The Boraginales are now universally accepted as monophyletic and firmly placed in Lamiidae. However, a consensus about familial classification has remained elusive, with some advocating recognition of a single, widely variable family, and others proposing recognition of several distinct families. A consensus classification is proposed here, based on recent molecular phylogenetic studies, morphological characters, and taking nomenclatural stability into consideration. We suggest the recognition of eleven, morphologically well-defined and clearly monophyletic families, namely the Boraginaceae s.str., Codonaceae, Coldeniaceae fam. nov., Cordiaceae, Ehretiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, Lennoaceae, Namaceae, and Wellstediaceae. Descriptions, synonomy, a taxonomic key, and a list of genera for these eleven families are provided, including the new family Coldeniaceae (monogeneric) and Namaceae (segregated from Hydrophyllaceae and comprising Nama, Eriodictyon, Turricula, and Wigandia), the latter necessitating a revised circumscription of a more morphologically coherent Hydrophyllaceae. Keywords angiosperms; Boraginaceae; Boraginales; classification; family; plant taxonomy Boraginales Working Group • Families of Boraginales 503Version of Record TAXON 65 (3) • June 2016: 502-522 Boraginaceae in this traditional sense (Candolle, 1845; Bentham & Hooker, 1876;Gürke, 1893;Engler, 1898;Pilger & Krause, 1915) were subdivided into five subfamilies, namely Boraginoideae, Cordioideae, Ehretioideae, Heliotropioideae and Wellstedioideae. In pre-molecular times most scientists accepted this circumscription of Boraginaceae (e.g., Chadefaud & Emberger, 1960;Melchior, 1964b;Takhtajan, 1980Takhtajan, , 1997 Cronquist, 1981 Cronquist, , 1988Thorne, 1992), although some authors recognized one or the other subfamily at the family level. For example, Svensson (1925) andDi Fulvio (1978) removed Cordioideae, Heliotropioideae and Ehretioideae to Heliotropi aceae based on embryological studies, while Merxmüller (1960), Dahlgren (1980), and Takhtajan (1987) treated Wellstedioideae at the family level as Wellstediaceae. Conversely, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, and Lennoaceae were generally accepted as distinct families. However, the close relationships of these taxa to traditional Boraginaceae has been widely acknowledged by several authors (e.g., Jussieu, 1789; Baillon, 1891;Peter, 1893;Svensson, 1925; Chadefaud & Emberger, 1960; Melchior, 1964a, c;Takhtajan, 1980; Cronquist, 1981 Cronquist, , 1988. For example, Baillon (1891) defined the Boraginaceae as comprising nine series, which included both Boraginaceae and Hydrophyllaceae in their traditional circumscriptions. Chadefaud & Emberger (1960) considered Boraginaceae, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, and Lennoaceae to form a natural group within the order Tubiflorales. Takhtajan (1980) included these same families in the suborder Boraginineae.On the other hand, three groups historically associated to Boraginaceae have been clearly sho...

Boraginaceae s.str. is a subcosmopolitan family of 1600 to 1700 species in around 90 genera, and recent phylogenetic studies indicate that the infrafamilial classification as currently used is highly obsolete. The present study addresses the relationships of the major clades in Boraginaceae s.str. with an emphasis on monophyly of, and relationships between previously recognized clades and the position of various unplaced genera such as Afrotysonia, Anoplocaryum, Brachybotrys, Chionocharis, Craniospermum, Thyrocarpus, and Trigonocaryum using three plastid markers and a taxon sampling with four outgroup and 170 ingroup species from 73 genera. The phylogeny shows high statistical support for most nodes on the backbone and within individual clades. Echiochileae are confirmed as sister to the remainder of Boraginaceae s.str., which, in turn, fall into two well‐supported clades, the Boragineae + Lithospermeae and the Cynoglosseae s.l. The latter is highly resolved and includes the Lasiocaryum‐clade (Chionocharis, Lasiocaryum, Microcaryum) and the Trichodesmeae (Caccinia, Trichodesma) as sister to the remainder of the group. Rochelieae (formerly the Eritrichieae s.str., also including Eritrichium, Hackelia, and Lappula) form a poorly supported polytomy together with the Mertensia‐clade (also including Anoplocaryum, Asperugo, and Memoremea) and the Omphalodes‐clade. The enigmatic genus Craniospermum (Craniospermeae) is sister to an expanded Myosotideae (also including Brachybotrys, Decalepidanthus, Trigonocaryum, and Trigonotis) and these two clades are in turn sister to the Core‐Cynoglosseae, in which Afrotysonia glochidiata and Thyrocarpus sampsonii are included. Core‐Cynoglosseae again fall into two pairs of well‐supported subclades. The majority of generic placements are now resolved satisfactorily and the remaining phylogenetic questions can be clearly delimited. Based on the extensive phylogenetic data now available we propose a new infrafamilial classification into three subfamilies and 11 tribes, representing a consensus among the participating authors, according to which major clades are renamed.

• Premise of the study: As systematists grapple with how to best harness the power of next-generation sequencing (NGS), a deluge of review papers, methods, and analytical tools make choosing the right method difficult. Oreocarya (Boraginaceae), a genus of 63 species, is a good example of a group lacking both species-level resolution and genomic resources. The use of Geneious removes bioinformatic barriers and makes NGS genome skimming accessible to even the least tech-savvy systematists.• Methods: A combination of de novo and reference-guided assemblies was used to process 100-bp single-end Illumina HiSeq 2000 reads. A subset of 25 taxa was used to test the suitability of genome skimming for future systematic studies in recalcitrant lineages like Oreocarya.• Results: The nuclear ribosomal cistron, the plastome, and 12 mitochondrial genes were recovered from all 25 taxa. All data processing and phylogenomic analyses were performed in Geneious. We report possible future multiplexing levels and published low-copy nuclear genes represented within de novo contigs.• Discussion: Genome skimming represents a much-improved primary data collection over PCR+Sanger sequencing when chloroplast DNA (cpDNA), nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA), and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) are the target sequences. This study details methods that plant systematists can employ to study their own taxa of interest.

No abstract