BioOne.org will be down briefly for maintenance on 14 May 2025 between 18:00-22:00 Pacific Time US. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Registered users receive a variety of benefits including the ability to customize email alerts, create favorite journals list, and save searches.
Please note that a BioOne web account does not automatically grant access to full-text content. An institutional or society member subscription is required to view non-Open Access content.
Contact helpdesk@bioone.org with any questions.
Russell L. Barrett, James A. R. Clugston, Lindy A. Orthia, Lyn G. Cook, Michael D. Crisp, Brendan J. Lepschi, Terry D. Macfarlane, Peter H. Weston, Carolyn F. Wilkins
Circumscription of the large genus Pultenaea Sm. has been contentious since shortly after description. We draw on recently generated phylogenomic data to provide a fully resolved phylogeny of Pultenaea and related genera based on near-complete species level sampling for the genus. Phylogenomic data divide Pultenaea sens. lat. into five independent lineages, corresponding to previously identified clades, that we recognise as distinct genera. Pultenaea sens. str. contains most of the currently recognised species and as circumscribed here, all of the species are endemic to eastern Australia except for P. tenuifolia R.Br. & Sims that extends across the Nullarbor into Western Australia. The genus Euchilus R.Br. is reinstated for eight species, all endemic to south-west Western Australia except for E. elachistus (F.Muell.) R.L.Barrett & Orthia that also occurs in South Australia. Three new genera are described, with all of the constituent species endemic to south-west Western Australia: Grievea R.L.Barrett, Clugston & Orthia, with two species, Jennata R.L.Barrett, Clugston & Orthia, with nine species and Loricobbia R.L.Barrett, Clugston & Orthia with six species. Pultenaea adunca Turcz. remains unplaced but we exclude this species from our concept of Pultenaea. Twenty-one new combinations are made: Euchilus aridus (E.Pritz.) R.L.Barrett & Orthia, E. calycinus subsp. proxenus (Orthia & Chappill) Orthia & R.L.Barrett, E. daena (Orthia & Chappill) Orthia & R.L.Barrett, E. elachistus (F.Muell.) R.L.Barrett & Orthia, Grievea brachytropis (Benth. ex Lindl.) R.L.Barrett & Orthia, G. craigiana (C.F.Wilkins, Orthia & Crisp) Orthia & R.L.Barrett, Jennata brachyphylla (Turcz.) R.L.Barrett & Clugston, J. empetrifolia (Meisn.) R.L.Barrett & Clugston, J. ericifolia (Benth.) R.L.Barrett & Clugston, J. indira (Orthia & Crisp) Orthia & R.L.Barrett, J. indira subsp. monstrosita (Orthia) Orthia & R.L.Barrett, J. indira subsp. pudoides (Orthia) Orthia & R.L.Barrett, J. radiata (H.B.Will.) R.L.Barrett & Clugston, J. strobilifera (Meisn.) R.L.Barrett & Clugston, J. verruculosa (Turcz.) R.L.Barrett & Clugston, Loricobbia aspalathoides (Meisn.) R.L.Barrett & T.D.Macfarl., L. ochreata (Meisn.) R.L.Barrett & T.D.Macfarl., L. pauciflora (M.B.Scott) R.L.Barrett & T.D.Macfarl., L. pinifolia (Meisn.) R.L.Barrett & T.D.Macfarl., L. reticulata (Sm.) R.L.Barrett & T.D.Macfarl. and L. skinneri (F.Muell.) R.L.Barrett & T.D.Macfarl.
Different views on recognising taxa associated with the Campomanesia xanthocarpa group (Myrtaceae) demonstrate the difficulties in clearly delimiting species. Studies using Inter Simple Sequence Repeats (ISSR) molecular markers were carried out on 201 individuals from 13 populations of C. xanthocarpa Mart. ex O.Berg, C. adamantium (Cambess.) O.Berg, C. costata M.Ibrahim & Landrum and C. littoralis D.Legrand in an attempt to improve understanding of species boundaries between these species. SplitsTree, analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), principal component analysis (PCA), Neighbour-Joining (NJ) dendrogram and STRUCTURE showed inconsistencies between morphological and genetic data in these taxa. Therefore C. adamantium and C. xanthocarpa are treated as distinct taxa in this study, as are C. costata, C. littoralis and C. rhombea O.Berg that were previously considered part of C. xanthocarpa. Structured populations in C. adamantium were not congruent with taxonomic data or poorly supported in the data analysed. These were maintained as a single polymorphic species and new integrative approaches are necessary to improve understanding of taxon boundaries. We present a taxonomic treatment based on these decisions. This study contributes to the systematic treatment of Campomanesia and encourages specific delimitation studies to resolve remaining taxonomic issues within the genus.
This article is only available to subscribers. It is not available for individual sale.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have
purchased or subscribe to this BioOne eBook Collection. You are receiving
this notice because your organization may not have this eBook access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users-please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
Additional information about institution subscriptions can be foundhere
