2006
DOI: 10.1556/abot.48.2006.3-4.16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sequence differentiation between some DNA regions of Hintonia latiflora and Hintonia standleyana

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…55 H. latif lora and H. standleyana are endemic to Mexico and Northern Guatemala. 56 Many authors have treated H. standleyana as a synonym of H. latif lora. 57 However, morphological and molecular studies have demonstrated recently that the two plants should be recognized within the genus Hintonia as independent species.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…55 H. latif lora and H. standleyana are endemic to Mexico and Northern Guatemala. 56 Many authors have treated H. standleyana as a synonym of H. latif lora. 57 However, morphological and molecular studies have demonstrated recently that the two plants should be recognized within the genus Hintonia as independent species.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, these findings provide genetic support for the segregation of the two Hintonia taxa. 56,58 In modern day Mexico, H. latif lora is used for the treatment of gastritis, urinary infections, pain, malaria, and diabetes. 15,16 Owing to its antidiabetic effect, Mexican and several European drug companies have commercialized herbal products containing the stem bark of H. latif lora for more than nine decades.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Borhidi (2006) no reconoce a la variedad leiantha y sí considera a H. standleyana como una especie distinta; añade la pubescencia del cáliz y de las hojas como características diferenciales. Resalta el desconocimiento del número cromosómico básico de H. latiflora (Kiehn, 1995), pero existen algunas evidencias moleculares que apoyan la separación de las especies (Stranczinger et al, 2006), como son las secuencias de ADN de H. latiflora con diferentes números de acceso en el GenBank (Manss y Bremer,200).…”
Section: Resultsunclassified
“…The phylogenetic approach generates a tree that clearly separates the three Rubiaceae species that conforms the copalchi complex: H. latiflora, H. standleyana , and E. caribaeum ; the concatenated trnH-psbA, rpl32-trnL , and ITS2 sequence reinforce the molecular evidence in order to recognize H. latiflora and H. standleyana as two different taxa (Borhidi and Diego-Pérez, 2002 ; Stranczinger et al, 2006 ). The approach of species identification with a Maximum Likelihood tree profile does not necessarily depend on the barcoding gap but on the coalescence of conspecific populations and the monophyly of species (Wiemers and Fiedler, 2007 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and C. reflexifolius Kunth. Also, there is a taxonomical disagreement about the identity of H. standleyana ; some authors recognizes the existence of H. standleyana as a taxon (Borhidi and Diego-Pérez, 2002 ; Stranczinger et al, 2006 ); where as other specialists state that this species is a synonym of H. latiflora (Ochoterena-Booth, 2000 ; Motley et al, 2005 ; Martínez-Cabrera et al, 2014 ); morphological and molecular data were analized in both cases but chemical analysis was never used for clarify this taxonomical ambiguity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%