The classification of the legume family proposed here addresses the long‐known non‐monophyly of the traditionally recognised subfamily Caesalpinioideae, by recognising six robustly supported monophyletic subfamilies. This new classification uses as its framework the most comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of legumes to date, based on plastid matK gene sequences, and including near‐complete sampling of genera (698 of the currently recognised 765 genera) and ca. 20% (3696) of known species. The matK gene region has been the most widely sequenced across the legumes, and in most legume lineages, this gene region is sufficiently variable to yield well‐supported clades. This analysis resolves the same major clades as in other phylogenies of whole plastid and nuclear gene sets (with much sparser taxon sampling). Our analysis improves upon previous studies that have used large phylogenies of the Leguminosae for addressing evolutionary questions, because it maximises generic sampling and provides a phylogenetic tree that is based on a fully curated set of sequences that are vouchered and taxonomically validated. The phylogenetic trees obtained and the underlying data are available to browse and download, facilitating subsequent analyses that require evolutionary trees. Here we propose a new community‐endorsed classification of the family that reflects the phylogenetic structure that is consistently resolved and recognises six subfamilies in Leguminosae: a recircumscribed Caesalpinioideae DC., Cercidoideae Legume Phylogeny Working Group (stat. nov.), Detarioideae Burmeist., Dialioideae Legume Phylogeny Working Group (stat. nov.), Duparquetioideae Legume Phylogeny Working Group (stat. nov.), and Papilionoideae DC. The traditionally recognised subfamily Mimosoideae is a distinct clade nested within the recircumscribed Caesalpinioideae and is referred to informally as the mimosoid clade pending a forthcoming formal tribal and/or clade‐based classification of the new Caesalpinioideae. We provide a key for subfamily identification, descriptions with diagnostic charactertistics for the subfamilies, figures illustrating their floral and fruit diversity, and lists of genera by subfamily. This new classification of Leguminosae represents a consensus view of the international legume systematics community; it invokes both compromise and practicality of use.

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.

There is controversy about whether traditional medicine can guide drug discovery, and investment in bioprospecting informed by ethnobotanical data has fluctuated. One view is that traditionally used medicinal plants are not necessarily efficacious and there are no robust methods for distinguishing those which are most likely to be bioactive when selecting species for further testing. Here, we reconstruct a genus-level molecular phylogenetic tree representing the 20,000 species found in the floras of three disparate biodiversity hotspots: Nepal, New Zealand, and the Cape of South Africa. Borrowing phylogenetic methods from community ecology, we reveal significant clustering of the 1,500 traditionally used species, and provide a direct measure of the relatedness of the three medicinal floras. We demonstrate shared phylogenetic patterns across the floras: related plants from these regions are used to treat medical conditions in the same therapeutic areas. This finding strongly indicates independent discovery of plant efficacy, an interpretation corroborated by the presence of a significantly greater proportion of known bioactive species in these plant groups than in random samples. We conclude that phylogenetic cross-cultural comparisons can focus screening efforts on a subset of traditionally used plants that are richer in bioactive compounds, and could revitalize the use of traditional knowledge in bioprospecting.ethnobotany | ethnopharmacology | herbal medicine | phylogeny | systematics M any pharmaceutical drugs are derived from plants that were first used in traditional systems of medicine (1), and according to the World Health Organization ∼25% of medicines are plant-derived (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/ fs134). Discoveries of novel molecules and advances in production of plant-based products (2, 3) have revived interest in natural product research. Traditional knowledge has proven a useful tool in the search for new plant-based medicines (4-8). The number of traditionally used plant species worldwide is estimated to be between 10,000 and 53,000 (9, 10); however, only a small proportion have been screened for biological activity (11,12) and the plants from some regions are less studied than others. For example, only 1% of tropical floras have been investigated (12). Moreover, there has been no systematic study to determine whether traditionally used species are significantly more likely to yield valuable bioactive compounds. This lack of data creates controversy about whether traditional medicine can guide drug discovery (1,11,(13)(14)(15), and investment in ethnobotanically led bioprospecting has fluctuated (5, 14, 15). Methods put forward for distinguishing those plants most likely to be bioactive when selecting species for further testing have been criticized, and criteria proposed to prioritize traditionally used species have not been rigorously tested (16,17). For example, use of the same or related plants by people from different regions and cultures provides indirect evidence for bioactiv...

BackgroundThe study of traditional knowledge of medicinal plants has led to discoveries that have helped combat diseases and improve healthcare. However, the development of quantitative measures that can assist our quest for new medicinal plants has not greatly advanced in recent years. Phylogenetic tools have entered many scientific fields in the last two decades to provide explanatory power, but have been overlooked in ethnomedicinal studies. Several studies show that medicinal properties are not randomly distributed in plant phylogenies, suggesting that phylogeny shapes ethnobotanical use. Nevertheless, empirical studies that explicitly combine ethnobotanical and phylogenetic information are scarce.Methodology/Principal FindingsIn this study, we borrowed tools from community ecology phylogenetics to quantify significance of phylogenetic signal in medicinal properties in plants and identify nodes on phylogenies with high bioscreening potential. To do this, we produced an ethnomedicinal review from extensive literature research and a multi-locus phylogenetic hypothesis for the pantropical genus Pterocarpus (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae). We demonstrate that species used to treat a certain conditions, such as malaria, are significantly phylogenetically clumped and we highlight nodes in the phylogeny that are significantly overabundant in species used to treat certain conditions. These cross-cultural patterns in ethnomedicinal usage in Pterocarpus are interpreted in the light of phylogenetic relationships.Conclusions/SignificanceThis study provides techniques that enable the application of phylogenies in bioscreening, but also sheds light on the processes that shape cross-cultural ethnomedicinal patterns. This community phylogenetic approach demonstrates that similar ethnobotanical uses can arise in parallel in different areas where related plants are available. With a vast amount of ethnomedicinal and phylogenetic information available, we predict that this field, after further refinement of the techniques, will expand into similar research areas, such as pest management or the search for bioactive plant-based compounds.

Bayesian, maximum-likelihood, and maximum-parsimony phylogenies, constructed using nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene region trnK-matK, are employed to investigate relationships within the Cactaceae. These phylogenies sample 666 plants representing 532 of the 1438 species recognized in the family. All four subfamilies, all nine tribes, and 69% of currently recognized genera of Cactaceae are sampled. We found strong support for three of the four currently recognized subfamilies, although relationships between subfamilies were not well defined. Major clades recovered within the largest subfamilies, Opuntioideae and Cactoideae, are reviewed; only three of the nine currently accepted tribes delimited within these subfamilies, the Cacteae, Rhipsalideae, and Opuntieae, are monophyletic, although the Opuntieae were recovered in only the Bayesian and maximum-likelihood analyses, not in the maximum-parsimony analysis, and more data are needed to reveal the status of the Cylindropuntieae, which may yet be monophyletic. Of the 42 genera with more than one exemplar in our study, only 17 were monophyletic; 14 of these genera were from subfamily Cactoideae and three from subfamily Opuntioideae. We present a synopsis of the status of the currently recognized genera.