A phylogenetic analysis ofPfeifferaand the reinstatement ofLymanbensoniaas an independently evolved lineage of epiphyticCactaceaewithin a new tribeLymanbensonieae

An integrative approach to understanding the evolution and diversity of Copiapoa (Cactaceae), a threatened endemic Chilean genus from the Atacama Desert

“…In Cactaceae, DNA extraction is complicated compared with most other plants since they usually do not have leaves. In previous studies, DNA has been extracted from different plant parts including the stem cortex, cladodes, and flowers (e.g., Korotkova et al, 2010; Guerrero et al, 2011a; Majure et al, 2012). Recently, a protocol to extract DNA from cactus spines was published, presenting an alternative to sampling cortical tissue from cactus stems, which can result in damage to the plants and exposure to pathogens (Fehlberg et al, 2013).…”

“…However, in molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g., Nyffeler, 2002; Arakaki et al, 2011; Bárcenas et al, 2011; Hernández‐Hernández et al, 2011, 2014), Copiapoa appears isolated on its own branch. Nyffeler and Eggli (2010) treated Copiapoa as incertae sedis in their suprageneric classification of Cactaceae, while Korotkova et al (2010) suggested a close relationship between Copiapoa , Calymmanthium F.Ritter—a monotypic cereoid genus—and Lymanbensonia Kimnach, but hesitated to include Copiapoa in their tribe Lymanbensonieae due to its different morphology, ecology, and distribution. Hunt et al (2014) adopted Doweld's (2002) proposal of a monotypic tribe Copiapoeae.…”

Testing a Hypothesis of Intergeneric Allopolyploidy in Vine Cacti (Cactaceae: Hylocereeae)

“…The incorporation of coded indels in phylogenetic reconstructions is a frequent practice in Cactaceae (e.g. Nyffeler 2002; Butterworth & Wallace 2004;Korotkova & al. 2010Korotkova & al.…”

Molecular phylogeny of Gymnocalycium (Cactaceae): Assessment of alternative infrageneric systems, a new subgenus, and trends in the evolution of the genus

“…In the last years, molecular‐based studies have provided evidence supporting classifications of cacti at the family, subfamily, tribe, and subtribal level (Wallace, 1995; Wallace and Cota, 1996; Butterworth et al, 2002; Griffith, 2002; Nyffeler, 2002, 2007; Wallace and Dickie, 2002; Edwards et al, 2005; Ritz et al, 2007; Griffith and Porter, 2009; Korotkova et al, 2010; Hernández‐Hernández et al, 2011; Bárcenas et al, 2011; Calvente et al, 2011). However, because of the high level of convergence of morphological characters in the family, controversy among different authors persist at generic and subgeneric levels (Hunt, 2006; Bárcenas et al, 2011).…”