Sapindales: Molecular Delimitation and Infraordinal Groups

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.An analysis of rbcL sequence data for representatives of families of putative sapindalean/rutalean affinity identified a robust clade of core "sapindalean" taxa that is sister to representatives of Malvales. The constitution of this clade approximates the broad concept of Sapindales (sensu Cronquist). Five lineages within the order are recognized: a "rutaceae" clade (Rutaceae, Cneoraceae, Ptaeroxylaceae, Simaroubaceae sensu stricto, and Meliaceae); a "sapindaceae" clade (Sapindaceae, Aceraceae, and Hippocastenaceae); Anacardiaceae plus Burseraceae; Kirkiaceae; and Zygophyllaceae pro parte. Relationships among these groups were only weakly resolved, but there was no support for the recognition of the two more narrowly defined orders, Rutales and Sapindales sensu stricto. Several families that have previously been allied to Sapindales or Rutales show no affinity to the core sapindalean taxa identified with the molecular data, and are excluded from the order: viz. Akaniaceae, Bretschneideraceae, Conneraceae, Coriariaceae, Melianthaceae, Meliosmaceae, Physenaceae, Rhabdodrendraceae, Sabiaceae, Staphyleaceae, Stylobasiaceae, Surianaceae, and Zygophyllaceae sensu stricto.

Chilean Pitavia more closely related to Oceania and Old World Rutaceae than to Neotropical groups: evidence from two cpDNA non-coding regions, with a new subfamilial classification of the family

“…Sequences from Cneorum and Ptaeroxylon are also included in the matrix, since these families have been included in Rutaceae (Chase et al 1999; Groppo et al 2008, APG III 2009, Appelhans et al 2010). Carapa , Cedrela , and Guarea (Meliaceae), Simaba (Simaroubaceae sensu stricto, Fernando and Quinn 1995), and Cupania and Allophylus (Sapindaceae), all from families consistently included in Sapindales (Gadek et al 1996, APG III 2009) were used as outgroups in all analyses. Thus, a total of 61 terminals (including Pitavia ) were used (55 of Rutaceae in 53 genera, and six of Meliaceae, Sapindaceae, and Simaroubaceae).…”

Krameriaceae

“…However, cytological studies prompted Turner (1958) to re-segregate the genus into a monotypic family. By contrast, recent molecular data from rbcL sequences suggest that the sister group to Krameriaceae are Zyophyllaceae (Chase et al 1993;Gadek et al 1996;Savolainen, Fay et al 2000), although this relationship does not appear to be close. However, relationships of the family remained problematic.…”

Phylogeny of Acronychia (Rutaceae) and First Insights into Its Historical Biogeography and the Evolution of Fruit Characters

“…Most botanists in the 20 th century largely adopted Engler´s system (e.g., [16, 17, 18]), until analyses of secondary compounds provided evidence for the artificiality of the system [19, 20, 21, 22]. Molecular phylogenetic studies supported the chemosystematic studies and revealed that Rutoideae and Toddalioideae are largely intermixed, and that Aurantioideae is the only non-monogeneric subfamily that can be regarded as monophyletic [23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. …”