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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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.
A durian by any other name: taxonomy and nomenclature of the core Malvales.
Harvard Papers in Botany
Phylogenetic relationships of Malvatheca (Bombacoideae and Malvoideae; Malvaceae sensu lato) as inferred from plastid DNA.
American Journal of Botany
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
In ‘The families and genra of vascular plants’.
‘A revision of species segregated from Hibiscus sect. Trionum (Medicus) De Candolle sensu lato (Malvaceae).’
Malesian Malvaceae revised.
How to chop up a tree.
The genus concept in practice.
Implementing the Phylocode.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
A revision of the American species of Hibiscus section Bombicella (Malvaceae).
USDA Technical Bulletin
Malvaceae of Mexico.
Systematic Botany Mongraphs
Pavonia Cavanilles (Malvaceae).
Flora Neotropica Monograph
Talipariti (Malvaceae), a segregate from Hibiscus.
Contributions from the University of Michigan Herbarium
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (St Louis Code).
Illinois Natural History Survey
Revision du genre Hibiscus. Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques Genéve.
In ‘Flore de Madagascar et des Comores’.
‘The genera of flowering plants.’
The conept of the genus.
Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter
The existence of genera.
Genera in a monophyletic group: the Dacrymycetales.
Generic delimitation and phylogenetic uncertainty: an example from a group that has undergone an explosive radiation.
Australian Systematic Botany
Limits of splitting. (On schizotaxia).
Phylogeny of Hibiscus and the tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) using chloroplast DNA sequences of ndhF and the rpl16 intron.
Paralogy and orthology in the Malvaceae rpb2 gene family: investigation of gene duplication in Hibiscus.
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Systematics of Lavatera and Malva (Malvaceae, Malveae)—a new perspective.
Plant Systematics and Evolution
New combinations in Malva (Malvaceae: Malveae).
Toward a definition of the genus in mycological taxonomy.
‘Malvaceae of southern peninsular India: a taxonomic monograph.’
Daya Publishing House
The genus concept in practice—but for what practice?
Genera, what and why—some thoughts.
Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter
In ‘Flora of Somalia’.
Royal Botanic Gardens
Revision of Hibiscus section Furcaria (Malvaceae) in Africa and Asia.
Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Botany)