|
Post by theplantman on Feb 23, 2015 14:46:26 GMT
Some of the folks I work with have finally published their research on the Sarracenia family tree. I have been holding off on sharing details on this research forever and can't contain my excitement any longer! I know almost all of the authors personally (folks from UGA, GA Tech, and the ATL Botanical Garden), and can attest that you couldn't ask for a more dedicated group of people to do this research. The paper represents years of work, culminating in likely the best resolution of the tree in 30 years. Most of it's in foreign science language, but this paper will be the standard for taxonomy and conservation efforts for some time. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790315000330
|
|
leeb
Full Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by leeb on Feb 24, 2015 2:29:32 GMT
A pity the whole paper was not freely available; but from the abstract it looks good.
Now we need something similar for the Heliamphora species assuming the techniques used would work for it too.
LeeB.
|
|
|
Post by lukewarm on Feb 24, 2015 13:28:52 GMT
That technique should be universal, working on everything from all Kingdoms.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Feb 24, 2015 22:26:50 GMT
Nice,
And it shows what I've been saying for a long time, and really my only complaint for the new Sarracenia books by McPherson was his maintaining the broken taxonomy with regards to Sarracenia purpurea. But now it should be clear to any and everyone that S. purpurea montana is not part of S. purpurea venosa, nor S. rosea. But rather each forms its own group. As I've mentioned hundreds of times, S. rosea is more distinct from other members of the purpurea group while S. purpurea venosa and S. purpurea pururea are more similar.
S. purpurea venosa burkii is still an idea that only exists on paper and is not reflected by the actual plants. Until it is named as a subspecies, the only name that makes sense to use is S. rosea simply because it is factually not part of anything named S. purpurea subspecies venosa.
S. purpurea venosa and S. purpurea purpurea are effectively one group with two parts. You could say they are two very closely related subspecies; there isn't too much of a reason to collapse them together as they have some consistent differences, but the difference between them is much smaller than the other two subspecies, montana and rosea.
S. purpurea venosa montana is also an idea that only exists on paper and it a separate subspecies from venosa/purpurea/rosea.
The next very interesting thing is it says S. alabamensis is a different species while S. rubra subspecies wherryi is correct! Nice, I've only even seen S. alabamensis once and S. r. w. a couple of times in person. And I don't know why the maps are wrong in the books, S. rubra wherryi and S. rubra gulfensis do overlap. I found them growing near each other, but in different habitats in Crestview Florida.
|
|
leeb
Full Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by leeb on Feb 26, 2015 7:49:04 GMT
If the technique works on more speciose genera that have multiple radiations of species both ancient and recent, and ongoing hybridisation causing introgression as well as numerous species formed from hybridisation events, and species flocks that form in parallel from common ancestral species that colonised different islands and island groups then if might be useful for reconstructing the phylogeny of Nepenthes.
LeeB.
|
|
|
Post by theplantman on Feb 26, 2015 18:30:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Feb 26, 2015 19:56:32 GMT
That is great. Can you/ may we place that link on the ICPS Facebook forum page?
|
|
leeb
Full Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by leeb on Feb 26, 2015 22:42:27 GMT
Thanks for that, it is an interesting paper.
LeeB.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Feb 27, 2015 0:39:15 GMT
If the technique works on more speciose genera that have multiple radiations of species both ancient and recent, and ongoing hybridisation causing introgression as well as numerous species formed from hybridisation events, and species flocks that form in parallel from common ancestral species that colonised different islands and island groups then if might be useful for reconstructing the phylogeny of Nepenthes. LeeB. Yeah, I think we'll need time on a supercomputer for that work!
|
|
leeb
Full Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by leeb on Feb 27, 2015 3:59:37 GMT
Well the recent work on bird phylogeny studying whole genomes used a number of the faster supercomputers around, so given the rate of technological advance this may be doable in the near future.
LeeB.
|
|
|
Post by theplantman on Feb 27, 2015 20:12:28 GMT
That is great. Can you/ may we place that link on the ICPS Facebook forum page? Just did it. Glad to be of help.
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Feb 28, 2015 9:33:42 GMT
Thanks
|
|