CSIRO Publishing blank image blank image blank image blank imageBooksblank image blank image blank image blank imageJournalsblank image blank image blank image blank imageAbout Usblank image blank image blank image blank imageShopping Cartblank image blank image blank image You are here: Journals > Australian Systematic Botany   
Australian Systematic Botany
Journal Banner
  Taxonomy, Biogeography & Evolution of Plants
 
blank image Search
 
blank image blank image
blank image
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Structure
Contacts
Content
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Virtual Issues
LAS Johnson Review Series
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Scope
Submit Article
Author Instructions
Open Access
Awards and Prizes
For Referees
Referee Guidelines
Review an Article
Annual Referee Index
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates
Library Recommendation

blue arrow e-Alerts
blank image
Subscribe to our Email Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

red arrow Connect with us
blank image
facebook twitter logo LinkedIn

 

Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 18(2)

Bush peas: a rapid radiation with no support for monophyly of Pultenaea (Fabaceae: Mirbelieae)

L. A. Orthia A B D, M. D. Crisp A, L. G. Cook A, R. P. J. de Kok B C

A School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
B Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, The Australian National Herbarium, CSIRO, GPO Box 1600, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
C Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AD, UK.
D Corresponding author. Email: lindy.orthia@anu.edu.au
 
PDF (192 KB) $40
 Export Citation
 Print
  


Abstract

Phylogenetic hypotheses are presented for Pultenaea based on cpDNA (trnL–F and ndhF) and nrDNA (ITS) sequence data. Pultenaea, as it is currently circumscribed, comprises six strongly supported lineages whose relationships with each other and 18 closely related genera are weak or conflicting among datasets. The lack of resolution among the six Pultenaea clades and their relatives appears to be the result of a rapid radiation, which is evident in molecular data from both the chloroplast and nuclear genomes. The molecular data provide no support for the monophyly of Pultenaea as it currently stands. Given these results, Pultenaea could split into many smaller genera. We prefer the taxonomically stable alternative of subsuming all 19 genera currently recognised in Pultenaea sensu lato (= the Mirbelia group) into an expanded concept of Pultenaea that would comprise ~470 species.

   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

    
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2016