussion between the two authors reveals considerable disagreement, both
whether staminodes
with respect observation of characters ray flow^er
to
(e.g.,
how must
and phylogenetic relevance.
are present or not) to interpret their
I
main
stay neutral, since never studied Chaptalia in detail, but clearly the is-
I
two
whether Chaptalia ismonophyletic (even into gen-
sue decide split
to if
is
whether
with evolution of character states parallel to those in Gerhera, or
era),
some Chaptalia should be moved Gerhera or even some-
species of really to
thing
else.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
com
thank Guy Nesom and an anonymous reviewer their most insightful
for
I
much
ments which improved on
this paper.
.
542
BRIT.ORG/SIDA
22(1)
REFERENCES
BuRKART, A. 944. Estudio del genero de Compuestas Choptalia con especial referencia a
1
especies argentinas, Darwiniana 6:505-594.
las
Cabrera.AI.I 977. Mutisieae-systematic review. Heywood,V.H.J.Harborne,andB.LTurner,
In;
eds.The biology and chemistry of the Compositae Academic London.
Press, Pp.
11.
1039-1066.
and A new
Cabrera, G.L. Nesom. 2003. species of Choptalia (Astcraceae: Mutisieae) from
L.
Mexico and rediscovery of Choptalia mexicana. Sida 20:1 363-1 369.
Hansen, HV. 1985. A taxonomic revision of the genus Gerbera (Compositae-Mutisieae
sections Gerbera, Parva, Piloselloides (in Africa), and Lasiopus. Opera Bot. 78:1-36.
Hansen, H.V. 1990. Phylogenetic studies in the Gerbera<omplex (Compositae, tribe
Mutisieae, subtribe Mutisiinae). Nordic 9:469-485.
Bot,
J.
Hansen, H.V. 1991. Phylogenetic studies in Compositae tribe Mutisieae. Opera Bot. 109:
1-50.
Hind, D.J.N. 1999. Notes on Choptalia (Compositae: Mutisieae) Kew
in Brazil. Bull. 54:
933-939.
new
Hind, D.J.N. 2001. A combination in Amblysperma (Compositae: Mutisieae). Kew Bull.
56:711-713.
Notes on Compositae: The Kew
1967. Mutisieae
Jeffrey, C. in east tropical Africa. Bull.
II.
21:177-233.
Kaunas, L. 998.The Mexican Choptalia hintonii a Gerbera (Asteraceae, Mutisieae). Novon
1 is
8:380-385.
Kaunas, L.2004a.^/T]fa/y5perma should be retained under Tr/c/ioc//ne(Asteraceae,Mutisieae
Taxon 08-11
53:1
2.
L 2004b.The complex
Kaunas, Gerbera (Asteraceae: Mutisieae): to split or not to split. Sida
21:935-940.
and
Kim, H.G., D.J. Loockerman, R.K. Jansen. 2002. Systematic implications of ndhf sequence
variation the Mutisieae (Asteraceae). 27:598-609.
in Syst. Bot.
new
MoRAES, M.D. 998. Choptalia hermogenis (Asteraceae: Mutisieae), species from
DE. a
1
the Novon 73-1
Brazilian Atlantic Rain Forest. 8:1 75.
L
Nesom, G.L 983. Biology and taxonomy of American Leibnitzia (Asteraceae, Mutisieae).
1
26-1
Brittonia 35:1 39.
Nfsom, G.L 984a. A new, widespread species of Choptalia (Asteraceae: Mutisieae) from
1
Mexico, Rhodora 27-1
86:1 30.
Taxonomy G
Nesom, G.L 984b. and distribution of Choptalia dentato and albicans
1
(Asteraceae: Mutisieae). Brittonia 36:396-401
Nesom, G.L. 995. Revision of Choptalia (Asteraceae: Mutisieae) from North America and
1
continental Central America. Phytologia 53-1
78:1 88.
Nesom, G.L 2004a. Generic placement of Choptalia hintonii (Asteraceae: Mutisieae). Sida
21:929-933.
The
Nesom, G.L. 2004b. Response to Gerbera complex (Asteraceae: Mutisieae): to or
splil
not to ff Katinas.Sida 21:941-942.
sDlit Liliana
HANSEN, COMMENTS ON THE GERBERA-COMPLEX 543
new
RoQUE, N. 2005. A species of Choptalia (Compositae, Mutisieae) from Minas Gerais,
Kew
33-1
Brazil. Bull. 60:1 35.
Sancho, G. and L Kaunas, 2002. Are the trichomes in corollas of Mutisieae (Asteraceae)
really twin hairs? BotJ. Linn. Soc. 140:427-433.
E.M.I 974. Sobre presencia del genero Gerbera en America. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot.
Zardini,
la
16:103-108.
E.M. 975. Revision del genero Trichocline (Compositae). Darwiniana 9:61 S-733.
Zardini,
1 1
Zardini, E.M. 1980. Lulia - un nuevo genero de Compuestas. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 19:
255-258.