2012
DOI: 10.1600/036364412x648562
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogenetic Relationships and Evolution in the Strelitziaceae (Zingiberales)

Abstract: Evolutionary trends and phylogenetic relationships in the Strelitziaceae (Zingiberales) were investigated using sequence data from ten plastid and two nuclear regions and a morphological dataset. The status of species of Strelitzia were evaluated in terms of the phylogenetic species concept. Relationships among the genera remain equivocal with two hypotheses emerging: (i) Strelitzia sister to a clade comprising Raivnala and Phenakospermum when indels are included, or (ii) Ravenala sister to the remainder of th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
13
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
1
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The coalescent analysis using ASTRAL-II did not show support for some relationships, but the validity of applying these approaches remains unclear ( Gatesy & Springer, 2013 ; Gatesy & Springer, 2014 ; Mirarab et al, 2014 ). Importantly, the relationships found here are not in conflict with existing well supported hypotheses for generic-level relationships ( Kress, Prince & Williams, 2002 ; Johansen, 2005 ; Prince & Kress, 2006 ; Specht, 2006 ; Kress et al, 2007 ; Prince, 2010 ; Li et al, 2010 ; Cron et al, 2012 ), indicating that our method is identifying orthologs and that the data produced should be useful at finer phylogenetic scales as well a deep ones.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…The coalescent analysis using ASTRAL-II did not show support for some relationships, but the validity of applying these approaches remains unclear ( Gatesy & Springer, 2013 ; Gatesy & Springer, 2014 ; Mirarab et al, 2014 ). Importantly, the relationships found here are not in conflict with existing well supported hypotheses for generic-level relationships ( Kress, Prince & Williams, 2002 ; Johansen, 2005 ; Prince & Kress, 2006 ; Specht, 2006 ; Kress et al, 2007 ; Prince, 2010 ; Li et al, 2010 ; Cron et al, 2012 ), indicating that our method is identifying orthologs and that the data produced should be useful at finer phylogenetic scales as well a deep ones.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…The coalescent analysis using ASTRAL-II did not show support for some relationships, but the validity of applying these approaches remains unclear (Gatesy & Springer, 2013, 2014Mirarab et al, 2014). Importantly, the relationships found here are not in conflict with existing well supported hypotheses for generic-level relationships (Kress, Prince & Williams, 2002;Johansen, 2005;Prince & Kress, 2006;Specht, 2006;Kress et al, 2007;Prince, 2010;Li et al, 2010;Cron et al, 2012), indicating that our method is identifying orthologs and that the data produced should be useful at finer phylogenetic scales as well a deep ones.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…To extrapolate consistency, homoplasy and retention indices, intrafamiliar relationships were established based on the following studies: Cannaceae (Prince, 2010), Costaceae (Specht, 2006), Marantaceae (Prince and Kress, 2006), Musaceae (Liu et al , 2010), Strelitziaceae (Cron et al , 2012), Zingiberaceae (Wood et al , 2000; Kress et al , 2002, 2007; Leong-Škorničková et al, 2011). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%