Diversification of New World Cleomaceae with emphasis on Tarenaya and the description of Iltisiella, a new genus

Abstract

The family Cleomaceae is represented in the Neotropics by nine native lineages, with some of them currently recognized as distinct genera and others in need of clear delimitation. We present here a new phylogenetic hypothesis for the New World Cleomaceae with a more comprehensive sampling, including samples of 62 species with emphasis on Tarenaya and based on nrDNA ITS and cpDNA matK and ndhF. Six clades are supported: (1) a new clade comprising Cleome tenuis and Physostemon humilis; and five other previously identified clades: (2) the Dactylaena clade, including the monophyletic Dactylaena and the paraphyletic Physostemon and Mitostylis; (3) the Andean clade, comprising Andinocleome and Podandrogyne; (4) the Melidiscus clade; (5) the Cleoserrata clade, and (6) the Tarenaya clade; the last three corresponding to genera with the same name. The lineage comprising C. tenuis and P. humilis is strongly supported by morphological and molecular datasets, and a new genus, named Iltisiella, comprising these species is proposed here. Tarenaya is clearly demonstrated to be a monophyletic genus, corroborating previous analyses. We identify four subclades in its topology, and the relationships among the species in each subclade revealed to be moderately to strongly resolved. Furthermore, we conducted a historical biogeographical analysis of the New World Cleomaceae on time-calibrated trees, and our results suggest an Oligocene origin at least 35.02 Mya with a MRCA distributed in Mesoamerica and the Northern Andes. For Tarenaya, our results suggest a Miocene origin at least 17 Mya, with the most recent common ancestor in the Chacoan and Atlantic Forest geographic areas.

New Insights Into the Evolution of C4 Photosynthesis Offered by the Tarenaya Cluster of Cleomaceae

“…Tarenaya , one of the most diverse genera in terms of the number of species within Cleomaceae, also includes many morphologically distinct species, which allows for the separation of the genus into series (small groups of species) (e.g., Iltis, 1957 , 1959 ; Hall et al, 2002 ; Sanchez-Acebo, 2005 ; Inda et al, 2008 ; Feodorova et al, 2010 ; Iltis and Cochrane, 2014 ). These series have previously been shown to be monophyletic (see Soares-Neto et al, 2020 ), and our results are largely congruent with this report, with the exception of the Spinosa series, which we found to be polyphyletic. Of note, our study is limited by the number of samples of this rather diverse series (see Soares-Neto et al, 2020 ).…”

“…These series have previously been shown to be monophyletic (see Soares-Neto et al, 2020 ), and our results are largely congruent with this report, with the exception of the Spinosa series, which we found to be polyphyletic. Of note, our study is limited by the number of samples of this rather diverse series (see Soares-Neto et al, 2020 ). Thus, studies with increased taxon sampling or markers are warranted to resolve the monophyly of the Spinosa series.…”

“…We, therefore, performed a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis by adding the ITS sequences from Cleomaceae species, recovered from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) ( Supplementary Table S2 ), which has shown promise for the family in previous works (see Patchell et al, 2014 ; Reeves et al, 2018 ; Soares-Neto et al, 2020 ). Based on these sequences, we generated a matrix with 135 taxa (648 bp in length).…”

Typification of the Linnaean name Cleome heptaphylla (Cleomaceae) and Miller's Cleome erucago

“…Soares Neto & Roalson). Characteristics such as 3-5-foliolate leaves, in addition to branches with conspicuous trichomes, a short and lax inflorescence, and immature fruits with a short gynophore and a capitate stigma, do not fit within the current concepts of C. heptaphylla and C. spinosa (≡ T. spinosa) as accepted by the authors of this and previous publications (Iltis, 1952;Iltis & Cochrane, 2015;Soares Neto, 2019;Soares Neto & al., 2020).…”

“…As part of an ongoing taxonomic revision of Tarenaya Raf. (Soares Neto & al., 2018, 2020), we noticed that C. heptaphylla did not have a designated nomenclatural type (Jarvis, 2007), making it desirable to propose one. During the revision of Linnaeus's sources and original material, a later synonym, C. erucago Mill.…”