Flora do Espírito Santo: Campomanesia (Myrtaceae)

Luber, Jaquelini; Oliveira, Marla Ibrahim Uehbe de; Ferreira, Márcia Flores da Silva; Carrijo, Tatiana Tavares

doi:10.1590/2175-7860201768514

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Campomanesia laurifolia resembles C. sepalifolia mainly by possessing elliptical leaf blades with well-marked venation, and by having fruit with an elongated base. However, C. sepalifolia differs by having membranaceous sepals with a leafy aspect and a cordiform base, and persistent bracts in the fruits (Luber et al 2017). The molecular data confirmed the similarity of these species, but also revealed differences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…In the same way, morphological similarity and the occurrence in similar environments have made it difficult to distinguish C. anemonea and C. macrobracteolata. These species both possess obovate or ovate leaf blades, occasionally dichasial inflorescences and ornate fruit, plus both occur in forest and sandy coastal vegetation formations (see Landrum 2001;Oliveira et al 2012;Luber et al 2017). The similarity between these two species was further supported by molecular data, since just two of the nine microsatellite loci amplified did not amplify equally for both species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Campomanesia phaea and C. sessiliflora formed a distinct group based on morphological data, sharing lanceolate and minute opposite-crossed leaves (Oliveira et al 2012), and large, soft, and fresh fruits (Luber et al 2017). Despite these morphological similarities, nine microsatellites that amplified for C. sessiliflora did not amplify for C. phaea.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twelve species of the genus Campomanesia were selected for study including: (1) pairs of morphologically similar species [C. anemonea Landrum and C. macrobracteolata Landrum; and C. eugenioides Morphological data were obtained from descriptions made under taxonomic-floristic studies of the genus Campomanesia (Luber et al 2017) and through consultation of materials in the RB herbarium. A matrix of 48 qualitative morphological characters was constructed using data obtained from vegetative and reproductive structures (see Supplementary Material 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Campomanesia Ruiz & Pavón (Myrtaceae) is a genus of Myrtaceae well-delimited by morphology, but the boundaries among some of its species remain poorly understood (Landrum 1986); some species differ in subtle characters, while others exhibit significant intraspecific morphological variation (Luber et al 2017). In both cases, the results lead to some dubious taxonomic circumscriptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Species delimitation within Campomanesia (Myrtaceae) using morphology and amplification profiles of microsatellite markers

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Campomanesia is a well-circumscribed genus within Myrtaceae, but the boundaries among some of its species remain poorly understood. Microsatellite amplification profiles have proven useful DNA fingerprinting for plant species identification, but have never been applied to the taxonomy of this genus. Here we studied 12 species of Campomanesia, including a set of related and non-related species, as well as species with doubtful boundaries. Forty-eight morphological characters and 50 primers were used to test the species. A cluster analysis followed by a group sharpness test and a heat map analysis was performed with both sets of data. A regression tree was constructed using only on the molecular data. Seven groups based on morphological characters and five groups based on molecular characters were revealed by cluster analysis and the sharpness group test. The microsatellite amplification profiles were efficient at distinguishing the studied species, despite the smaller number of distinct groups formed by this marker compared with the morphological data. Among the 50 primers included, 13 were informative for species distinction, and 10 were indicated by the regression tree to species identification. Microsatellite amplification profiles proved to be an informative tool for the taxonomy of Campomanesia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%