2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107341
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New insights into the phylogeny and evolution of Podocarpaceae inferred from transcriptomic data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 122 publications
1
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, we classify the two families in the order Araucariales. In addition, we classified the family Podocarpaceae according to a recent phylogenomic study that resulted in robust intergeneric relationships within the family ( Chen et al., 2022 ).…”
Section: Recent Advancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hence, we classify the two families in the order Araucariales. In addition, we classified the family Podocarpaceae according to a recent phylogenomic study that resulted in robust intergeneric relationships within the family ( Chen et al., 2022 ).…”
Section: Recent Advancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clade color indicates subclasses. Relationships are basically according to recent gymnosperm phylogenies ( Lu et al., 2014 ; Ran et al., 2018a ; Stull et al., 2021 ), Cupressaceae ( Mao et al., 2010 , 2012 , 2019 ), Cycadales ( Condamine et al., 2015 ), Pinaceae ( Ran et al., 2018b ), Podocarpaceae ( Chen et al., 2022 ). …”
Section: An Updated Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whether the temporal congruence between our inferences from molecular phylogenies and the fossil record is coincidental is difficult to assess; a single new Jurassic Podocarpaceae fossil with a reduced seed cone would complicate the concordance between molecular reconstructions and the fossil record with regards to seed number, as would molecular trees with different estimated divergence ages. Indeed, inferred Podocarpaceae divergence dates do vary considerably among studies; several (Quiroga et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2022) estimate older ages than our analysis while others estimate younger dates (Biffin et al, 2012;Klaus and Matzke, 2020). In these studies, the earliest shifts to reduced cones (corresponding to shifts 1 and 2 in Figure 3C) would have most likely occurred either between the 10.3389/fevo.2022.1058746…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Early to Late Jurassic (older inferred ages) or the middle to Late Cretaceous (younger ages). Taken at face value, the fossil record suggests that Jurassic splits between crown genera (e.g., Quiroga et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2022) are too old; with the exception of an undescribed possible Lepidothamnus from the mid-Cretaceous (Khan et al, 2022), the first fossils unambiguously assigned to extant genera appear only in the latest Cretaceous to Paleogene (Hill and Brodribb, 1999;Wilf, 2012;Wilf et al, 2017). On the other hand, the phylogenetic position of Jurassic and Cretaceous Podocarpaceae (e.g., Vishnu-Mittre, 1959;Archangelsky and Del Fueyo, 1989) is unresolved; they could in theory represent stem members of extant genera and it could then be argued that the Mesozoic fossil record is simply uninformative as to when deep divergences among extant clades and genera occurred.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation