An updated phylogeny and classification of Lamiaceae subfamily Lamioideae

Abstract

Lamioideae comprise the second‐largest subfamily in Lamiaceae. Although considerable progress has recently been made in Lamioideae phylogenetics, the subfamily remains one of the most poorly investigated subfamilies in Lamiaceae. Here we present a taxonomic update of the subfamily based on earlier published data as well as 71 new DNA extracts from relevant in‐ and outgroup taxa, and DNA sequence data from four chloroplast regions (matK, rps16, trnL intron and trnL‐F spacer). The phylogenetic positions of 10 out of 13 previously unplaced small or monotypic Asian lamioid genera and 37 additional lamioid species have been identified, and the classification is updated accordingly. Results from parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic methods corroborate earlier results, but phylogenetic resolution as well as overall branch support are improved. All newly added genera are assigned to earlier established tribes or the new tribe Paraphlomideae Bendiksby, which includes Ajugoides, Matsumurella and Paraphlomis. Acanthoprasium is resurrected as a genus. Transfer of species is proposed to ac ‐ commodate the monophyly of two genera (Lamium, Otostegia), whereas ten genera remain non‐monophyletic (Ballota s. str., Lagopsis, Leonotis, Leonurus, Leucas, Microtoena, Phlomoides, Sideritis, Stachys, Thuspeinanta). Eriophyton and Stachyopsis have been included in Lamieae, Hypogomphia in Stachydeae, and Loxocalyx in Leonureae. Betonica, Colquhounia, Galeopsis, and Roylea remain unclassified at the tribal level. Lamium chinense and three East Asian Galeobdolon species are transferred to Matsumurella. Sulaimania and four Otostegia species are transferred to Moluccella . Alajja and three Lamium species are transferred to Eriophyton. In total, 14 new combinations are made, one at the rank of subgenus and 13 at the rank of species.

Relatedness is a poor predictor of negative plant–soil feedbacks

“…Alignments were concatenated into a supermatrix and maximum-likelihood based estimation of the phylogeny performed using RAxML (v.7.0.4), optimized for each gene region under the GTR-GAMMA substitution model (Stamatakis, 2006). We restricted our search by using a constraint tree built from systematic treatments of the recognized tribes, families, orders and higher-level clades of the species in our study (Wojciechowski et al ., 2006; Potter et al ., 2007; Panero & Funk, 2008; Couvreur et al ., 2010; Bendiksby et al ., 2011; Soltis et al., 2011; Grass Phylogeny Working Group II, 2012). We congruified (Eastman et al ., 2013) our maximum likelihood estimate with the most resolved angiosperm chronogram currently available (Tank et al ., 2013; Zanne et al ., 2013), and used penalized likelihood rate smoothing to create a time scaled phylogeny of the species in our study (Smith & O'Meara, 2012).…”

A taxonomic and phylogenetic study of the Golovinomyces biocellatus complex (Erysiphales, Ascomycota) using asexual state morphology and rDNA sequence data

“…Heluta (Erysiphales) as described by Braun and Cook (2012) is a species with worldwide distribution and broad host range. Hosts are mainly species and genera of the subfamily Nepetoideae (tribe Mentheae) within the family Lamiaceae, but some host genera, namely Ajuga, Teucrium (Ajugoideae), Scutellaria (Scutellarioidae), Stachyopsis (Lamieae), and Stachys (Stachydaeae), are members of other subfamilies (Braun and Cook 2012; Lamiaceae classification after Bendiksby et al 2011;Walker et al 2004). This species is the only member of the genus Golovinomyces on the Lamiaceae.…”

IAPT/IOPB chromosome data 20

“…The chromosome numbers in the genus are highly variable with 2n = 10, 16, 18, 24, 30, 32, 34, 42, 46, 48, 52, 54, 60, 64, 66, 68, 80, 82, 84, 96, 100, 102, 104 (Goldblatt & Johnson, 1979+) and 2n = 28 being an additional number (presented here for S. spinulosa). A comprehensive molecular investigation including most of the species of the genus Stachys is still lacking but in several available studies on subfamily Lamioideae or tribe Stachydeae, selected species of Stachys are included (Lindqvist & Albert, 2002;Scheen & al., 2010;Bendiksby & al., 2011;Dündar & al., 2013;Salmaki & al., 2013). They all show that Stachys s.l.…”

“…Based on molecular data, Stachys officinalis (L.) Trevis. and relatives are clearly separated from other Stachys species in all available molecular phylogenies (Lindqvist & Albert, 2002;Scheen & al., 2010;Bendiksby & al., 2011;Dündar & al., 2013;Salmaki & al., 2013). They are so distant that they have even been included in the outgroup, compared to the tribe Stachydeae (Salmaki & al., 2013).…”

“…When species of this section were included in phylogenetic analyses, they always formed a distinct and monophyletic group within Stachys s.l. (Lindqvist & Albert, 2002;Scheen & al., 2010;Bendiksby & al., 2011;Dündar & al., 2013;Salmaki & al., 2013). Additionally, all species of sect.…”