No abstract

Recent studies of the phylogeny of the Urticales have suggested that Cecropiaceae, at least in part, should be included within Urticaceae. To evaluate phylogenetic relationship between these two taxa, together with the consequences on tribal concepts (of the Urticaceae) of including any part of Cecropiaceae within Urticaceae, we analysed sequence variation for larger databases of both rbcL and trnL-F sequences. We conclude that the circumscription of Urticaceae needs to be broadened to include taxa of Cecropiaceae, with Urticeae here expanded to include Poikilospermum. The tribal placement of Cecropia and Coussapoa (both Cecropiaceae) remains unclear but their affinities are with the Forsskaoleeae, Parietarieae and Boehmerieae. The circumscription of Boehmerieae should be changed to exclude Myriocarpa, with the latter genus exhibiting a strong relationship with Elatostemeae. The intratribal structure of the Elatostemeae is unclear because of the uncertainty of the position of Myriocarpa, but there is a strong suggestion that the tribe consists of two sister taxa, one of Elatostemeae sensu stricto, including Elatostema and Procris, and the other consisting of Lecanthus and Pilea. It is reconfirmed that Pellionia should not be recognised as a distinct genus and is here regarded as a synonym of Procris, rather than part of the synonymy of Elatostema, as previously suggested. Boehmeria, Cypholophus and Laportea as currently circumscribed are all paraphyletic. There are three evolutionary lineages in the Urticaceae revealed by our study, namely (1) Boehmeriea–Cecropieae–Forsskaoleeae–Parietarieae, (2) Urticeae and (3) Elatostemeae.

No abstract

Prostanthera is the largest genus of Lamiaceae in Australia and was last comprehensively revised in 1870. To test the classification, and the homology of the morphological characters on which it is based, we analysed nuclear (ETS) and chloroplast (trnT–F and ndhF–rpl32) sequence data for 71 species of Westringieae (Lamiaceae) in separate and combined datasets by using maximum-parsimony and Bayesian-inference methods. Results supported the monophyly of the Westringieae, but indicated that Prostanthera is paraphyletic with respect to Wrixonia, requiring the latter to be synonymised with the former. Although combinations of datasets provided some degree of infrageneric resolution within Prostanthera sensu lato, none of its sections or series could be recovered unambiguously. Prostanthera section Prostanthera and P. section Klanderia (regarded as entomophilous and ornithophilous, respectively) did not form a sister relationship, and neither could be unequivocally resolved as monophyletic. However, all species of P. section Klanderia nested within P. section Prostanthera raising the possibility that P. section Prostanthera is paraphyletic. Similarly, the phylogeny of Prostanthera based on molecular data could not be reconciled with the morphological definition of the traditionally recognised series. We recommend abandoning Bentham’s series as a means of organising morphological variation within the genus, but acknowledge that it is premature to discard Bentham’s sections. The evolutionary and systematic implications of the lack of congruence between our molecular phylogeny and morphologically defined subgeneric taxa are discussed.