The biosystematics of the genus Lotus (Leguminosae) in Canada. II. Numerical chemotaxonomy

Abstract

A thin-layer chromatographic study of fluorescent compounds present in native (L. denticulatus, L. formosissimus, L. micranthus, L. pinnatus, L. purshianus) and introduced (L. corniculatus, L. krylovii, L.pedunculatus, L. tenuis) Canadian species of Lotus has been carried out and relationships of the species have been determined on the basis of the coefficients of association of these compounds. Chemical identification of the compounds was not attempted, but test reagents indicated a number to be phenolics. The analysis supported the general taxonomic relationships of the species based on a morphological and cytological study. Of the native species, L. pinnatus and L. formosissimus were the most closely related, with a coefficient of association of 83.33. Lotus denticulatus, the only native species with a chromosome number of n = 6, in general showed lower coefficients of association with the n = 7 species. Of the introduced species, all of which belong to the L. corniculatus group with a basic chromosome number of 6, L. krylovii and L. tenuis had the highest coefficient of association, 75.86. Based on their coefficients of association, both of these diploid species were more closely related to the tetraploid L. corniculatus than to the diploid L. pedunculatus.

Variation in morphology, plant habit, proanthocyanidins, and flavonoids within a Lottus germplasm collection

“…However, these compounds were not quantified, and none of the compositions were associated with a specific plant phenotype. Lotus species also accumulated cyanogenic glycosides and 2,3-diaminobutanoic acid (L. tenuis, L. australis and other Lotus species), alkaloids (L. garcinii, L. corniculatus, and L. uliginosis), 4-(3-methyl-2-butenyl)-tryptophan (L. subglauca), and homoarginine (L. helleri) (Grant and Sidhu 1967;Grant and Zandstra 1968;Zandstra and Grant 1968;Chapman and Hall, 2004).…”

The cytogenetics ofLotus(Leguminosae)

“…As a result, classical karyotype analyses may not be a suitable method to investigate the parentage of L. corniculatus because of the chromosomal repatterning which has occurred during the evolutionary development of the closely related diploid species. For this reason, chromatographic studies of the L. corniculatus group were undertaken and were shown to aid in resolving species relationships (Harney and Grant, 1965;Grant and Zandstra, 1968).…”

Evaluation of Different Numerical Methods Utilizing Unidentified Phenolic Patterns in Chemotaxonomy

“…However, in various other studies, where numerical taxonomy has been utilized to suggest affinities, invariably other indices like matching coefficient, coefficient of similarity, correlation coefficient in addition to biochemical distance have been used (Grant and Zandstra, 1968;Ising and Frost, 1969;Dedio et al, 1969Dedio et al, , 1969aDedio, 1970, 1970a;Iiyama and Grant, 1972;Natarella and Sink Jr., 1974). In this context, the criticism of Wiemarck (1972) existence of a number of indices makes it possible for the researcher to choose a method to suit his own hypothesis.…”