The Evolution of a Pair of Sibling Allotetraploid Species of Cobwebby Gilias (Polemoniaceae)

Ecological studies of polyploidy in the 100 years following its discovery

“…Grants' thinking reflected his empirical studies in the Polemoniaceae, including elegant work with neopolyploids produced in crosses of closely related species of Gilia [23, 92,94,95] Hiesey's 1945 monograph on allopolyploid speciation in the Madiinae [16] was an especially influential work that investigated cytogenetic origins of allopolyploids as well as their morphological features. The monograph also critically reviewed instances of polyploidy known at the time of publication; the heavy emphasis on allopolyploidy, both in the empirical work presented by the volume and in its literature review, would later be cited as evidence of the role of interspecific hybridization during and following genome duplication [2,3,69].…”

“…Biosystematics integrated analyses of geographical and ecological distributions, crossing barriers, chromosome behaviour of parental species and F 1 hybrids, morphology and anatomy, and breeding systems. Polyploid groups were a common subject of biosystematic analysis, owing both to their frequent occurrence in north temperate floras (where most biosystematic work was performed) and evolutionary complexities that had stymied traditional morphological classification; some standout examples include monographs of the genus Camissonia [102], Clarkia [24], Lasthenia [103] and Microseris [104], as well as more concise published works on Achlys [105], Claytonia [106], Gilia [94,95] and Viola [96]; Grant's Plant Speciation [3] and Lewis' 1980 paper ('Polyploidy in species populations') [9] provide reviews of polyploidy work during the biosystematics era. Nearly every polyploid that would be subject to ecological investigation at the end of the twentieth century had a preceding biosystematic study conducted between 1940 and 1980-biosystematics efforts were thus influential and framed many research questions that would be studied by population biologists.…”

A Phylogenetic Classification of Polemoniaceae

“…A number of broad comparative surveys, conducted in Polemoniaceae during this interval (e. g., Stuchlik 1967a, b; Taylor and Levin 1975;Harborne and Smith 1978;Smith et al 1982;Wilken et al 1982;Plitmann andLevin 1983, 1990;Carlquist et al 1984;Steele and Vilgalys 1994;Johnson et al 1996 ;Porter 1996), were interpreted in the framework of Grant's classification. As a result, some workers suggested a revised taxonomy may better reflect the accumulating evidence of character distributions supporting alternative views of phylogenetic relationship (e.g., Smith et al 1977;Day and Moran 1986;Johnson et al 1996;Porter 1996). Of these studies, comparative DNA sequence analyses most forcefully stimulated the reexamination of Polemoniaceae classification.…”

Species hybrids and spontaneous amphiploids in the Gilia laciniata group

“…A survey of the results of interspecific crosses in another section of the genus, the Cobwebby Gilias, on the basis of the data given by Grant and Grant (1960), Grant (1964) and Day (1965), reveals a similar highly non-random distribution of genomes among the artificial amphiploids. Interspecific hybrids representing 53 combinations of parental species were grown to flowering.…”

“…Three of these classes of F1 hybrids doubled spontaneously by the union of unreduced gametes. These were F1 G. clokeyi x aliq4anta, clokeyi xmexicana and minorx clokeyi (Grant and Grant, 5960;Day, 1965). It will be noted that all three have G. clokeyi as one parent.…”