Infra-familial phylogeny of Urticaceae, using chloroplast sequence data

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.

Phylogeny of the Cecropieae (Urticaceae) and the Evolution of an Ant-Plant Mutualism

“…A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Cecropieae genera supports the emerging consensus based on molecular data that the tribe is monophyletic and that Poikilospermum belongs elsewhere in Urticaceae (Romaniuc-Neto 1999; Hadiah et al 2008;Wu et al 2013). Results of sampling three gene regions and all genera in the tribe agree with earlier studies in suggesting that the morphological similarities of Poikilospermum that led taxonomists to place it near Cecropieae are homoplasious.…”

“…Romaniuc-Neto (1999) proposed that all genera of Cecropieaceae sensu Berg (1978) be regarded as a subfamily of Moraceae except for Poikilospermum which he placed in the Urticaceae. Molecular phylogenetic studies supported the placement of Cecropieae in the Urticaceae (Datwyler and Weiblen 2004;Zerega et al 2005;Monro 2006;Hadiah et al 2008;Clement and Weiblen 2009;Wu et al 2013) and the most recent review of Urticaceae nomenclature validated Cecropieae Gaudich. as the name for the tribe ).…”

“…Recent molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that Cecropieae is not monophyletic and that Poikilospermum should be transferred to Urticaceae Juss. (Monro 2006;Hadiah et al 2008;Wu et al 2013). Our study was motivated by the need to clarify phylogenetic relationships among the remaining five genera as a basis for investigating the origin of myrmecophily in Cecropieae.…”

Ulmaceae, Cannabaceae e Urticaceae das restingas do estado do Rio de Janeiro

“…Somente as espécies nativas foram inventariadas. O enquadramento das famílias está de acordo com a moderna classificação (APG 2009) consolidado por diversos trabalhos (Wiegrefe et al 1998;Sytsma et al 2002;Hadiah et al 2008). Para a classificação das comunidades vegetais foram usadas as definições de Araujo et al (1998).…”

“…Após o advento dos estudos moleculares a sistemática das famílias das Urticales (senso Cronquist 1988) sofreu algumas mudanças estruturais (Wiegrefe et al 1998;Sytsma et al 2002;Hadiah et al 2008) e no Brasil ficaram evidentes principalmente na manutenção do gênero Ampelocera Klotzsch dentro de Ulmaceae e nas inclusões dos gêneros Celtis L. e Trema Lour dentro de Cannabaceae, e Cecropia Loefl. e Coussapoa Aubl.…”