Australian Systematic Botany Australian Systematic Botany Society
Taxonomy, biogeography and evolution of plants
RESEARCH ARTICLE

What to do with Hibiscus? A proposed nomenclatural resolution for a large and well known genus of Malvaceae and comments on paraphyly

B. E. Pfeil A B C and M. D. Crisp A

A Australian National University, School of Botany and Zoology, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.

B CSIRO Plant Industry, GPO Box 1600, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.

C Present address: 228 Plant Science Bld, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853, USA. Corresponding author. Email: bep27@cornell.edu

Australian Systematic Botany 18(1) 49-60 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SB04024
Submitted: 16 July 2004  Accepted: 24 January 2005   Published: 29 March 2005

Abstract

The generic classification of Hibisceae has long been unstable. A new understanding of the phylogeny of Hibisceae has found that genera from three tribes (Decaschistieae, Hibisceae and Malvavisceae) are nested within Hibiscus. We discuss issues that impinge upon the classification of Hibiscus in a general sense, including the genus concept, monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa, the use of characters and phylogenies to define taxa, and the current ranked system (based on the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) v. a rank free alternative (the PhyloCode). We conclude that genera are subjective constructs that are only real in the sense of their phylogenetic origins (i.e. the taxa they denote may be real discoverable monophyletic groups), that paraphyletic taxa are not necessary in classification, that overemphasis of ‘distinctive’ characters in preference to phylogenies leads to recognition of paraphyletic taxa, and that there is no objective fixed and discoverable rank for any taxon. While the PhyloCode avoids some of these problems, it fails to adequately provide an alternative to the mnemonically powerful and information rich Linnean binomial and its advantages do not, in our opinion, outweigh the utility of the ICBN system when the latter employs only monophyletic taxa. With these conclusions in mind, we offer a brief set of guidelines for higher level classification and apply this to Hibiscus. The severe paraphyly in Hibiscus means that no classification using the ICBN system with exclusively monophyletic taxa will be free of major nomenclatural changes. We argue that including over 200 species from several genera within a broadly defined Hibiscus causes fewer nomenclatural changes overall than do alternative schemes, while promoting stability and attempting to minimise change to well known species. A hybrid formal ranked and informal rank free system is discussed and proposed for this group. A series of rank free names that are nested within Hibiscus s.l. are proposed to convey information about membership of distinctive clades within Hibiscus s.l. in lieu of a complete ranked subgeneric classification that awaits more investigation.


References

Baum DA Alverson WS Nyffeler R 1998 A durian by any other name: taxonomy and nomenclature of the core Malvales. Harvard Papers in Botany 3 315 330

Baum DA Smith SD Yen A Alverson WS Nyffeler R Whitlock BA Oldham RL 2004 Phylogenetic relationships of Malvatheca (Bombacoideae and Malvoideae; Malvaceae sensu lato) as inferred from plastid DNA. American Journal of Botany 91 1863 1871

Bayer C Fay MF De Bruijin AY Savolainen V Morton CM Kubitzki K Alverson WS Chase MW 1999 Support for an expanded family concept of Malvaceae within a recircumscribed order Malvales: a combined analysis of plastid atpB and rbcL DNA sequences. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 129 267 303 DOI

Bayer C Kubitzki K 2002 Malvaceae. In ‘The families and genra of vascular plants’. Kubitzki K Bayer C 225 311 Springer Berlin

Blanchard OJ 1991 ‘A revision of species segregated from Hibiscus sect. Trionum (Medicus) De Candolle sensu lato (Malvaceae).’ PhD thesis. Cornell University Ithaca, NY

Borssum Waalkes J 1966 Malesian Malvaceae revised. Blumea 14 1 213

Brummitt RK 2002 How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51 31 41

Clayton WD 1983 The genus concept in practice. Kew Bulletin 38 149 153

Crisp MD Chandler G 1996 Paraphyletic species. Telopea 6 813 844

Donoghue MJ Gauthier JA 2004 Implementing the Phylocode. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 281 282 DOI

Fryxell PA 1980 A revision of the American species of Hibiscus section Bombicella (Malvaceae). USDA Technical Bulletin 1624 1 53

Fryxell PA 1988 Malvaceae of Mexico. Systematic Botany Mongraphs 25 1 522

Fryxell PA 1999 Pavonia Cavanilles (Malvaceae). Flora Neotropica Monograph 76 1 285

Fryxell PA 2001 Talipariti (Malvaceae), a segregate from Hibiscus. Contributions from the University of Michigan Herbarium 23 225 270

Greuter W McNiell J Barrie FR Burdet H-M Demoulin V et al 2000 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (St Louis Code). Regnum Vegetabile 138 1 474

Hennig W 1966 ‘Phylogenetic systematics.’ Illinois Natural History Survey Urbana

Hochreutiner BPG 1900 Revision du genre Hibiscus. Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques Genéve. Annuarie 4 23 191

Hochreutiner BPG 1955 Malvacées. In ‘Flore de Madagascar et des Comores’. Humbert H 1 170 Firmin-Didot Paris

Hutchinson J 1967 ‘The genera of flowering plants.’ Clarendon Oxford

Jeffrey C 1987 The conept of the genus. Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter 53 27 31

Kornet DJ 1994 The existence of genera. Mycologia Helvetica 6 5 7

Oberwinkler F 1994 Genera in a monophyletic group: the Dacrymycetales. Mycologia Helvetica 6 35 72

Orthia LA Cook LG Crisp MD 2005 Generic delimitation and phylogenetic uncertainty: an example from a group that has undergone an explosive radiation. Australian Systematic Botany 18 41 47

Parmasto E 1994 Limits of splitting. (On schizotaxia). Mycologia Helvetica 6 8 34

Pfeil BE Brubaker CL Craven LA Crisp MD 2002 Phylogeny of Hibiscus and the tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) using chloroplast DNA sequences of ndhF and the rpl16 intron. Systematic Botany 27 333 350

Pfeil BE Brubaker CL Craven LA Crisp MD 2004 Paralogy and orthology in the Malvaceae rpb2 gene family: investigation of gene duplication in Hibiscus. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21 1428 1437

Ray MF 1995 Systematics of Lavatera and Malva (Malvaceae, Malveae)—a new perspective. Plant Systematics and Evolution 198 29 53 DOI

Ray MF 1998 New combinations in Malva (Malvaceae: Malveae). Novon 8 288 295

Singer R 1994 Toward a definition of the genus in mycological taxonomy. Mycologia Helvetica 6 92 94

Sivarajan VV Pradeep AK 1996 ‘Malvaceae of southern peninsular India: a taxonomic monograph.’ Daya Publishing House Delhi

Stevens PF 1985 The genus concept in practice—but for what practice? Kew Bulletin 40 457 465

Stevens PF 1987 Genera, what and why—some thoughts. Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter 53 31 38

Thulin M 1999 Malvaceae. In ‘Flora of Somalia’. Thulin M 40 83 Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

Wilson FD 1999 Revision of Hibiscus section Furcaria (Malvaceae) in Africa and Asia. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Botany) 29 47 79



Export Citation Cited By (16)