OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society
Sep, 2000;16 (3): 283-297.

A Cladistic Analysis of the New World Species of Lotus L. (Fabaceae, Loteae).

Ana M Arambarri
Author Information
  1. Ana M Arambarri: Area de Botánica, Departamento de Biologıacute;a y Ecologıacute;a, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, C. C. 31-1900, La Plata, Argentina.
PMID: 34902934 DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2000.tb00284.x

Abstract

The genus Lotus L. is a monophyletic group diagnosed by the possession of a standard claw with thickened infolded margin, stamens diadelphous, and the style hardened from the base. It comprises approximately 200 species distributed throughout the world. A cladistic analysis of the New World species was performed using 39 morphological and anatomical characters (29 from seed morphology and anatomy, 1 from plant habit, 1 from leaf morphology, 6 from flower morphology, and 2 from fruit morphology). Dorycnium, Edentolotus, Krokeria, and Pedrosia, of the Old World, and 28 species of the New World were considered terminal taxa. Tetragonolobus Scop. was chosen to root the cladograms and Dorycnium Mill. to reroot them. With Tetragonolobus the analysis yielded 15 equally parsimonious trees, each with a length of 74 steps, a consistency index of 0.62, and a retention index of 0.89. The 15 initial trees and the strict consensus tree defined 12 monophyletic groups. All terminal taxa form a monophyletic group diagnosed by the presence of a radicular lobe discernible to conspicuous (character 10); rim aril thick (character 13); stipules absent (character 31); and style simple and nondilated (character 36). The New World species form a monophyletic group on the basis of the seed relationship of length to width in hilar view 1.5:1 to 2:1 (character 5); micropyle linear-deltoid to bifurcate (character 19); and keel erostrate (character 33). Identical monophyletic groups were obtained when Dorycnium was used as root. These results are discussed in the context of data on cytology and morphology.

References

  1. Acebes Ginovés, J. R. (1992). Sobre los Dorycnium Mill. (Lotus L.) Canarios. Lotus Newslett. 23, 14-17.
  2. Arambarri, A. M. (1988). Vascular bundles in Lotus L., subgenus Deflectostylus Callen, seeds (Fabaceae-Faboideae). Lotus Newslett. 19, 27-30.
  3. Arambarri, A. M. (1989). Vascular bundles in Lotus L. seeds. II. (Fabaceae-Faboideae). Lotus Newslett. 20, 9-11.
  4. Arambarri, A. M. (1990). Vascular bundles in Lotus L. seeds. III. (Fabaceae-Faboideae). Lotus Newslett. 21, 11-13.
  5. Arambarri, A. M. (1994). Illustrated catalogue of Lotus L. seeds. (Leguminosae). In “Proceedings of the 1st International Lotus Symposium, St. Louis, MO, 1994” (P. R. Beuselinck and C. A. Roberts, Eds.), pp. 27-29. University Extension, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia , MO. [Abstract].
  6. Arambarri, A. M. (1999). Illustrated catalogue of Lotus L. seeds. (Fabaceae). In Trefoil: The Science and Technology of Lotus (P. R. Beuselinck, Ed.), pp. 21-41, Spec. Publ. No. 28 of the American Society of Agronomy and the Crop Science Society of America, Madison , Wisconsin .
  7. Ball, P. W. (1968). Dorycnium Miller, Lotus L., Tetragonolobus Scop. In “Flora Europaea” (T. G. Tutin et al., Eds.), Vol. 2, pp. 172-177. Cambridge Univ. Press, London .
  8. Brand, A. (1898). Monographie der Gattung Lotus. Botanische Jahrbücher 25, 166-232.
  9. Burkart, A. (1952). “Las leguminosas argentinas.” 2nd. ed., p. 569. Acme, Buenos Aires .
  10. Burkart, A., Vilchez, O., and Crisci, J. V. (1972). Estudio de Lotus subpinnatus Lag. y L. wrangelianus F. et M., dos Leguminosas vicarias del Oeste Norte y Sud-Americano. Darwiniana 17, 458-66.
  11. Callen, E. O. (1959). Studies in the genus Lotus (Leguminosae). I. Limits and subdivisions of the genus. Can. J. Bot. 37, 157-165.
  12. Cooper, K. (1985). Asymmetrical marking of the family Megachilidae by certain species of Lotus complementation of flower asymmetry and bee behavior. Lotus Newslett. 16, 51-53.
  13. Crompton, C. W., and Grant, W. F. (1993). Pollen morphology in Loteae (Leguminosae) with particular reference to the genus Lotus L. Grana 32, 129-153.
  14. Farris, J. S. (1988). “HENNIG86, Version 1.5.” Documentation published by the author. Port Jefferson, NY .
  15. Gillet, J. B. (1958). Lotus in Africa south of the Sahara (excluding the Cape Verde islands and Socotra) and its distinction from Dorycnium. Kew Bull. 13, 361-381.
  16. Grant, V, and Grant, K. A. (1968). “Hummingbirds and Their Flowers,” p. 115. Columbia Univ. Press, New York / London .
  17. Grant, W. F. (1965). A chromosome atlas and interspecific hybridization index for the genus Lotus (Leguminosae). Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 7, 457-471.
  18. Grant, W. F. (1991). Chromosomal evolution and aneuploidy in Lotus. In Chromosome Engineering in Plants: Genetics, Breeding, Evolution, Part B (T. Tscuchiya and P. K. Gupta, Eds.), Vol. 28, pp. 429-447. Elsevier, Amsterdam , The Netherlands .
  19. Grant, W. F. (1995). A chromosome atlas and interspecific-intergeneric index for Lotus and Tetragonolobus (Fabaceae). Can. J. Bot. 73, 1787-1809.
  20. Grant, W. E, and Shidu, B. S. (1967). Basic chromosome number, cyanogenetic glucoside variation, and geographic distribution of Lotus species. Can. J. Bot. 45, 639-646.
  21. Grant, W. F., and Zandstra, I. I. (1967). The biosystematics of the genus Lotus (Leguminosae) in Canada. II. Numerical chemotaxonomy. Can. J. Bot. 46, 585-589.
  22. Greene, E. L. (1890). Enumeration of the North American Loti. Pittonia 2, 133-150.
  23. Gunn, C. R. (1983). A nomenclator of Legume (Fabaceae) genera. Tech. Bull. 1680, pp. 224.
  24. Heyn, C. C. (1966). A study of the Lotus peregrinus group. Israel J. Bot. 15, 37-47.
  25. Heyn, C. C. (1970). Studies in Lotus. III. The L. angustissimus group. Israel J. Bot. 19, 271-292.
  26. Heyn, C.C., and Herrnstadt, I. (1967). The Lotus creticus group. Kew Bull. 21, 299-309.
  27. Holmgren, P. K., Holmgren, N. H., and Barnett, L. C. (1990). “Index Herbariorum, Part 1, The Herbaria of the World” N. Y. Bot. Gard., Bronx , NY. [Regnum Veg. 120].
  28. Isely, D. (1981). Leguminosae of the United States. III. Subfamily Papilionoideae: Tribes Sophoreae, Podalyrieae, Loteae. Mem. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 29, 1-264.
  29. Kalin Arroyo, M. T. (1981). Breeding systems and pollination biology in Leguminosae. In “Advances in Legume Systematics, Proceedings of the International Legume Conference, Kew, 1981” (R. M. Polhill and P. H. Raven, Eds.), pp. 723-769. H. M. Stationery Office, London .
  30. Kirkbride, J. H., Jr. (1994). Taxonomic circumscription of the genus Lotus Linnaeus (Fabaceae, Loteae), its tribal position, and its species. In “Proceedings of the 1 st International Lotus Symposuim, St. Louis, MO, 1994” (P. R. Beuselinck and C. A. Roberts, Eds.), pp. 11-15. University Extension University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia , MO .
  31. Larsen, K., and Zertova, A. (1965). The Australian Lotus species. Feddes Repertorium 72, 1-18.
  32. Lersten, N. R. (1979). A distinctive seed coat pattern in the Vicieae (Papilionoideae; Leguminosae). Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 86, 102-104.
  33. Lersten, N. R. (1981). Testa topography in Leguminosae, subfamily Papilionoideae. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 88, 180-191.
  34. Lersten, N. R., and Gunn, C. R. (1982). Testa characters in tribe Vicieae, with notes about tribes Abreae, Cicereae, and Trifolieae (Fabaceae). Tech. Bull. 1667, 1-40.
  35. Linnaeus, C. (1753). “Species Plantarum,” Vol. 1. Impensis Laurenti Salvii, Stockholm .
  36. Linnaeus, C. (1754). “Genera Plantarum,” Vol. 5. Impensis Laurenti Salvii, Stockholm .
  37. Manning, J. C, and van Staden, J. (1987). The systematic significance of testa anatomy in the Leguminosae-an illustrated survey. South Africa J. Bot. 53, 210-230.
  38. Nixon, K. C. (1992). “CLADOS Version 1.1,” IBM PC-compatible character analysis program. Documentation published by the author.
  39. Ortega, J. (1979). Citogenética del género Lotus en Macaronesia. III. Variacion en el contenido de glucósidos cianogénicos en Lotus de las Islas Canarias y Madeira. Bot. Macaronesica 5, 1-19.
  40. Ottley, A. M. (1923). A revision of the Californian species ofLotus. Univ. California Publ. Bot. 10, 189-305.
  41. Ottley, A. M. (1944). American Loti with special consideration of a proposed new section Simpeteria. Brittonia 5, 81-123.
  42. Polhill, R. M. (1981). Loteae and Coronilleae. In “Advances in Legume Systematics. [Proc. Int. Legume Conf. Kew, 1978]”, pp. 371-375. Polhill, R. M. and P. H. Raven (eds.). Vol. 2, Min. Agr. Fisheries and Food, Richmond , England .
  43. Polhill, R. M. (1994a). Classification of the Leguminosae. In Phytochemical Dictionary of the Leguminosae (F. A. Bisby, J. Buckingham, and J.B. Harborne, Eds.), Vol. 1, pp. 35-48, Chapman & Hall, Cambridge .
  44. Polhill, R. M. (1994b). Complete synopsis of legume genera. In Phytochemical Dictionary of the heguminosae (F. A. Bisby, J. Buckingham, and J.B. Harborne, Eds.), Vol. 1, pp. 49-57, Chapman & Hall, Cambridge .
  45. Ross-Craig, S. (1954). “Drawings of British Plants. Leguminosae, Part VII, plate 42-47.
  46. Saint Martin, M. (1986). Micromorphologie tégumentaire des graines de Papilionaceae. Bull. Soc. Bot. France, 133, [Lett. Bot.] 137-153.
  47. Wiersema, J. H., Kirkbride, J. H., Jr. and Gunn, C. R. (1990). Legume (Fabaceae) nomenclature in the USDA Germplasm System. Tech. Bull. 1757, 301-310.
  48. Zandstra, I. I., and Grant, W. F. (1968). The biosystematics of the genus Lotus (Leguminosae) in Canada. I. Cytotaxonomy. Can. J. Bot. 46, 557-583.
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0charactermonophyleticWorldmorphologyspeciesNewgroup1DorycniumLotusLdiagnosedstyleanalysisseedterminaltaxaTetragonolobusroot15treeslengthindex0groupsformgenuspossessionstandardclawthickenedinfoldedmarginstamensdiadelphoushardenedbasecomprisesapproximately200distributedthroughoutworldcladisticperformedusing39morphologicalanatomicalcharacters29anatomyplanthabitleaf6flower2fruitEdentolotusKrokeriaPedrosiaOld28consideredScopchosencladogramsMillrerootyieldedequallyparsimonious74stepsconsistency62retention89initialstrictconsensustreedefined12presenceradicularlobediscernibleconspicuous10rimarilthick13stipulesabsent31simplenondilated36basisrelationshipwidthhilarview5:12:15micropylelinear-deltoidbifurcate19keelerostrate33IdenticalobtainedusedresultsdiscussedcontextdatacytologyCladisticAnalysisSpeciesFabaceaeLoteae

Similar Articles

Cited By