Delimitation of Iranian species of Scorzonera subg. Podospermum and S. subg. Pseudopodospermum (Asteraceae, Cichorieae) based on morphological and molecular data

Notes on the identity of Scorzonera picridioides and Scorzonera paradoxa (Asteraceae)

“…Morphological comparison of S. picridioides and S. papposa (updated morphological description of newly circumscribed S. papposa, due to designating S. paradoxa as synonym of S. papposa ; see taxonomic treatment below) revealed that S. picridioides (Figure 3) is different from S. papposa (Figure 4) in floret color, since florets of S. papposa are completely purple (Figure 4b), while S. picridioides possesses yellow florets with purple or red color only on the backside (Figure 3b). This is also consistent with previous studies that considered floret color (purple vs. yellow with purple color on the backside) as a diagnostic morphological character for the species of Pseudopodospermum group (Hatami et al, 2020). Further diagnostic characters including plant height, shape of basal leaves, color of anther tube and type of pappus bristles (Figures 3a–c, 4a–c) were provided in Table 1.…”

“…Images of original specimens of these species were traced and examined via virtual herbarium catalogues at E (https://data.rbge.org.uk/searc h/herba rium/), G (http:// www.ville -ge.ch/musin fo/bd/cjb/chg/), P (https://scien ce.mnhn.fr/insti tutio n/mnhn/search), JSTOR Global Plants (https://plants.jstor.org/) and when necessary, personal requests to LE and G (herbarium acronyms according to Thiers, 2021). For morphological comparisons, we carefully examined live specimens in the field (Iran) and all the available herbarium specimens deposited in B, FMUH, JE, MIR and W. Furthermore, updated morphological descriptions of aforementioned species were provided based on our observations and measurements of analyzed specimens in the field or herbaria and comparing with original catalogues and relevant literatures (Boissier, 1846(Boissier, , 1875Candolle, 1838;Chamberlain, 1975;Hatami et al, 2020;Lipschitz, 1935Lipschitz, , 1939Lipschitz, , 1964Rechinger, 1977;Safavi, 2013). Terminology for vegetative and reproductive morphological characters followed Beentje (2010).…”

“…The genus has been known as taxonomically difficult as it possesses several complexes of closely related species and accordingly, regional floras and previous studies presented different taxonomic treatments of the species contained therein. During a taxonomic revision of some Iranian Scorzonera species (Hatami et al, 2020), we found some ambiguities in the taxonomic identity of Scorzonera paradoxa Fisch. & C. A. Mey.…”

“…& DC. (Asteraceae), has approximately 180 species in the world, and is geographically distributed in SW and C Asia, Europe and N Africa, with a high concentration of species in Irano‐Turanian region (Bremer, 1994; Hatami et al, 2020; Kamelin & Tagaev, 1986; Kilian et al, 2009b+; Mabberley, 2008; Rechinger, 1977; Zaika et al, 2020). The genus has been known as taxonomically difficult as it possesses several complexes of closely related species and accordingly, regional floras and previous studies presented different taxonomic treatments of the species contained therein.…”

New Insights Into the Relationships Within Subtribe Scorzonerinae (Cichorieae, Asteraceae) Using Hybrid Capture Phylogenomics (Hyb-Seq)

“…Molecular phylogenetic studies then indicated that Scorzonera in its traditional wide sense (s.l.) is a polyphyletic assemblage and that its various clades are completely intermingled in phylogenetic trees with the traditionally accepted genera (Whitton et al, 1995;Mavrodiev et al, 2004Mavrodiev et al, , 2012Winfield et al, 2006;Kilian et al, 2009a;Hatami et al, 2020;Zaika et al, 2020). The most comprehensive study to date, by Zaika et al (2020), demonstrated that most of the proposed segregates represent diverging lineages of Scorzonera s.l., although often with a surprisingly different circumscription.…”