Skip Navigation


AOBPreview originally published online on January 8, 2008
Annals of Botany 2008 101(3):385-402; doi:10.1093/aob/mcm299
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
101/3/385    most recent
mcm299v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Ann Bot
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Devey, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hawkins, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Devey, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hawkins, J. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Devey, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hawkins, J. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Friends or Relatives? Phylogenetics and Species Delimitation in the Controversial European Orchid Genus Ophrys

Dion S. Devey1,2,*, Richard M. Bateman1,2, Michael F. Fay1 and Julie A. Hawkins2

1 Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS, UK
2 School of Biological Sciences, Plant Science Laboratories, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AS, UK

* For correspondence: E-mail d.devey{at}rbgkew.org.uk

Received: 31 January 2007    Returned for revision: 15 March 2007    Accepted: 24 October 2007    Published electronically: 9 January 2008

Background and Aims: Highly variable, yet possibly convergent, morphology and lack of sequence variation have severely hindered production of a robust phylogenetic framework for the genus Ophrys. The aim of this study is to produce this framework as a basis for more rigorous species delimitation and conservation recommendations.

Methods: Nuclear and plastid DNA sequencing and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) were performed on 85 accessions of Ophrys, spanning the full range of species aggregates currently recognized. Data were analysed using a combination of parsimony and Bayesian tree-building techniques and by principal co-ordinates analysis.

Key Results: Complementary phylogenetic analyses and ordinations using nuclear, plastid and AFLP datasets identify ten genetically distinct groups (six robust) within the genus that may in turn be grouped into three sections (treated as subgenera by some authors). Additionally, genetic evidence is provided for a close relationship between the O. tenthredinifera, O. bombyliflora and O. speculum groups. The combination of these analytical techniques provides new insights into Ophrys systematics, notably recognition of the novel O. umbilicata group.

Conclusions: Heterogeneous copies of the nuclear ITS region show that some putative Ophrys species arose through hybridization rather than divergent speciation. The supposedly highly specific pseudocopulatory pollination syndrome of Ophrys is demonstrably ‘leaky’, suggesting that the genus has been substantially over-divided at the species level.

Key words: AFLP, DNA sequencing, hybridization, introgression, Ophrys, pseudocopulation, species delimitation, systematics


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Ann Bot:

ContentSnapshots

Ann Bot 2008 101: NP. [Extract] [Full Text]  





Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.