2011
DOI: 10.1007/s12374-011-9152-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Major Lineages of the Genus Lilium (Liliaceae) Based on nrDNA ITS Sequences, with Special Emphasis on the Korean Species

Abstract: We present most comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of 196 accessions of Lilium representing 83 species and 14 varieties of Lilium and three outgroup genera (Cardiocrinum, Notholirion, and Fritillaria) to investigate infrageneric relationships within Lilium as well as to determine the origin and evolution of Korean species of Lilium. We used the internal transcribed spacer sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA and phylogenetic analysis using maximum parsimony and Bayesian inference identified several major lineag… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

8
35
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
8
35
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Also our findings supports to place L. candidum in a separate section. But recent molecular studies performed on Turkish (İkinci 2005Ikinci et al 2006) and non Turkish Lilium representatives (Nishikawa et al 2001;Rønsted et al 2005;Resetnik et al 2007;Muratovic et al 2010b;Lee et al 2011;Gao et al 2012) supported Comber's (1949) view. In contrast to the above mentioned molecular studies, Muratović et al (2010c) indicated that L. candidum presents a particular pattern quite different from other European representatives of the sect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Also our findings supports to place L. candidum in a separate section. But recent molecular studies performed on Turkish (İkinci 2005Ikinci et al 2006) and non Turkish Lilium representatives (Nishikawa et al 2001;Rønsted et al 2005;Resetnik et al 2007;Muratovic et al 2010b;Lee et al 2011;Gao et al 2012) supported Comber's (1949) view. In contrast to the above mentioned molecular studies, Muratović et al (2010c) indicated that L. candidum presents a particular pattern quite different from other European representatives of the sect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…But a more detailed and acceptable classification was proposed by Comber (1949) with seven sections based on combination of 13 morphological characteristics and two germination types. The infrageneric treatment of Comber (1949) has been supported by some molecular studies of Nishikawa et al (2001), Ikinci (2005Ikinci ( , 2011, Ikinci et al (2006), Rønsted et al (2005), Resetnik et al (2007), Muratovic et al (2010b), Lee et al (2011) and Gao et al (2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Liang (1984) and Liang and Tamura (2000) mentioned the possibility of combining Lilium and Nomocharis, but opted to retain two separate genera pending phylogenetic investigations. Since then, evidence from molecular phylogenetic studies shows that Nomocharis may be nested within Lilium and supports redefining Lilium to include Nomocharis (Nishikawa et al, 1999(Nishikawa et al, , 2001Hayashi and Kawano, 2000;Lee et al, 2011;Gao et al, 2012). In most previous phylogenetic studies, sampling of Nomocharis was limited to one or two species and authors asserted that additional sampling was needed before making taxonomic revisions (Nishikawa et al, 1999(Nishikawa et al, , 2001Hayashi and Kawano, 2000;Rønsted et al, 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This section was considered to be very closely related to section Martagon because of whorled leaves (Comber 1949;Lighty 1968). However, the most recent phylogenetic analyses using molecular markers indicated that both the sections are distantly related (Hayashi and Kawano 2000;Lee et al 2011;Gao et al 2013;Du et al 2014). Lilium pardalinum Kellogg belongs to the section Pseudolirium and is native to the Pacific Coast of the United States, growing in woodland near streams (McRae et al 1998).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%