MorphoBank Datasets 2015
DOI: 10.7934/p2075
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterizing Quantitative Variation in the Glossopodia of Three Western North American Isoëtes Species (project)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Within the Isoetes crown group, no morphological features clearly divide different clades [18,42,58]. A number of features vary between taxa and clades, such as corm lobation and glossopodium structure, but these are either not widely characterised across the genus or show multiple transitions within clades [52,120]. The fossil record therefore does not allow implementing hard minimum ages for nodes within Isoetes.…”
Section: Calibration Pointsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within the Isoetes crown group, no morphological features clearly divide different clades [18,42,58]. A number of features vary between taxa and clades, such as corm lobation and glossopodium structure, but these are either not widely characterised across the genus or show multiple transitions within clades [52,120]. The fossil record therefore does not allow implementing hard minimum ages for nodes within Isoetes.…”
Section: Calibration Pointsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these cases, small population size and genetic drift might be driving speciation. As more is learned about overlooked morphological characters, molecular phylogenies could gain additional support (Freund 2016, Bray et al 2018). The addition of unsampled (i.e., I. texana and I. mattaponica) and potentially unrecognized taxa (e.g., a unique population of I. melanospora in South Carolina, Taylor et al 1993) to this phylogeny could further enhance our understanding of the evolution of diploid Isoëtes in the southeastern USA.…”
Section: Character State Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even characters once thought to be useful in delimiting natural groups within the genus, such as habitat (Engelmann, 1882) or megaspore morphology (Pfeiffer, 1922), have been found to be labile (Cox and Hickey, 1984;Taylor and Hickey, 1992;Budke et al, 2005;Hickey, 2007;Bagella et al, 2011). And while some characters such as the glossopodium (the portion of the ligule internal to the leaf) have shown some potential (Sharma and Singh, 1984;Pant et al, 2000;Shaw and Hickey, 2005;Singh et al, 2010;Freund, 2016), actually examining and interpreting these structures requires considerable histological and computational effort, making them ill-suited for field identification. This absence of consistent, dependable characters creates a paradox: the lack of reliable traits impedes the inference of phylogenies or classifications in the genus, but without a phylogeny, examining character evolution is exceptionally difficult.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%