2000
DOI: 10.2307/2656599
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic affinities of Rhizophoraceae and Anisophylleaceae, and intergeneric relationships within Rhizophoraceae, based on chloroplast DNA, nuclear ribosomal DNA, and morphology

Abstract: A cladistic analysis of sequences from the chloroplast gene rbcL was used to determine the systematic affinities of Rhizophoraceae and Anisophylleaceae. This analysis rejects close relationships of Rhizophoraceae with Celastraceae or Elaeocarpaceae, suggested previously, and identifies Erythroxylaceae as sister group within the Malpighiales, supported by several morphological and anatomical characters. Our molecular results also indicate that Anisophylleaceae are nested within Cucurbitales. Although this place… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

8
58
1
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
8
58
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Kandelia is more similar to Rhizophora than to Bruguiera or Ceriops, even though these genera are originated from the same tribe of Rhizophoraceae. A number of phylogenetic studies of the Rhizophoraceae tribe based on molecular markers and morphological characters support this view (Setoguchi et al, 1999;Schwarzbach & Ricklefs, 2000;Lakshmi et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Kandelia is more similar to Rhizophora than to Bruguiera or Ceriops, even though these genera are originated from the same tribe of Rhizophoraceae. A number of phylogenetic studies of the Rhizophoraceae tribe based on molecular markers and morphological characters support this view (Setoguchi et al, 1999;Schwarzbach & Ricklefs, 2000;Lakshmi et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…A phylogenetic tree was derived for the 123 species using the rbcL-based phylogeny of Nandi et al (1998), chosen because it allowed placement of families not included in previous phylogenies. The tree was modified according to Bradford & Barnes (2001), Conran et al (2000), Gadek et al (1996), Kårehed (2001), Plunkett & Lowry (2001), Schwarzbach & Ricklefs (2000) and Wilson et al (2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5) in the latter paper, however, it is classified close to the genera Comiphyton and Blepharistemma, quite distantly from the clade with the other subgenera. This classification of Dactylopetalum in a clade separate from the other subgenera is confirmed by Schwarzbach & Ricklefs (2000). In this study, however, only two species of the subgenera Cassipourea and Dactylopetalum and one of the subgenus Weihea are taken into account.…”
Section: S Y N O P S I S O F T H E S U B G E N E R a O F C A S S I P mentioning
confidence: 71%