Abstract:Three new species of Dactuliothrips Moulton are described, two from Mendoza, Argentina and one from Southern California, USA: D. prosopis sp.n. from Prosopis alpataco (Fabaceae), D. monttea sp.n. from Monttea aphylla (Scrophulariaceae), and D. ephedra sp.n. from Ephedra sp. (Ephedraceae). A revised diagnosis and an illustrated identification key to the nine recognized species of Dactuliothrips are also provided. Pictures and notes about the host plants for the species from Argentina are included, together with… Show more
“…The analyses based on DNA sequences from the 10 combined chloroplast and mitochondrial regions and the complete chloroplast genome data do not support a clade of Wightia and Paulownia . Even though Wightia was placed variously in Scrophulariaceae s.l., Bignoniaceae or Paulowniaceae in Lamiales (Wallich, 1830; Bentham and Hooker, 1876; Hallier, 1903; Pennell, 1920; Campbell, 1930; Li, 1947; van Steenis, 1949; Lawrence, 1951; Willis, 1955; Hu, 1959; Maheshwari, 1961; Hong et al, 1998; Fischer, 2004), our results support Wightia as sister to Phrymaceae (BS = 84,100; PP = 1.00,1.00; Figures 2, 3) or sister to the Phrymaceae - Mazaceae clade (BS = 65; PP = 0.95; Supplementary Figure S4). The Wightia -Phrymaceae clade is then sister to the large clade that includes Orobanchaceae and Paulowniaceae with high support (Figures 2, 3).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…has been controversial. Wightia includes two species distributed mainly in Burma, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Vietnam, and Yunnan of China (van Steenis, 1949; Maheshwari, 1961; Hong et al, 1998). It was initially placed in Bignoniaceae based on the characters such as seeds that are winged but without endosperm and extra-floral nectarines under the leaf surface (Wallich, 1830; Hallier, 1903; Campbell, 1930; Li, 1947; Lawrence, 1951; Maheshwari, 1961).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was initially placed in Bignoniaceae based on the characters such as seeds that are winged but without endosperm and extra-floral nectarines under the leaf surface (Wallich, 1830; Hallier, 1903; Campbell, 1930; Li, 1947; Lawrence, 1951; Maheshwari, 1961). It was also included in Scrophulariaceae sensu lato on the basis of its two locular ovaries, and fruit dehiscing characters (Bentham and Hooker, 1876; Pennell, 1920; van Steenis, 1949; Willis, 1955; Hu, 1959; Hong et al, 1998). Recently Fischer (2004) mentioned that Wightia , together with Brandisia Hook.…”
The familial placement of
Wightia
has been controversial in the Lamiales, and the genus is currently placed in Paulowniaceae in APG IV. Phylogenetic analyses of
Wightia
and its close relatives in Lamiales are conducted using sequences of the complete chloroplast genomes as well as sequence data from nine chloroplast DNA regions (
atpB
,
matK
,
ndhF
,
psbBTNH
,
rbcL
,
rps4
,
rps16
intron,
trnL-F
, and
trnV-atpE
) and one mitochondrial gene
rps3
. The maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses do not support a close relationship between
Wightia
and
Paulownia
of Paulowniaceae; instead the enigmatic
Wightia
is sister to Phrymaceae with strong support in all analyses. Hence
Wightia
should not be placed in Paulowniaceae. Because morphological data show
Wightia
’s affinity to both Phrymaceae and Paulowniaceae and prior nrITS data suggest its sister relationship to
Paulownia
of Paulowniaceae, it is likely that
Wightia
may have had a hybrid origin between early lineages of Phrymaceae and Paulowniaceae. It is therefore the best to exclude
Wightia
from Paulowniaceae and place the genus as unassigned until further nuclear data to test the hybrid hypothesis. The seven species of
Paulownia
constitute a monophyletic group, and Paulowniaceae is supported to be a monogeneric family, consistent with a series of morphological and floral development characters. The genus
Brandisia
, which was sometimes regarded as a close relative of
Wightia
, is supported to be nested within Orobanchaceae, as sister to
Pterygiella
. This sister relationship can be corroborated by fruit, seed and pollen morphological characters.
“…The analyses based on DNA sequences from the 10 combined chloroplast and mitochondrial regions and the complete chloroplast genome data do not support a clade of Wightia and Paulownia . Even though Wightia was placed variously in Scrophulariaceae s.l., Bignoniaceae or Paulowniaceae in Lamiales (Wallich, 1830; Bentham and Hooker, 1876; Hallier, 1903; Pennell, 1920; Campbell, 1930; Li, 1947; van Steenis, 1949; Lawrence, 1951; Willis, 1955; Hu, 1959; Maheshwari, 1961; Hong et al, 1998; Fischer, 2004), our results support Wightia as sister to Phrymaceae (BS = 84,100; PP = 1.00,1.00; Figures 2, 3) or sister to the Phrymaceae - Mazaceae clade (BS = 65; PP = 0.95; Supplementary Figure S4). The Wightia -Phrymaceae clade is then sister to the large clade that includes Orobanchaceae and Paulowniaceae with high support (Figures 2, 3).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…has been controversial. Wightia includes two species distributed mainly in Burma, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Vietnam, and Yunnan of China (van Steenis, 1949; Maheshwari, 1961; Hong et al, 1998). It was initially placed in Bignoniaceae based on the characters such as seeds that are winged but without endosperm and extra-floral nectarines under the leaf surface (Wallich, 1830; Hallier, 1903; Campbell, 1930; Li, 1947; Lawrence, 1951; Maheshwari, 1961).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was initially placed in Bignoniaceae based on the characters such as seeds that are winged but without endosperm and extra-floral nectarines under the leaf surface (Wallich, 1830; Hallier, 1903; Campbell, 1930; Li, 1947; Lawrence, 1951; Maheshwari, 1961). It was also included in Scrophulariaceae sensu lato on the basis of its two locular ovaries, and fruit dehiscing characters (Bentham and Hooker, 1876; Pennell, 1920; van Steenis, 1949; Willis, 1955; Hu, 1959; Hong et al, 1998). Recently Fischer (2004) mentioned that Wightia , together with Brandisia Hook.…”
The familial placement of
Wightia
has been controversial in the Lamiales, and the genus is currently placed in Paulowniaceae in APG IV. Phylogenetic analyses of
Wightia
and its close relatives in Lamiales are conducted using sequences of the complete chloroplast genomes as well as sequence data from nine chloroplast DNA regions (
atpB
,
matK
,
ndhF
,
psbBTNH
,
rbcL
,
rps4
,
rps16
intron,
trnL-F
, and
trnV-atpE
) and one mitochondrial gene
rps3
. The maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses do not support a close relationship between
Wightia
and
Paulownia
of Paulowniaceae; instead the enigmatic
Wightia
is sister to Phrymaceae with strong support in all analyses. Hence
Wightia
should not be placed in Paulowniaceae. Because morphological data show
Wightia
’s affinity to both Phrymaceae and Paulowniaceae and prior nrITS data suggest its sister relationship to
Paulownia
of Paulowniaceae, it is likely that
Wightia
may have had a hybrid origin between early lineages of Phrymaceae and Paulowniaceae. It is therefore the best to exclude
Wightia
from Paulowniaceae and place the genus as unassigned until further nuclear data to test the hybrid hypothesis. The seven species of
Paulownia
constitute a monophyletic group, and Paulowniaceae is supported to be a monogeneric family, consistent with a series of morphological and floral development characters. The genus
Brandisia
, which was sometimes regarded as a close relative of
Wightia
, is supported to be nested within Orobanchaceae, as sister to
Pterygiella
. This sister relationship can be corroborated by fruit, seed and pollen morphological characters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.