With contributions by: Abreu, Maria C.; Acevedo-Rodríguez, Pedro; Agra, Maria F.; Almeida Jr., Eduardo B.; Almeida, Gracineide S.S.; Almeida, Rafael F.; Alves, Flávio M.; Alves, Marccus; Alves-Araujo, Anderson; Amaral, Maria C.E.; Amorim, André M.; Amorim, Bruno; Andrade, Ivanilza M.; Andreata, Regina H.P.; Andrino, Caroline O.; Anunciação, Elisete A.; Aona, Lidyanne Y.S.; Aranguren, Yani; Aranha Filho, João L.M.; Araújo, Andrea O.; Araújo, Ariclenes A.M.; Araújo, Diogo; Arbo, María M.; Assis, Leandro; Assis, Marta C.; Assunção, Vivian A.; Athiê-Souza, Sarah M.; Azevedo, Cecilia O.; Baitello, João B.; Barberena, Felipe F.V.A.; Barbosa, Maria R.V.; Barros, Fábio; Barros, Lucas A.V.; Barros, Michel J.F.; Baumgratz, José F.A.; Bernacci, Luis C.; Berry, Paul E.; Bigio, Narcísio C.; Biral, Leonardo; Bittrich, Volker; Borges, Rafael A.X.; Bortoluzzi, Roseli L.C.; Bove, Cláudia P.; Bovini, Massimo G.; Braga, João M.A.; Braz, Denise M.; Bringel Jr., João B.A.; Bruniera, Carla P.; Buturi, Camila V.; Cabral, Elza; Cabral, Fernanda N.; Caddah, Mayara K.; Caires, Claudenir S.; Calazans, Luana S.B.; Calió, Maria F.; Camargo, Rodrigo A.; Campbell, Lisa; Canto-Dorow, Thais S.; Carauta, Jorge P.P. †; Cardiel, José M.; Cardoso, Domingos B.O.S.; Cardoso, Leandro J.T.; Carneiro, Camila R.; Carneiro, Cláudia E.; Carneiro-Torres, Daniela S.; Carrijo, Tatiana T.; Caruzo, Maria B.R.; Carvalho, Maria L.S.; Carvalho-Silva, Micheline; Castello, Ana C.D.; Cavalheiro, Larissa; Cervi, Armando C. †; Chacon, Roberta G.; Chautems, Alain; Chiavegatto, Berenice; Chukr, Nádia S.; Coelho, Alexa A.O.P.; Coelho, Marcus A.N.; Coelho, Rubens L.G.; Cordeiro, Inês; Cordula, Elizabeth; Cornejo, Xavier; Côrtes, Ana L.A.; Costa, Andrea F.; Costa, Fabiane N.; Costa, Jorge A.S.; Costa, Leila C.; Costa-e-Silva, Maria B.; Costa-Lima, James L.; Cota, Maria R.C.; Couto, Ricardo S.; Daly, Douglas C.; De Stefano, Rodrigo D.; De Toni, Karen; Dematteis, Massimiliano; Dettke, Greta A.; Di Maio, Fernando R.; Dórea, Marcos C.; Duarte, Marília C.; Dutilh, Julie H.A.; Dutra, Valquíria F.; Echternacht, Lívia; Eggers, Lilian; Esteves, Gerleni; Ezcurra, Cecilia; Falcão Junior, Marcus J.A.; Feres, Fabíola; Fernandes, José M.; Ferreira, D.M.C.; Ferreira, Fabrício M.; Ferreira, Gabriel E.; Ferreira, Priscila P.A.; Ferreira, Silvana C.; Ferrucci, Maria S.; Fiaschi, Pedro; Filgueiras, Tarciso S.; Firens, Marcela; Flores, Andreia S.; Forero, Enrique; Forster, Wellington; Fortuna-Perez, Ana P.; Fortunato, Reneé H.; Fraga, Cláudio N.; França, Flávio; Francener, Augusto; Freitas, Joelcio; Freitas, Maria F.; Fritsch, Peter W.; Furtado, Samyra G.; Gaglioti, André L.; Garcia, Flávia C.P.; Germano Filho, Pedro; Giacomin, Leandro; Gil, André S.B.; Giulietti, Ana M.; Godoy, Silvana A.P. ; Goldenberg, Renato; Gomes da Costa, Géssica A.; Gomes, Mário; Gomes-Klein, Vera L.; Gonçalves, Eduardo Gomes; Graham, Shirley; Groppo, Milton; Guedes. Juliana S.; Guimarães, Leonardo R.S.; Guimarães, Paulo J.F.; Guimarães, Elsie F.; Gutierrez, Raul; Harley, Raymond; Hassemer, Gus...

The Lucilia group sensu Anderberg and Freire comprises nine South American genera: Belloa, Berroa, Chevreulia, Cuatrecasasiella, Facelis, Gamochaetopsis, Jalcophila, Lucilia and Luciliocline. The aims of this contribution were, using DNA sequences from plastid (rpl32-trnL, trnL-F) and nuclear (ITS and ETS) markers, together with morphological characters, to test the monophyly of the Lucilia group and provide new insight into generic circumscriptions. Our studies, including a broad taxon sampling of Gnaphalieae species, suggest that the Lucilia group is paraphyletic, since Antennaria, Chionolaena, Gamochaeta, Loricaria, Micropsis, Mniodes and Stuckertiella are all nested within the Lucilia group. Morphology and molecular analyses combined showed that the traditional generic circumscription of most of the genera (e.g., Berroa, Chevreulia, Chionolaena, Cuatrecasasiella, Facelis, Jalcophila and Micropsis) correlates with the inferred phylogenetic relationships. Conversely, Lucilia and Luciliocline are non-monophyletic. Lucilia is nested in a clade with Berroa, Facelis and Micropsis. Luciliocline is strongly embedded within the clade Belloa pp ? Mniodes. Our results are consistent with Dillon's study that considered Belloa as a montotypic genus (B. chilensis). Luciliocline and the remaining species of Belloa are accommodated in the genus Mniodes, and the necessary combinations are proposed for the expanded Mniodes. All the analyses showed that the monotypic genera Stuckertiella and Gamochaetopsis are in a well-supported clade nested within Gamochaeta, which implies that taxonomic changes are required also for these genera. Internal relationships in the group and the key morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the group, as well as incongruences found between morphological and molecular analyses, are discussed.

A phylogenetic hypothesis of American Vernonieae based on three molecular regions (ITS, ndhF, rpl32-trnL) and on a morphological dataset reveals the existence of four main lineages. Three of these lineages correspond, with a few adjustments, to subtribes Chrestinae, Lychnophorinae, and Vernoniinae. The fourth lineage, which has never been recognized at a taxonomic rank due to the lack of morphological characterization, is mainly composed of taxa usually included in Lepidaploinae and Elephantopinae as well as a number of genera traditionally placed in other subtribes (Chrestinae, Piptocarphinae, and Vernoniinae). The relationships between these lineages are still not satisfactorily resolved. In order to keep the Lychnophorinae monophyletic, two small subtribes (Centratherinae, Sipolisiinae) and three monotypic genera (Albertinia, Blanchetia, and Gorceixia) have to be transferred to Lychnophorinae, which has the presence of heliangolide in aerial parts as a synapomorphy. Even though syncephaly has been historically used to delimit the subtribe Lychnophorinae, our results show that this character probably appeared independently three or four times in the evolution of American Vernonieae. The formation of the syncephalium, in each case, seems to be related to different biological functions: attractive (Chrestinae), disseminative (Rolandrinae), or protective and, to a lesser extent, attractive (Lychnophorinae).

No abstract

Asteraceae, or the sunflower family, is the largest family of flowering plants and is usually considered difficult to work with, not only due to its size, but also because of the abundant cases of polyploidy and ancient whole-genome duplications. Traditional molecular systematics studies were often impaired by the low levels of variation found in chloroplast markers and the high paralogy of traditional nuclear markers like ITS. Next-generation sequencing and novel phylogenomics methods, such as target capture and Hyb-Seq, have provided new ways of studying the phylogeny of the family with great success. While the resolution of the backbone of the family is in progress with some results already published, smaller studies focusing on internal clades of the phylogeny are important to increase sampling and allow morphological, biogeography, and diversification analyses, as well as serving as basis to test the current infrafamilial classification. Vernonieae is one of the largest tribes in the family, accounting for approximately 1,500 species. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the tribe went through several reappraisals, mainly due to the splitting of the mega genus Vernonia into several smaller segregates. Only three phylogenetic studies focusing on the Vernonieae have been published to date, both using a few molecular markers, overall presenting low resolution and support in deepest nodes, and presenting conflicting topologies when compared. In this study, we present the first attempt at studying the phylogeny of Vernonieae using phylogenomics. Even though our sampling includes only around 4% of the diversity of the tribe, we achieved complete resolution of the phylogeny with high support recovering approximately 700 nuclear markers obtained through target capture. We also analyzed the effect of missing data using two different matrices with different number of markers and the difference between concatenated and gene tree analysis.