Re: Classification of Iridaceae

 

I attended the conference where Tillie, presented the paper that appears in Annali di Botanica. I believe Wilson's presentation incorporates more current data than the Chase lab had and looks at this in an entirely different way. I am not saying that Wilson's presentation is the final "truth" there is a great deal of work that needs to be done. But the statistical level of confidence is much better than that of the Chase lab. Cladistical presentations are simply the best fit to the data that has been put in to the database. Additional data can often change the diagram considerably. Although these types of analyses are some of the best things we have going they can also be tricky in that the weighting of characteristics in the database is still a subjective process.

From: "Chuck Chapman" <irischapman@aim.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 3:54:41 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae

 

This is based on Carol Wilson's work, particularly her 2011 paper.
Her clasification of a number of specieas are at odds with other
classifications. Particularity of note, I. siberica, i. setosa, I.
pseudacorous, I. versicolor, I.virginica.

Check papers below

Makarevitch, I ; Golvonina, K ; Scherbik, S ; Blinov, A. 2003
Phylogenetic relationships of the Siberian iris species inferred from
noncoding chloroplast DNA sequences International Journal Of Plant
Sciences, 164:229-237

Tillie, N., Chase, M. W., & Hall, T. 2000. Molecular studies in the
genus Iris L.: a preliminary study. Annali di botanica, 58:105-112.

Chuck Chapman

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Zera <zera@umich.edu>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae

 
There is a newer, expanded version of that cladogram
h! ere:http://www.rsabg.org/iris/phylogeny

Some of the relationships are fascinating (though perhaps not too
surprising). Nepalensis, evansias and junos are each other's closest
relatives, while the other bulbous species are related to spurias. As
was suggested by Anderson in the '30s, tridentata and virginica are
closely related. The placement of siberica seems unlikely. It's
interesting that cristata/lacustris is the sister group to the rest of
the beardless, and I'm surprised Iris verna didn't make it into the
study. The Tenuifoliae are missing as well, but that's less surprising.

Anyone have access to her papers?

Wilson, C. A. (2004). Phylogeny of Iris based on chloroplast matK gene
and trnK intron sequence data. Molecular phylogenetics and
evolution, 33(2), 402-412.

Wilson, C. A. (2011). Subgeneric classification in Iris re-examined
using chloroplast sequence data. ! taxon, 60(1), 27-35.

Sean Z

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 ! at 11:08 PM, David Ferguson
<manzano57@msn.com> wrote:
 
Here is a rather confusing but interesting tidbit which you may have
seen already.  Not a classification, but related.
 
Dave Ferguson
 

 
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
From: rbartontx@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:29:36 -0800
Subject: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae

  Hi All,

I'm thinking about a presentation for SIGNA on the "other" irids, and
was considering organizing it by tribes within the family. I have
Innes, 1985, who cites Goldblatt, 1971, as the most recent treatment of
the family. Does any one know of a more recent treatment of the
Iridaceae?

Rodney




Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index