Am. J. Bot. Large Type Edition
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morton, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Blackmore, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Morton, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Blackmore, S.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Morton, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Blackmore, S.
(American Journal of Botany. 2003;90:1463-1469.)
© 2003 Botanical Society of America, Inc.

Systematics

Phylogenetic relationships of the Aurantioideae inferred from chloroplast DNA sequence data1

Cynthia M. Morton2, Matthew Grant3 and Stephen Blackmore4

2Section of Botany, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 USA; 3Department of Botany, School of Plant Sciences, Whiteknights, The University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AS UK; 4Regius Keeper, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20a Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR UK Scotland

The tribes and subtribes of Aurantioideae, an economically important subfamily of the Rutaceae, have a controversial taxonomic history because of the lack of a phylogenetic framework. The rps16 and trnL-trnF sequences of the chloroplast were analyzed phylogenetically to construct an evolutionary history and evaluate the most recent classification system of Swingle and Reece (The Citrus Industry, volume 1 [1967]). Taxa representing tribes Citreae and Clauseneae and five of the six subtribes were sampled. Conflicts in the positions of some taxa between the rps16 and trnL-trnF trees are poorly supported. In all analyses, the Aurantioideae are monophyletic. The strict consensus tree of the combined analysis indicates that the two tribes along with the subtribes sampled are not monophyletic. The combined topology is not congruent with the widely used classification of Aurantioideae by Swingle and Reece. The tribes and subtribes are in need of revision.

Key Words: Aurantioideae • Citreae • Citrus • Clauseneae • rps16 • Rutaceae • trnL-trnF






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.