2014
DOI: 10.5958/2229-4473.2014.00011.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogenetic Analysis of Acanthaceae in Egypt Based on Morphological Criteria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…the shrub habit, the presence of moderately developed areolation and the ocellate adaxial surface sculpture. This is in accord with [6] who used data from both the chloroplast and the nuclear genome, that implied the black mangrove genus Avicennia, usually treated as a separate family in Lamiales or as a genus within Verbenaceae, but more recently has been placed by some botanists in the monogeneric family Avicenniaceae and recent phylogenetic study [48] has suggested that Avicennia is derived from Acanthaceae but is included in that family according to [49]. The remaining taxa under investigation distributed into two main series; Series I included two studied species; Acanthus mollis & A. montanus at a taxonomic distance 1.232.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…the shrub habit, the presence of moderately developed areolation and the ocellate adaxial surface sculpture. This is in accord with [6] who used data from both the chloroplast and the nuclear genome, that implied the black mangrove genus Avicennia, usually treated as a separate family in Lamiales or as a genus within Verbenaceae, but more recently has been placed by some botanists in the monogeneric family Avicenniaceae and recent phylogenetic study [48] has suggested that Avicennia is derived from Acanthaceae but is included in that family according to [49]. The remaining taxa under investigation distributed into two main series; Series I included two studied species; Acanthus mollis & A. montanus at a taxonomic distance 1.232.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%