Camellia neriifolia and Camellia ilicifolia (Theaceae) as separate species: evidence from morphology, anatomy, palynology, molecular systematics.

IF 3.4 3区 生物学 Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Botanical Studies Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1186/s40529-024-00430-2
Zhaohui Ran, Zhi Li, Xu Xiao, Ming Tang
{"title":"Camellia neriifolia and Camellia ilicifolia (Theaceae) as separate species: evidence from morphology, anatomy, palynology, molecular systematics.","authors":"Zhaohui Ran, Zhi Li, Xu Xiao, Ming Tang","doi":"10.1186/s40529-024-00430-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The systematic status of sect. Tuberculata and its taxonomy have recently attracted considerable attention. However, the different bases for defining the characteristics of sect. Tuberculata has led to many disagreements among the plants in this group. Camellia neriifolia and Camellia ilicifolia have been the subject of taxonomic controversy and have been treated as different species or varieties of the same species. Therefore, it is important to use multiple methods, i.e., integrative taxonomy, to determine the taxonomic status of C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia. This is the first study to systematically explore the taxonomic position of these two plants on the basis of Morphology, Anatomy, Palynology and Molecular Systematics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Extensive specimen reviews and field surveys showed that many differences exist in C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia, such as the number of trunk (heavily debarked vs. slightly peeling), leaf type (smooth thin leathery, shiny vs. smooth leathery, obscure or slightly shiny), leaf margin (entire vs. serrate), flower type (subsessile vs. sessile), number of styles (3-4 vs. 3), and sepal (ovate vs. round). Moreover, C. neriifolia has a more distinctive faint yellow flower color, and trunk molting was more severe in C. neriifolia than that in C. ilicifolia. In addition, micromorphological analysis of the leaf epidermis showed that the two species differed in the anticlinal wall, stomatal apparatus, and stomatal cluster, and pollen morphology analyses based on pollen size, germination furrow, and polar and equatorial axes showed that they are both distinct from each other. The results of the phylogenetic tree constructed based on the whole chloroplast genome, protein-coding genes, and ITS2 showed that both C. ilicifolia and C. neriifolia were clustered in different branches and gained high support.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results combine morphology, anatomy, palynology, and molecular systematics to treat both C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia as separate species in the sect. Tuberculata, and the species names continue to be used as they were previously. In conclusion, clarifying the taxonomic status of C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia deepens our understanding of the systematic classification of sect. Tuberculata.</p>","PeriodicalId":9185,"journal":{"name":"Botanical Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11266325/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Botanical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40529-024-00430-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The systematic status of sect. Tuberculata and its taxonomy have recently attracted considerable attention. However, the different bases for defining the characteristics of sect. Tuberculata has led to many disagreements among the plants in this group. Camellia neriifolia and Camellia ilicifolia have been the subject of taxonomic controversy and have been treated as different species or varieties of the same species. Therefore, it is important to use multiple methods, i.e., integrative taxonomy, to determine the taxonomic status of C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia. This is the first study to systematically explore the taxonomic position of these two plants on the basis of Morphology, Anatomy, Palynology and Molecular Systematics.

Results: Extensive specimen reviews and field surveys showed that many differences exist in C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia, such as the number of trunk (heavily debarked vs. slightly peeling), leaf type (smooth thin leathery, shiny vs. smooth leathery, obscure or slightly shiny), leaf margin (entire vs. serrate), flower type (subsessile vs. sessile), number of styles (3-4 vs. 3), and sepal (ovate vs. round). Moreover, C. neriifolia has a more distinctive faint yellow flower color, and trunk molting was more severe in C. neriifolia than that in C. ilicifolia. In addition, micromorphological analysis of the leaf epidermis showed that the two species differed in the anticlinal wall, stomatal apparatus, and stomatal cluster, and pollen morphology analyses based on pollen size, germination furrow, and polar and equatorial axes showed that they are both distinct from each other. The results of the phylogenetic tree constructed based on the whole chloroplast genome, protein-coding genes, and ITS2 showed that both C. ilicifolia and C. neriifolia were clustered in different branches and gained high support.

Conclusions: The results combine morphology, anatomy, palynology, and molecular systematics to treat both C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia as separate species in the sect. Tuberculata, and the species names continue to be used as they were previously. In conclusion, clarifying the taxonomic status of C. neriifolia and C. ilicifolia deepens our understanding of the systematic classification of sect. Tuberculata.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将山茶花(Theaceae)和山茶花(Camellia neriifolia)作为独立种:来自形态学、解剖学、古植物学和分子系统学的证据。
背景:科的系统地位及其分类最近引起了广泛关注。Tuberculata 的系统地位及其分类最近引起了相当大的关注。然而,定义 Tuberculata 科特征的依据各不相同,导致该科植物之间存在许多分歧。Tuberculata 科的植物之间存在许多分歧。山茶(Camellia neriifolia)和山茶(Camellia ilicifolia)在分类学上一直存在争议,被视为不同的种或同一物种的变种。因此,使用多种方法(即综合分类法)确定 C. neriifolia 和 C. ilicifolia 的分类地位非常重要。这是首次根据形态学、解剖学、古植物学和分子系统学对这两种植物的分类地位进行系统探讨的研究:neriifolia 和 C. ilicifolia 存在许多差异,如树干数量(严重剥皮与轻微剥皮)、叶片类型(光滑薄革质、有光泽与光滑革质、不明显或轻微有光泽)、叶缘(全缘与有锯齿)、花朵类型(近无柄与无柄)、花柱数量(3-4 个与 3 个)和萼片(卵形与圆形)。此外,C. neriifolia 的花色为淡黄色,且树干蜕皮比 C. ilicifolia 严重。此外,对叶表皮的微形态分析表明,两种植物在反叶壁、气孔器和气孔簇方面存在差异,而根据花粉大小、萌发沟、极轴和赤道轴进行的花粉形态分析表明,两种植物彼此不同。基于全叶绿体基因组、蛋白编码基因和 ITS2 构建的系统发生树结果显示,C. ilicifolia 和 C. neriifolia 被聚类在不同的分支中,并获得了较高的支持度:结论:结合形态学、解剖学、古植物学和分子系统学的研究结果,将 C. neriifolia 和 C. ilicifolia 视为 Tuberculata 科中的独立种,并将其命名为 C. Neriifolia 和 C. ilicifolia。Tuberculata,而种名仍沿用以前的名称。总之,澄清 C. neriifolia 和 C. ilicifolia 的分类地位加深了我们对 Tuberculata 科系统分类的理解。Tuberculata 的系统分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Botanical Studies
Botanical Studies 生物-植物科学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
32
审稿时长
2.4 months
期刊介绍: Botanical Studies is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of botany, including but not limited to taxonomy, morphology, development, genetics, evolution, reproduction, systematics, and biodiversity of all plant groups, algae, and fungi. The journal is affiliated with the Institute of Plant and Microbial Biology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
期刊最新文献
Proximal aperture in Cephalanthera longifolia (L.) Fritsch (Orchidaceae) pollen: a rare germination site for angiosperms. Plant-derived saponins and their prospective for cosmetic and personal care products. Identification of powdery mildew resistance quantitative trait loci in melon and development of resistant near-isogenic lines through marker-assisted backcrossing. An efficient and easy-to-use protocol for induction of haploids in cucumber through parthenogenic embryo development. Pollinator behaviour and prevalence of the anther smut Antherospora vindobonensis in its host, the Hungarian two-leaf squill (Scilla vindobonensis).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1