Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2016 Molecular Phylogeny of Pectis (Tageteae, Asteraceae), a C4 Genus of the Neotropics, and its Sister Genus Porophyllum
Debra R. Hansen, Robert K. Jansen, Rowan F. Sage, José Luis Villaseñor, Beryl B. Simpson
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Pectis is a genus of ±90 xeric adapted New World species. Previous molecular phylogenetic studies showed Pectis closely related to Porophyllum, and one analysis resolved Porophyllum species nested within Pectis. Some Pectis species are known to use C4 photosynthesis. Here we investigate the phylogeny of Pectis and Porophyllum, examine the ploidy levels and geographical distribution of Pectis species in light of its phylogeny, and infer the origin and extent of C4 photosynthesis in both genera. Chloroplast and ITS data from 78 Pectis and 22 Porophyllum species were used to test the monophyly of Pectis and its previously described sections. Carbon isotope data were obtained to infer the photosynthetic pathway of 80 species, and the results mapped on the inferred phylogenies to determine the timing and pattern of evolution of the C4 pathway. The ITS dataset supports a monophyletic Pectis sister to a monophyletic Porophyllum, while the chloroplast dataset places two Porophyllum species sister to a combined Pectis Porophyllum clade. Five well-supported lineages are recovered in Pectis. All Pectis sampled have ∂13C values consistent with C4 photosynthesis, and all Porophyllum species sampled have ∂13C values consistent with C3 photosynthesis. We conclude that Pectis is monophyletic but only two of its recognized sections are monophyletic. Porophyllum is monophyletic but its sections are not. Porophyllum amplexicaule and Pr. scoparium should be treated as members of a new genus. The switch to the C4 pathway in Pectis happened in the late Miocene, probably in north/central Mexico, at or after the divergence of Pectis and Porophyllum. This location and timing is consistent with the evolution of C4 photosynthesis in other North American eudicot lineages, suggesting similar environmental conditions may underlie the switch to C4 photosynthesis.

Pectis L. is the largest genus in the marigold tribe (Pectidinae: Tageteae: Asteraceae), and comprises about 90 annual and perennial species (Keil, 2006) adapted to warm, arid regions of the New World. Species are found in deserts, thorn scrub, coastal plains, savannas, and openings in seasonally dry tropical forests and oak-pine woodlands. Pectis is most diverse in Mexico and the Caribbean, but its species range from Wyoming and Nebraska in the U.S. to southern Brazil and northern Argentina. Two species are endemic to the Galapagos, one is introduced in Hawaii, and one has recently been naturalized in Taiwan (Jung et al., 2011). Pectis is distinguished from the other Tageteae by its combination of simple, opposite leaves with pairs of bristles at their bases; phyllaries that are each adnate to, and subtend the base of, a ray floret (often falling as a single unit at maturity) and very short and often densely papillose style branches. Most Pectis species have noticeable oil glands on their phyllaries and on the margins or undersides of their leaves, a character they share with other genera in Tageteae subtribe Pectidinae. The oil of Pectis species often has a strong medicinal, spicy, or lemony scent, and various Pectis species have traditional culinary or medicinal uses (Asprey & Thornton, 1953; Bye, 1996). A few species have a distasteful odor likened to that of stinkbugs, leading to the common name “cinchweed.” Pectis angustifolia has a high thimole content (Albers, 1942), and Pectis papposa has been suggested as a potential source of commercial food and beverage flavoring because of its high cumaldehyde and carvone content (Bradley & Haagen-Smit, 1949). Phototoxic, antibacterial, and antifungal properties of Pectis oil have been reported (Downum et al., 1985; Downum & Rodriquez, 1986; Downum et al., 1989; da Silva et al., 2005; Soares et al., 2009). Pectis is noteworthy because some species previously surveyed were shown to use C4 photosynthesis, a photosynthetic pathway that confers enhanced efficiency in conditions of high heat and high light intensity (Sage et al., 2011). C4 photosynthesis is uncommon in eudicots, and especially rare in the Asteraceae, in which just 0.3% of the genera use the C4 pathway (Kellogg, 1999).

The goals of the present study were to clarify the relationship between Pectis and Porophyllum, test the monophyly of previously described generic subdivisions, and determine the age, origin, and extent of the evolution of C4 photosynthesis in Pectis. We primarily focused on the phylogeny of Pectis, but sampled deeply in Porophyllum to confirm the relationship between the two genera. Using a greatly expanded sample of 78 Pectis and 22 Porophyllum species and varieties, we provide the first molecular evidence for relationships within the genera, and suggest direction regarding sectional organization for both Pectis and Porophyllum. We also present carbon isotope values for 62 Pectis and 18 Porophyllum species and varieties, the first comprehensive survey of photosynthetic pathway for both genera.

Taxonomy. Linnaeus included two species of Caribbean Pectis (Pt. ciliaris L. and Pt. linifolia L.) when describing the genus in 1759. Pectis was included in the original circumscription of tribe Tageteae (Cassini, 1819) along with other former Heliantheae genera with leaves and phyllaries bearing glands. Based on molecular and morphological similarities, Panero (2007) included Tageteae in his Heliantheae Alliance, placing the traditional Tageteae genera, including Pectis and Porophyllum Guett., into subtribe Pectidinae.

The most extensive taxonomic treatments of Pectis are by Gray (1849, 1852, 1884, 1888), Fernald (1897), and Keil (1975, 1977a, 1978). Gray described six subgeneric divisions within Pectis based largely on differences in pappus elements (1849, 1852). By 1883 Gray recognized just three sections, Pt. sect. Eupectis, Pt. sect. Pectothrix, and Pt. sect. Pectidium. In 1897 Fernald elevated the sections to subgenera, and used pappus characters to assign 34 North American species to five subgenera: Eupectis, Heteropectis, Pectothrix, Pectidopsis (resurrected from Gray 1852) and Pectidium. Fernald’s treatment remains the most complete revision to date.

In the mid-70s, Keil revised four of the Pectis subgenera. For Pectis subg. Heteropectis (1975) and Pectidium ( =  Pt. sect. Pectis, Keil, 1978) he followed Fernald’s treatment of the species (two species in each section) but reduced the subgenera to sections. Although various workers used pappus characters to segregate Pectis into different genera (Lessing, 1830; de Candolle, 1836) or divide it into sections or subgenera (Gray, 1849, 1884; Fernald, 1897), these characters can be variable, even within populations. In 1977, Keil dismantled subgenera Pectothrix and Pectidopsis, using some species from each (as well as a few previously-unassigned taxa) to form a redefined Pt. sect. Pectothrix. Keil included species in Pt. sect. Pectothrix based on a combination of characters – position of foliar glands, shape of capitula, number of ray and disc florets, and corolla pubescence. In spite of these significant revisions, fewer than half of Pectis species have been assigned to sectional rank, and no treatment has covered the full geographic range of the genus.

Porophyllum is a genus of about 25 species of annual herbs and perennial shrubs (or subshrubs) found from the southwestern United States to southern Brazil, including the Caribbean islands. Some are arid-adapted but, unlike Pectis, many species of Porophyllum occur in mesic areas. Like Pectis, they have prominent oil glands on their leaves and phyllaries but in Porophyllum the scent is usually described as strong and unpleasant. The genus differs from others in the Tageteae by its combination of well-developed leaves, discoid heads, and a pappus entirely of bristles. In the most recent treatment of the genus, Johnson (1969) placed Porophyllum species into Pr. sect. Hunteria Moc. & Sessé (DC.) and Pr. sect. Porophyllum based primarily on leaf characters and habitat. Species of Pr. sect. Hunteria have thick leaves that are sessile to short-petioled, with narrow blades and are distributed in arid or semi-arid Mexico and the southwestern U.S. Species of Pr. sect. Porophyllum have thin, petioled leaves that are filiform to broad, and are distributed in South and Central America and in more mesic regions of North America.

Two molecular studies have included various Pectis and Porophyllum species. Baldwin et al. (2002) analyzed the helenioid Heliantheae using ITS data, and included one species each of Pectis and Porophyllum. Loockerman et al. (2003) used ITS and ndhF sequences to infer relationships within Tageteae and included six Pectis and four Porophyllum species. Both studies suggested a close relationship between Pectis and Porophyllum but Loockerman et al. (2003) found three Porophyllum species nested within Pectis, calling into question the monophyly of the two genera. However, both analyses had very small sample sizes and lacked strong support for their relationships. In the Loockerman et al. (2003) study, Porophyllum tridentatum was strongly supported as being sister to Leucactinia bracteata and Urbinella palmeri, and thus a new genus, Bajacalia, was erected for the three taxa.

Chromosome numbers in Pectis and Porophyllum. The base chromosome number for Pectis is x  =  12 (Keil, 1977). Of the 54 Pectis species and varieties for which chromosomes have been counted, 39 (72%) are diploid and 15 are polyploid (Appendix S2 in Supplemental Data with the online version of this article). Eight species are tetraploid, two of which (Pt. longipes and Pt. repens) have been reported as having diploid individuals as well. Six Pectis are hexaploid, among them Pt. saturejoides, which has also been reported as diploid. Pectis ericifolia is the only octoploid reported in the genus. Most Porophyllum species have a base number of x  =  12, but five species (Pr. lanceolatum, Pr. macrocephalum, Pr. punctatum, Pr. ruderale and Pr. viridiflorum) have been counted as x  =  11. Of these, Pr. punctatum and Pr. ruderale have also been reported with x  =  12 counts. Of the 14 Porophyllum species for which the ploidy level is known, nine are diploids, four are tetraploid and Pr. ruderale has been reported with diploid, triploid, and tetraploid counts. Porophyllum greggii is the only known hexaploid in the genus.

Photosynthetic pathway. C4 photosynthesis is a complex trait in which anatomical, chemical and regulatory modifications reorganize the first steps of carbon assimilation found in the C3 pathway. In C3 plants, the first enzyme involved in photosynthesis is Rubisco. In C4 photosynthesis, the first enzyme is PEP-C. Rubisco discriminates more against C13 than PEP-C does, and as a result, C4 plants have a higher proportion of C13 than C3 plants. This difference allows determination of the pathway used by a given plant by measuring the proportion of C13 in a tissue sample. Although C4 photosynthesis has arisen repeatedly and takes many different forms, there is a phylogenetic component to its distribution. The 65 C4 lineages occur in just 19 families (Sage et al., 2012). In the Asteraceae, one of the largest families of flowering plants, there are five C4 lineages that occur in just two tribes: Coreopsidae (in Chrysanthellum Pers., Glossogyne Cass., and Isostigma Less. of subtribe Chrysanthellinae) and Tageteae (in Flaveria Juss. of subtribe Flaveriinae and in Pectis of subtribe Pectidinae). The C4 genera in Chrysanthellinae form a monophyletic group and thus are thought to represent a single acquisition of the syndrome (Kimball & Crawford, 2004). However, based on phylogenetic analysis, C4 photosynthesis is thought to have multiple origins in Flaveria (McKown et al., 2005). Muhaidat et al. (2007) included Pectis glaucescens in their survey of C4 eudicots, and reported its chemical subtype as NADP-ME and its Kranz type as atriplicoid. This clustered phylogenetic distribution suggests an underlying predisposition toward C4 photosynthesis in certain clades. An evolutionary change in a common C3 ancestor might facilitate additional modifications down the line and could explain multiple origins of C4 among close relatives.

Just as there is a phylogenetic signal in the occurrence of C4 photosynthesis, the origin of the syndrome is clustered in particular geographic areas as well. The majority of New World C4 eudicot lineages arose in North America (Sage et al., 2011). The evolution of C4 lineages has been linked to the Oligocene decline of atmospheric CO2, but environmental factors such as heat, drought, and fire regime may have played a role (Osborne, 2011). Pollen records show that C4 grasses began to dominate just 8-3 mya (Cerling, 1999) but only recently have molecular studies allowed an estimate of the timing of their origin. The rise of C4 photosynthesis in monocots is estimated at 32.0–25.0 mya for Chloridoideae (Christin et al., 2008) and 10-20 mya for Cyperaceae (Besnard et al., 2009). Portulaca is the oldest known lineage of C4 eudicots, having diverged ± 30 mya (Ocampo & Columbus, 2010; Christin et al., 2011).

Much of our knowledge of the evolution of C4 photosynthesis is from Flaveria (Engelmann et al., 2003; Westhoff & Gowik, 2004; McKown et al., 2005; McKown & Dengler, 2007), which has both C3 and C4 species, as well as C3-C4 intermediates. The modifications in C3-C4 intermediates are thought to confer evolutionary benefits in their own right, and may leave C3-C4 intermediates in a more or less stable state of photosynthetic efficiency appropriate to their environment, with no momentum toward one or the other state. However, the development of fully functional C4 photosynthesis involves as a series of modifications, from changes in leaf anatomy to up-regulation and cell-specificity of C4 chemicals. C3-C4 intermediates may also represent snapshots of the process of evolution toward full C4 photosynthesis, with each state a precursor to full C4 functionality. With the benefit of a phylogeny to determine ancestral vs. derived states, one can trace anatomical and biochemical alterations that may predispose plants with intermediate traits to develop the full C4 pathway. This analysis has been done in Flaveria (Engelmann et al., 2003; Westhoff & Gowik, 2004; McKown et al., 2005; McKown & Dengler, 2007) with the resulting acquisition path outlined in Sage (2003) and Gowik and Westhoff (2011).

By expanding the focus to other C4 eudicots, we may see anatomical and physiological commonalities in the evolution of the C4 syndrome. Such studies are continuing in Amaranthaceae (Kadereit et al., 2003; Sage et al., 2007), Cleome (Brown et al., 2005; Marshall et al., 2007), Heliotropium (Vogan et al., 2007), and Molluginaceae (Christin et al., 2010). Each lineage examined will offer insights into C4 biology and evolution.

Materials and Methods

Taxon and marker selection. Our strategy was designed to sample as widely as possible both Pectis and Porophyllum, with the primary focus on Pectis. Roughly 230 names have been applied to various taxa in Pectis, ca. two thirds of which are considered taxonomic synonyms. Recent treatments and floras were utilized when deciding which species to include and which to treat as synonyms. For previously synonymized taxa that are wide-ranging, accessions from each region were included (when possible) to assess whether molecular data support their placement in synonymy. Since no single treatment covers Pectis throughout its range, Pectis species recognized by Aristeguieta (1964), Bautista (1987), Cabrera (1978), Jørgensen and León-Yánez (1999), Keil (1975, 1977a, 1978, 1996), and Liogier (1962, 1996, 2000) were sampled. Porophyllum species recognized by Johnson (1969) and Turner (1996) were also examined. Porophyllum tridentatum Benth., ( =  Bajacalia tridentatum (Benth.) Loockerman, B.L. Turner & R.K. Jansen was not included in our analysis of Porophyllum, as the molecular analysis of Loockerman et al. (2003) and cytological data (x  =  15) of Reveal & Moran (1977) suggested it is not closely related to the rest of Porophyllum.

Not all species were sampled, due either to rarity in the field, paucity of herbarium collections, or both. The final sampling included 78 species and varieties of Pectis, 22 of Porophyllum, and one species each of Chrysactinia A. Gray, Nicolletia A. Gray and Tagetes L. as outgroups. Thus, approximately 75% of both Pectis and Porophyllum species were included. Outgroups were chosen based on relationships indicated in Loockerman et al. 2003. Sampled taxa and voucher information with GenBank numbers are listed in Appendix 1.

For the molecular analyses we used loci that were 400-2,000 bases long and sufficiently variable to resolve relationships at the species level. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) was included because of its prior use in elucidation of sub-generic Asteraceae relationships (Baldwin, 1993; Baldwin et al., 2002) and ease of amplification from herbarium material. The chloroplast (CP) loci selected based on length and p-distance between species (Shaw et al., 2007; Timme et al., 2007; Hansen et al., 2009) were coding regions matK and 3’ ndhF, and the CP non-coding areas rpl16 intron, trnL-rpl32 spacer, 3’ trnV-ndhC spacer, 5’ trnY-rpoB spacer). Primer and locus information are summarized in Appendix S1 (see Supplemental Data with the online version of this article).

DNA isolation, PCR amplification, and sequencing. Total genomic DNA was extracted from ± 20 mg of dried leaves using Qiagen DNeasy Plant Mini Kits (Qiagen, Valencia, California). Dilution of the genomic DNA to 1:10 provided the best amplification of both nuclear and chloroplast loci. PCR methods followed Loockerman et al. (2003). PCR products were visualized under UV light in a 1.5% agarose gel containing SYBR safe DNA gel stain (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Amplicons were cleaned by adding 4.0% Shrimp Alkaline Phosphatase and 1.0% Exonuclease I to the PCR tube and heating to 37° C for 30 min followed by 80° for 15 min (Werle et al., 1994), and sequenced using BigDye (v.3.1) Terminator Cycle Sequencing (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, Ca, USA) at the Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology Core Facility, The University of Texas at Austin.

Phylogenetic analysis. Individual sequences were trimmed and edited using Sequencher (Gene Codes CorPt., Ann Arbor, Michigan), and contigs aligned with MacClade 4.08 OSX (Maddison & Maddison, 2005). If a particular accession would not amplify for a certain locus, that region of the combined dataset was coded as missing data. All sequences are deposited in GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/), with accession numbers listed in Appendix 1.

Because ITS sequences can present polymorphisms through hybridization, introgression, and incomplete lineage sorting (Alvarez & Wendel, 2003), PCR products of some accessions were cloned to test for variation between and within species. Since cloning all accessions was not feasible, only those samples for which direct sequencing showed evidence of polymorphisms (13 accessions) were cloned. Successful amplifications were visualized on an agarose gel and cloned using the TOPO-TA cloning kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Ten colonies were chosen from each plate and amplified using the M13 plasmid primers provided in the cloning kit. All 5.8S motifs were screened to identify pseudogenes (Harpke & Peterson, 2008), and this resulted in the elimination of a total of 5 clones.

Clone copies from the same accession almost never appeared in separate well-supported clades. For accessions that had different clone copies, the clones were either monophyletic or appeared with other related species in polytomies (tree not shown). Because the support for such clades was so low, we did not believe any particular copy to be more representative of a species than any another copy, and so chose the clone from the first of ten colonies selected from each plate to include in the final analyses. An exception, Pectis multiflosculosa, had two clone copies in two distinct clades, so a copy of each type was included in the ITS and the combined CP+ITS analyses. The Pt. multiflosculosa CP sequence was duplicated and added to each ITS clone sequence.

Before further analysis, duplicate samples of taxa for which the sequences were identical across all loci were eliminated. Sequence length of each locus and percentage of missing and parsimony-informative (P.I.) characters are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. 

Statistics for datasets used including results from ML searches.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-t01.tif

The ITS and the combined CP datasets were analyzed separately and together, using maximum likelihood (ML) with RAxML (Stamatakis, 2006) and Bayesian inference (BI) with MrBayes 3.1.1 (Huelsenbeck & Ronquist, 2001). All characters were weighted equally, character state transitions were treated as unordered, and gaps were treated as missing data.

RAxML allows for individual partitions of a dataset to be run with their own model of molecular evolution, including partitioning by codon position. The CP and CP+ITS datasets were partitioned as follows: chloroplast non-coding, chloroplast coding (by codon position), and ITS. The combined partitions were run together under the same GTR model, with parameters estimated separately for each partition. Each analysis was performed ten times from a random starting tree, with 500 bootstrap replicates. As the final likelihood values of each run were very similar (within 0.003% of final score), bootstrap replicates from each run were combined to estimate support for the tree with the best ML score. Clades with bootstrap values above 70% are considered well-supported (Hillis & Bull, 1993).

Prior to conducting the Bayesian analyses, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used via Modeltest 3.7 (Posada and Crandall, 1998) to determine the most appropriate model of DNA sequence evolution for each of the seven loci. The results were incorporated into the three analyses: ITS, CP, and CP+ITS combined. Bayesian analyses were performed using default priors, with two simultaneous runs with four Markov chains with heating values of 0.15, 0.2 (default), or 0.3, sampling every 100 generations. Each chain was run for at least 10 million generations and up to 20 million generations, depending on how long it took to reach stationarity (the average standard deviation of split frequencies between runs ≤0.01), and convergence was confirmed by using AWTY graphical analysis (Wilgenbusch et al., 2004). Burn-in trees (30%) were discarded, and the remaining trees and their parameters saved. The frequency of inferred relationships was used to represent estimated posterior probabilities (PP). Clades with PP ≥ 0.95 are considered strongly supported (Wilcox et al., 2002).

Hypothesis testing. Conflicting topologies between analyses of CP and ITS datasets led to testing the results of each analysis against the topology of the other. Hypotheses of alternate topologies were tested using the approximately unbiased (AU) test (Shimodaira, 2002) implemented in CONSEL (Shimodaira & Hasegawa, 2001), comparing constrained vs. best trees from 500 RAxML bootstrap replicates. Specifically, conflicts were addressed between the ITS and the CP datasets regarding the placement of three clades/taxa: Porophyllum amplexicaule + Pr. scoparium, Pectis linifolia + Pt. coulteri, and Pt. papposa var. papposa. This was done by analyzing the ITS dataset with RAxML under a constraint of the CP topology, and comparing the best topology under the constraint with the best unconstrained topology recovered from the ITS dataset. A reciprocal test was then conducted using the CP dataset, comparing the best topologies recovered from the CP dataset, both unconstrained and under the constraint of the ITS topology.

Molecular dating. To infer divergence times, data were combined with sequences from GenBank to create a dataset of matK and 3’ ndhF sequences. This included 21 sequences from the five major Pectis clades recovered from the phylogenetic analysis, as well as several Porophyllum and other species of tribe Tageteae. Data from six of the 12 major Asteraceae clades recovered in Panero and Funk (2008) were included, for a total of 46 taxa. The phylogeny was rooted on the branch leading to Barnadesia and Doniophyton (Barnadesioideae), which is well-supported as sister to the rest of Asteraceae (Jansen & Palmer 1987; Kim et al., 2005; Panero & Funk, 2008).

Modeltest 3.06 (Posada & Crandall, 1998) with the Akaike Information Criterion was used to determine the most appropriate model of sequence evolution for the dataset. The Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) was used to determine whether the data satisfied the assumptions of a molecular clock, with the formula of LR  =  2*(lnL1-lnL2), where lnL1 is the likelihood of the tree with a molecular clock enforced, and lnL2 is the likelihood of the tree without the clock constraint, and degrees of freedom of n-2, where n is the number of taxa (Felsenstein, 1988). The LRT resulted in a significant difference between the trees, so a Bayesian relaxed uncorrelated lognormal molecular clock was used to account for rate heterogeneity across lineages.

Not all lineages evolve at the same rate, and when using molecular data to infer dates for lineages, it is best to use multiple fossils to constrain various nodes throughout the tree to lessen the margin of error associated with rate smoothing. Fossils provide only approximate dates, can be difficult to associate accurately with extant taxa, and are necessarily younger than the lineage they represent. Most paleobotanical evidence of the Asteraceae is from fossil pollen, but a macrofossil from Patagonia of 47.5 mya was allied with the Mutisioideae (Barreda et al., 2010). Although constraining a tree at multiple nodes is best, due to the uncertainty of the relationships between some Asteraceae subfamilies (Panero & Funk, 2008), only the node between the Barnadesioideae and the remainder of the Asteraceae was constrained.

The aligned data matrix was analyzed in BEAST 1.7.0 (Drummond & Rambaut, 2007) from an input file created in BEAUti 1.7.0 (packaged with BEAST). Two independent runs of 10,000,000 were conducted. Settings were as follows: a substitution model of GTR+G+I (based on Modeltest results), with base frequencies estimated; relaxed uncorrelated lognormal clock with rates estimated; a Yule process speciation tree prior with the starting tree randomly generated; prior distributions were set at default except for the ingroup. The node separating Barnadesioideae from the rest of the Asteraceae was calibrated based on the Mutisioideae fossil date of 47.5 mya. Assuming the Barreda et al. (2010) fossil date is a minimum age of the split, a lognormal prior distribution with a mean of 2.0, standard deviation of 0.5, and offset of 44.5 mya was applied. These settings provide a 5% probability of 47.75 mya, set the median probability at 51.89 MY, and a 95% probability of 61.32 mya for the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of Barnadesioideae and the rest of the Asteraceae. Tracer v1.5 (Rambaut & Drummond, 2007) was used to assess convergence of the runs, confirm an appropriate estimated sample size, and determine the appropriate number of burn-in trees. Tree information from each run was combined with LogCombiner (packaged with BEAST), with the first 20% (2,000 trees) of each run discarded. A maximum clade credibility tree was constructed with TreeAnnotator (packaged with BEAST), and FigTree v1.3.1 (Rambaut, 2008) was used to visualize the estimations of divergence dates on the tree.

Carbon Isotope Ratios. Since plants differentially use carbon isotopes (C12 and C13) depending on whether they use C3 or C4 photosynthesis, the proportion of C13 in leaf tissue can be used as a proxy for the type of photosynthesis employed by that plant. Because rubisco discriminates against C13, C4 plants have a higher proportion of C13 than C3 plants. This proportion is expressed as delta (∂) in parts per thousand (‰). The metric ∂C13‰ is the difference between the tissue sample reading and a reference reading. The reference used for C13 is Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB), a Cretaceous marine fossil (Belemnitella americana, †Belemnitellidae) from the Pee Dee formation of South Carolina. PDB has a C13/C12 ratio that is higher than other natural samples. By convention, this standard is set to zero, so the amount of carbon measured in plants and animals is expressed as a negative number (Petersen & Fry, 1987). As C4 plants have more C13 than C3 plants, their ∂C13‰ signature (-15‰ to -10‰) is higher than that of C3 (-21‰ to -30‰) plants (Cerling, 1999; Marchese et al., 2005), so ∂C13‰ provides an indirect method for inferring C4 photosynthesis.

To infer the photosynthetic pathway for each sample, 2 mg of plant tissue (stem or leaves) were assayed for carbon isotope ratio using an Integramass spectrometer with a PDB standard. Carbon isotope ratios were determined by the University of California stable isotope facility ( http://stableisotopefacility.ucdavis.edu).

Results

CP dataset. The final CP dataset comprising all CP loci contained 157 accessions. The models indicated by Modeltest were GTR+G+I for the rpl16 intron, GTR+G for the 5’ trnY-rpoB spacer, and TVM+G for the remaining four CP loci. As MrBayes does not allow for the TVM submodel, GTR+G was substituted for the Bayesian analysis. Prior to combining the CP loci, areas of ambiguous alignment were excluded from each CP locus, with a total of 1,321 bases excluded. The aligned dataset comprised 6,201 bp, and ten RaxML runs resulted in a best tree of -ln  =  18,348.32 (Fig. 1A). Table 1 provides a summary of loci and dataset statistics.

Fig.1.

Comparison of CP and ITS topologies. A: ML cladogram from CP dataset, ln = -18348.3266. B: ML cladogram from ITS dataset, ln. = -7478.8052. Branches in bold are well-supported (≥ 70 bootstrap or ≥ 0.95 PP). Colors refer to Pectis clades A-E, PH=Porophyllum sect. Hunteria, PP=Porophyllum sect. Porophyllum.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f01.tif

ITS dataset. The final ITS dataset was reduced to those accessions for which sequences for the chloroplast loci were obtained. Because of uncertainty of the alignment, 154 bases were excluded prior to analysis. The final aligned dataset comprised 156 accessions of 684 bp. Ten RaxML runs resulted in a best tree with a likelihood score of -ln  =  7,478.80 (Fig. 1B). Table 1 shows a summary of results statistics for the datasets.

CP+ITS dataset. An incongruence length difference (ILD) test indicated a significant conflict between the ITS and CP datasets (p  =  0.02). However, visual inspection of the majority rule trees from ML bootstrap and Bayesian analyses showed that most of the conflicts were not well supported. The ILD test is thought to be very conservative, falsely rejecting congruence (Cunningham, 1997; Darlu & Lecointre, 2002) showed that when the ILD test resulted in a p-value of greater than 0.01, combining the datasets improved or did not diminish phylogenetic accuracy. Therefore, the CP and ITS datasets were combined. The final CP+ITS dataset contained 157 accessions, with 6,885 aligned bp. Ten RaxML runs of this dataset resulted in a best tree of -ln  =  27,363.46 (Figs. 2-4).

Fig.2.

ML cladogram from CP+ITS analysis, showing species of Pectis, with clades A-D color-coded. ML bootstrap support is shown above branches, and Bayesian PP support is shown below. An asterisk indicates support below 50% bootstrap or 0.95 PP. Thick-lined branches lead to well-supported clades (≥ 70 bootstrap, ≥ 0.95 P). ln = −27363.4645. Phylogram of same analysis appears below the cladogram.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f02.tif

Phylogenetic analyses—Pectis. Analyses of the CP, ITS, and CP+ITS datasets provide strong support for the monophyly of Pectis. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the CP and ITS topologies, and the topology recovered from the combined CP+ITS dataset is shown in Figs. 2 and 3 (Pectis) and Fig. 4 (Porophyllum). All datasets recover five well-supported clades within Pectis (clades A-E, Fig. 1). The CP and ITS differ in their placement of either clade A (ITS) or clade B (CP) as sister to the rest of the genus. In all analyses, the remainder of the genus is split between two well-supported Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert clades (C and D in Fig. 1) and a large clade (E) with species that occur from central Mexico to San Luis, Argentina.

Fig.3.

ML cladogram from CP+ITS analysis, showing species of Pectis clade E.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f03.tif

Fig.4.

ML cladogram from CP+ITS analysis, showing Porophyllum species, collection site, and sectional affiliations.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f04.tif

Phylogenetic analyses—Porophyllum. The inclusion of 22 of roughly 30 Porophyllum species allowed conclusions to be made regarding the relationships of Porophyllum to Pectis and within Porophyllum. The results suggest that Pr. amplexicaule and Pr. scoparium do not belong to Porophyllum (sensu Johnson, 1969). They form a strongly-supported clade that is the sister-group to a combined Pectis+Porophyllum clade. Porophyllum filiform and Pr. greggii form a well-supported clade sister to the rest of Porophyllum, which appears as a grade of clades (Fig. 4). Pr. sect. Hunteria and Pr. sect. Porophyllum are not recovered as monophyletic.

Hypothesis testing. The CP and ITS datasets provided incongruent results in three groups of note: Pectis imberbis + Pt. linifolia (clade A), Pt. papposa var. papposa, and Porophyllum amplexicaule + Pr. scoparium. Reciprocal AU tests were performed to assess whether, given a dataset, there was a significant difference in likelihoods between the best tree obtained from that dataset and the alternative topology (the constraint) obtained from the other dataset. The constraint topologies and results are shown in Fig. 5.

Fig.5.

Reciprocal tests of alternate topologies. Figures on the left (1A, 1B, 1C) show the topologies recovered with the CP dataset, and figures on the right (2A, 2B, 2C) show the topologies recovered with the ITS dataset. *p-values of ≥ 0.05 indicate that the topology shown has a significantly lower likelihood than the best tree recovered using that dataset.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f05.tif

The ITS topology (Fig. 1B) shows clade A (Pectis imberbis+Pt. linifolia) as a sister group to the rest of the genus, followed by clade B (Pt. coulteri + Pt. multiseta). These relationships are swapped in the CP dataset, which recovers clade B sister to the rest of Pectis, and clade A appearing next in the grade (Fig. 1A). The latter relationship is not strongly supported (59% ML bootstrap and 0.67 Bayesian PP support), and the AU test shows that, when using the CP dataset, the best CP topology is not significantly better than the best ITS topology. The CP+ITS dataset strongly supports the position of clade A as sister to the rest of the genus.

Pectis papposa var. papposa groups with Pt. vollmeri in the topology suggested by the CP dataset (Clade C of Fig. 1A). However, the ITS topology (Fig. 1B) shows Pt. papposa var. papposa grouped in Clade D with Pt. filipes var. subnuda and Pt. barberi. Given the ITS dataset, the CP topology can be rejected; likewise, given the CP dataset, the ITS topology can be rejected. The CP+ITS dataset strongly supports the position of Pt. papposa var. papposa in clade C with Pt. vollmeri.

The CP dataset recovered a clade of Porophyllum amplexicaule+Pr. scoparium at the base of Pectis+Porophyllum (Fig. 1A), whereas the ITS dataset showed this clade to be sister to the rest of Porophyllum (Fig. 1B). Given the ITS dataset, the CP topology cannot be rejected, but given the CP dataset, the ITS topology can be rejected. In the combined CP+ITS dataset, Pr. amplexicaule and Pr. scoparium are well-supported as sister to the combined Pectis+Porophyllum.

Phylogenetic distribution of polyploids. In Pectis, most of the known polyploids occur in the more terminal clades (Appendix S3, see Supplemental Data with the online version of this article). Clade E4 (Fig. 3) contains five polyploid species, clade E1 has three, and clades D and E3 both have one. Two of the four taxa in clade E2 (tetraploid Pt. repens and hexaploid Pt. saturejoides) have reports of both diploid and polyploid counts. In two cases (Pt. latisquama and Pt. multiflosculosa), the polyploid species appears sister to a diploid species, but most polyploids in the genus are sister to taxa for which the chromosome number is unknown. The four known polyploid Porophyllum species included in this study occur in separate clades throughout the genus. The combined CP+ITS dataset places the hexaploid Pr. greggii with Pr. filiforme (chromosome number unknown), which together are sister to the rest of Porophyllum.

One internal Porophyllum clade comprises all x  =  11 taxa, together with one x  =  12 (Pr. coloratum) and several for which the chromosome numbers are not known.

Molecular dating. The dataset of matK (1,902 bp) and 3’ ndhF (603 bp) sequences comprised 2,505 characters and 46 taxa. The maximum clade credibility tree recovered most clades with greater than 0.95 PP (Fig. 6). The BEAST analysis showed Tageteae and Helianthus diverging 26.55 (19.23–33.73) mya. The MRCA of Tageteae is 24.34 mya, but this node has just 0.92 PP support. Porophyllum amplexicaule diverged from Pectis + Porophyllum at 15.92 MYA (11.03–21.53). The divergence of Pectis and Porophyllum s.s. is estimated at 11.27 (7.56–15.58) mya, and divergence within Pectis began 9.12 (5.75–12.61) mya but most of the nodes split within the last 5 my.

Fig.6.

Chronogram of the maximum clade credibility tree estimated from matK+3’ndhF sequences using BEAST. Horizontal bars are the 95% highest probability density (HPD) for the age of that node (green bars are on Porophyllum nodes, yellow bars are on Pectis nodes). Nodes with HPD bars have PP support of ≥ 0.95. Nodes without HPD bars have <0.95 PP. Mean ages are shown for clades mentioned in the text. A partial timescale is shown at the bottom, with units in millions of years. Epoch dates follow The Geological Society of America (GSA, 2009).

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f06.tif

Carbon isotope analysis. We obtained ∂13C‰ values for 80 Pectis and Porophyllum species, as well as Tagetes erecta. All Pectis accessions have ∂13C‰ values consistent with C4 photosynthesis (-15.60‰ to -10.70‰, mean  =  -13.14‰), and all Porophyllum accessions have values consistent with C3 photosynthesis (-30.65‰ to -22.90‰, mean  =  -27.64‰). Tagetes erecta has a ∂13C value of -30.37‰. The frequency distribution of the ∂13C values is presented in Fig. 7, and the average ∂13C value for each species, including previously reported data from species not surveyed by us, is shown in Table 2. Voucher information is given in Appendix 1.

Fig.7.

The frequency distribution of carbon isotope ratios for the species listed in Table 2. All Pectis species sampled have ratios consistent with C4 plants, all Porophyllum species sampled have ratios consistent with C3 plants.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f07.tif

Table 2. 

Photosynthetic pathways in Pectis and Porophyllum. Data are the average ∂13C value for each species (sample size if N>1). Average ∂13C value for Pectis  =  -13.14‰; Average ∂13C value for Porophyllum  =  -27.64‰. All values are newly reported here unless indicated with an asterisk (*). See Appendix 1 for voucher information.

i1097-993X-19-1-6-t02.tif

Discussion

Pectis species have traditionally been considered a natural, morphologically distinctive group (Strother, 1977). However, molecular analysis of the Tageteae (Loockerman et al., 2003) showed Pectis linifolia as sister to the combined Pectis+Porophyllum, based on a combined ITS+ndhF dataset. By expanding the dataset to 6,201 bases of CP loci and more taxa, a well-supported and monophyletic Pectis is recovered as sister to Porophyllum. The combined CP+ITS dataset suggests that two Porophyllum species, Pr. amplexicaule and Pr. scoparium, fall outside of the genus, and are sister to the combined Pectis+Porophyllum. Porophyllum amplexicaule is restricted to southwestern Coahuila, and Pr. scoparium can be found in desert scrub from southern New Mexico, southeast into southwest Texas, and into Mexico from Coahuila to Nuevo Leon. Johnson (1969) suggested that Pr. amplexicaule and Pr. scoparium hybridize where they co-occur. Both are suffruticose perennials up to 60 cm high and have yellow corollas (vs. the green, purple or off-white corollas of most of the genus).

Pectis clades A through E (Fig. 1) generally correspond to geographic distribution; however, a few members are widespread. Clades A and B (Fig. 2) are generally associated with the Sonoran desert. However, Pectis linifolia var. linifolia of clade A has the largest natural range of the genus. Some of its distribution (the Galapagos and Hawaiian Islands) is probably due to recent introductions (Wiggins & Porter, 1971; Wagner et al., 1990), but its natural range spans from Arizona to Bolivia, with a large disjunct region between Guatemala and Colombia. It is also found throughout the Caribbean islands. Keil (1978) suggested that Pt. linifolia var. linifolia is autogamous, and that this breeding system, combined with its stiff, recurved awns suited for animal dispersal, contribute to its success as a colonizer. In contrast, Pectis linifolia var. hirtella has a very small range, and is endemic to the Mexican states of Guerrero and Michoacan. Both taxa are taller than most Pectis species, and are often erect, with long internodes and sparse, linear leaves.

Pectis coulteri and Pt. multiseta of clade B (Fig. 2) are both low growing annuals with distinctive antrorsely-barbed pappus awns. Pectis coulteri is endemic to the mainland Sonoran desert, whereas Pt. multiseta is endemic to the Baja California Peninsula. Clade C (Fig. 2) is composed of low-growing annuals that are mostly associated with the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts, but the range of Pt. angustifolia extends from southeast Wyoming to Chihuahua, Mexico, and Pt. papposa extends into central Sinaloa. Clade D species (Fig. 2) are annuals and perennials associated with several different habitats, from the Sonoran desert, foothills of the Sierra Madre Occidental, and the thorn scrub and coastal savannahs of Sonora and Sinaloa. Clade E (Fig. 3) species are diverse and cover a broad geographic area, essentially mirroring the geographic and morphological range of the whole genus. Aside from Pt. linifolia, all the Caribbean and South American species of Pectis are in this clade. The CP dataset provides support for four clades within clade E (Fig. 3), and suggests several species-pairs. The ITS dataset does not show support for the large clades of the CP topology, but does suggest several smaller clades within clade E, as well as species-pair affinities in common with the CP topology. The combined CP+ITS dataset recovers several clades and species-pairs with strong support (Fig. 3).

Infrageneric relationships within Pectis. Six subgeneric divisions have been recognized in Pectis, variously treated as subgenera or as sections. Figure 8 shows the CP+ITS cladogram with these divisions mapped onto the tree according to the revisions of Gray (1852), Fernald (1897) and Keil (1975, 1977a, 1978).

Fig.8.

Taxonomic classifications in Pectis. Cladogram from Fig. 2 with classifications mapped onto the tree. Taxa with two colors were placed into two separate categories under different names but are now considered synonyms. Column 1 shows the genera of Lorentea, Pectidium, Pectidopsis and Pectis at the time that Gray described the former three as sections of Pectis. Thick-lined branches lead to well-supported clades (≥ 70 bootstrap, ≥0.95 PP).

i1097-993X-19-1-6-f08.tif

Gray’s (1852) Pectis sect. Eupectis was proposed to include species having uniseriate, paleate, or broad-based and chaffy awns. Aside from Pt. prostrata, which he described in the same publication, Gray did not detail which species were to be included in his section Eupectis, and the species in column 1 of Fig. 8 are the species of Pectis recognized by de Candolle at the time. In the same 1852 treatment, Gray transferred Pectidium punctatum Less. into Pectis, placing it under Pt. sect. Pectidium. Pectis punctatum is synonymous with Pt. linifolia, which was, at the time, in Pt. sect. Eupectis. After the designation of Pt. linifolia (of former Pt. sect. Pectidium) as the type of Pectis (Britton & Millspaugh, 1920), Pt. sect. Pectidium de facto became Pt. sect. Pectis. The species variously recognized within section Eupectis by Fernald or Gray have not been treated since, and do not form a monophyletic group in any of our analyses.

Pectis sect. Heteropectis, comprising Pectis coulteri and Pt. multiseta (sensu Gray 1852, Fernald, and Keil), is recovered as a well-supported clade (Clade B of Figs. 2, 8). Members of this section (Figs. 2, 8 clade B) are restricted to the Sonoran Desert of Baja California and mainland Mexico.

Pectis sect. Pectis ( =  Pt. sect Pectidium Less. sensu Fernald, and later, Keil), is well supported and monophyletic (Clade A Figs. 2, 8). Pectis sect. Pectis has two species, Pt. imberbis and Pt. linifolia (the type of Pectis). Both are tall, erect plants with sparse, cylindrical leaves and elongated internodes. This section (Figs. 2, 8 clade A) includes Pt. imberbis, a rare species of southern Arizona and northern Sonora region, and Pt. linifolia. Pectis linifolia is divided into two varieties. Pectis linifolia var. hirtella is a narrow endemic of Guerrero and Michoacan, Mexico, and Pt. linifolia var. linifolia is a weedy species widely distributed throughout Pectis’ range.

Pectis sect. Lorentea has a complicated history. In 1797, the genus Lorentea was described by Ortega, and referred to a plant that was later identified as a member of the genus Sanvitalia. In 1816, Lagasca published the name Lorentea for species of Pectis that he considered separate from Pectis. The type of Lorentea Lag. was based on a specimen of Pectis prostrata Cav. from Cuba (this specimen was later identified as Pt. humifusa Sw.). In 1830, Lessing segregated a group of Pectis species into a new genus, for which he also used the name Lorentea. Lorentea Lag. and Lorentea Less. were both superfluous, but in practice, both names were used. Gray (1852) described section Lorentea A. Gray for species of Pectis with a biseriate pappus and a ray pappus sometimes greatly diminished or absent. He did not specify which species would be included. Schultz Bipontinus (Seemann et al., 1852) followed Gray’s suggestion that Lorentea sensu Lessing was best included with Pectis, and transferred the Lorentea of de Candolle (1836) and Gardner (1846) into Pectis (Seemann et al., 1852). Although Keil (1977b) mentioned several species as members of Pt. sect. Lorentea, to our knowledge no one has treated the section with a listing of the species to be included. Those noted as “Lorentea” in Fig. 8 are the Lorentea species known at the time that Gray described Pt. section Lorentea.

The sole member of Gray’s original Pectis subg. Pectidopsis was Pt. angustifolia (Gray, 1849). Gray later added Pt. filipes and Pt. uniaristata. Fernald followed Gray’s definition of Pectidopsis as those Pectis species with a pappus that is coroniform or has a few slender but rigid, scabrid awns. Fernald (1897) expanded the subgenus to include 12 taxa, which do not form a monophyletic group in the combined CP+ITS analyses (Appendix S4).

Fernald followed Gray’s 1884 expanded definition of Pectis sect. Pectothrix as a taxon with a pappus (of the disc florets, if not the ray florets) of many equal or unequal bristles, which are often broad at the base, but not true scales. Neither Gray’s nor Fernald’s concept of section Pectothrix forms a monophyletic group in our analyses. On the contrary, their species appear scattered throughout the tree. However, all members of clade C correspond to Pt. sect. Pectothrix sensu Keil (1977a), with additional members of Keil’s Pt. sect. Pectothrix found in clade D (Figs. 2, 8). Pappus morphology therefore seems to be homoplastic in Pectis.

Most species of clades C and D (Figs. 2, 8) occur in or adjacent to the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts, and clade E contains many species of the Pacific Slope of Mexico, as well as those of South America and the Caribbean.

Sectional relationships within Porophyllum. Results from our analyses suggest that the primary characters used to designate the sections of Johnson (1969), i.e., leaf morphology and habitat, do not define clades in Porophyllum. The species relationships show that the genus does not consist of two clades, which correspond to the two sections (Fig. 1). Geography correlates better with relationship, with Sonoran and Chihuahuan species at the base of the tree and southern Mexico-Central American and South American species forming the derived clades. Of the roughly eight South American species, four out of the five sampled form a well-supported clade. The fifth is Pr. ruderale, a variable species of tropical North and South America that is sister to the Honduran accession of Pr. macrocephalum, nested within the Pr. macrocephalum clade. Johnson (1969) subsumed over 20 described species and varieties into the single, wide-spread and variable Pt. ruderale, with two subspecies, Pr. ruderale subsp. macrocephalum and Pr. ruderale subsp. ruderale. He used Pr. ruderale subsp. macrocephalum to refer to what he called the “northern” taxa (SW U.S. to northern Brazil, southern Peru, and Bolivia), and Pr. ruderale subsp. ruderale to refer to the “southern” taxa (Costa Rica and the West Indies south to southern Peru, through Brazil into northern Argentina). He noted that in northern South America, intermediate forms were common where the two taxa were sympatric. Porophyllum leiocarpum, endemic to Puerto Rico, was originally described by Urban as a variety of Pr. macrocephalum but was elevated to specific status by Rydberg and has been treated as such by subsequent authors (Rydberg, 1916; Johnson, 1969; McVaugh, 1984). In our analyses, we have followed Turner’s (1996) morphological criteria in designating the Mexican and Central American taxa as Pr. macrocephalum, and the South American accession as Pr. ruderale. Although intermediate forms surely exist, Turner noted that Pr. macrocephalum has large heads on more stout peduncles and is diploid, whereas Pr. ruderale has small heads on slender peduncles, and is tetraploid. Ecuadorian and Brazilian Pr. ruderale have been reported as n  =  22, 23, 24, 34, 35 and 36 (Turner et al., 1979; Robinson et al., 1981; Carr et al., 1999) but Dillon et al. (1982) reported n  =  12 for a Peruvian accession. Therefore, although only diploid (n  =  11) specimens of Pr. macrocephalum have been found in Chiapas (Strother, 1983) and Arizona (Keil & Pinkava, 1976), Pr. ruderale of South America has diploid and tetraploid (and possibly hexaploid) members. The North and Central American accessions (Pr. macrocephalum) have distinctly more ovate-oblong leaves, whereas the South American accessions (Pr. ruderale) have leaves that are linear-lanceolate. The accessions of Pr. macrocephalum, Pr. ruderale and Pr. leiocarpum form a well-supported clade, with the Central American accession of Pr. macrocephalum sister to the Pr. ruderale from Ecuador (Fig 4). Porophyllum ruderale from Brazil appears in a clade with Pr. angustissimum, Pr. lanceolatum, and Pr. linifolium. Hind (2002) has noted that Porophyllum of Brazil and Argentina may be under collected, and that there could be diversity in the genus that has, in these areas, been overlooked.

Polyploidy in Pectis. Roughly 40% of the known polyploids in Pectis occur on islands. Just nine of the ±20 Pectis species that grow in the Caribbean or the Galapagos Islands have been examined in cytological studies, and of these, three are diploids, and six are polyploids. Thus while polyploids comprise 18% of the total Pectis species, they comprise 77% of the island species (Appendix S2). This pattern is also seen in Hawaii, where 80% of the native plants are polyploid (Carr, 1988). While these ratios could change if more Pectis species were sampled, there is no reason to think that the current sampling of cytological data is skewed toward diploid or polyploid taxa.

Two mechanisms are often proposed to explain why islands may be rich in polyploid species. The first is that there is a general trend toward self-fertilization in polyploids (Barringer, 2007) and autogamy is often proposed as one of the catalysts for a widespread distribution or successful colonization (Baker, 1955). However, the trend is not clear for the Asteraceae, which has sporophytic self-incompatibility (SSI). The breeding systems of most Pectis species are unknown, but Keil (1978) reported that Pt. cylindrica, a tetraploid, and Pt. prostrata, a diploid, are autogamous. A second explanation for the high occurrence of polyploidy on islands is that successful establishment favors plants with high genetic diversity (Carr, 1988) sometimes associated with polyploidy. Finally, many species in the Asteraceae have SSI systems that allow occasional self-fertilization. The ability to self-pollinate increases the odds of reproducing after a colonizing event.

Our results showed that all species of Pectis appear to use C4 photosynthesis (see below). Genome duplication is one of the preconditioning events proposed for a transition from C3 to C4 photosynthesis (Monson, 2003). Although 28% of the known species of Pectis are polyploid, these species are not at the base of the tree (Appendix S3). The four known independent origins of C4 photosynthesis in the Asteraceae all occur within the Helianthoideae supertribe, in a group called the phytomelanic cypsela clade. Barker et al. (2008) found evidence for at least two paleopolyploidy events in the history of the Asteraceae—one at the base of the family, and another in a lineage that eventually gave rise to Helianthus. They also found that genes related to cellular organization are overrepresented in the paleologs of the Asteraceae. Although these genome duplications may have allowed for novel functions that eventually gave rise to C4 photosynthesis in the this group, the scarcity of C4 lineages in the Asteraceae shows that many other conditions must be required.

Origin and extent of C4 photosynthesis. After Smith and Turner (1975) surveyed 20 Pectis and one Porophyllum species, it was suggested that all Pectis species were C4, and all Porophyllum (and, in fact, the remainder of the Tageteae) were C3. However, the closely-related Flaveria has just 21 species yet shows great variation in photosynthetic pathway, suggesting that similar variability might exist in Porophyllum (∼25spp.) or Pectis (∼90 spp.). The ∂13C‰ values reported here appear to confirm that C4 photosynthesis does not occur in Porophyllum. Furthermore, the switch from C3 to C4 appears to have happened after the generic split between Pectis and Porophyllum, as all Pectis have ∂13C‰ values indicative of C4 photosynthesis.

North America is one of the hotspots of origin for C4 photosynthesis (Sage et al., 2011), and the North American C4 lineages for which divergence times have been estimated have appeared since the mid-late Miocene: 13 mya for Tidestromia, 6.1 mya for Allionia, 4.7 mya for Boerhavia, and 3.1 mya for Flaveria (Christin et al. 2011). The anatomical preconditioning that may facilitate C4 photosynthesis must be selected for, and in general, warm and dry environmental conditions are thought to make such adaptations more advantageous. Did Pectis evolve in such an environment? Keil (1978) suggested that the ancestors of Pt. sect. Pectis diverged in the Mexican Highlands. Porophyllum amplexicaule and Pr. scoparium, sister to the rest of Pectis+Porophyllum, are Chihuahuan desert species. The basal species within Pectis are distributed mostly in north and central Mexico from sea level to 800 m; Pt. sect. Pectis (Pt. imberbis and Pt. linifolia, clade A of Fig. 2) is sister to the rest of Pectis. Pectis imberbis is endemic to the Sonoran and Chihuahuan desert areas at the U.S./Mexico border, and Pt. linifolia var. hirtella is endemic to the Mexican states of Michoacan and Guerrero. After Pt. sect. Pectis, the next diverging clade (Pt. sect. Heteropectis) is endemic to the Sonoran Desert. Fossil evidence shows that the general drying trend since the late Miocene led to a flora of increasing tolerance to aridity, with an altitudinal fluctuation during the pluvial stages of the Pleistocene (Axelrod, 1979; Spaulding et al., 1983). The uplift of the Sierra Madre Occidental and Transvolcanic Belt further increased aridity by providing rain shadows. Becerra (2005) suggested these ranges provided a barrier to the northern cold fronts, thereby allowing the development of cold-intolerant taxa 10-20 mya. Although mesic woodlands existed in the present-day desert regions during the pluvial periods of the Pleistocene, evidence from pack-rat middens suggests that pockets of arid refugia persisted throughout these periods (Elias et al., 1995; Van Devender, 2000).

Our BEAST analysis recovers a mean date of ∼11 mya for the common ancestor of Pectis and Porophyllum (Fig. 6), and given the geographic distributions of the basal species of the genera, we can surmise that they diverged in Central/Northern Mexico. Thus, C4 photosynthesis in this lineage evolved in an area that was increasingly warm and dry, with a pattern of summer monsoon. Sage and colleagues (2011) suggested that these are the environmental conditions that would increase photorespiration in C3 lineages, setting the stage for a fitness advantage to C3-C4 intermediacy.

Summary

By sampling widely in both Porophyllum and Pectis, we have shown that Pectis is monophyletic and sister to a clade containing the majority of the 7 Porophyllum species. Just two recognized Pectis sections are monophyletic, and neither of the two Porophyllum sections is monophyletic. Porophyllum amplexicaule and Pr. scoparium are sister to the Pectis+Porophyllum clade, and should be treated as members of a new genus. Within Pectis, the Caribbean and South American species are in the more derived clades that also contain most of the polyploids of the genus. The evolution of C4 photosynthesis in Pectis occurred at or after the initial divergence of Pectis and Porophyllum, in the late Miocene. In the time since they diverged, Porophyllum has diversified into ∼25 species, whereas Pectis comprises at least 90 species. Perhaps the acquisition of the full C4 syndrome fueled the success and relatively rapid diversification of the Pectis, the largest genus of the marigold tribe.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dave Cannatella, José Panero, Stan Roux, and the anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. We thank the following colleagues for field-collecting assistance: Les Landrum and Liz Makings at Arizona State University; Tom Van Devender and Anna Lilia Reina in Sonora and Sinaloa, Mexico; Teodoro Clase and Alberto Veloz at The National Botanic Garden of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Oscar Hinojosa and Enrique Ortiz at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. For general herbarium assistance, we thank Tom Wendt and Lindsay Woodruff at the Plant Resources Center at The University of Texas at Austin. For providing specimen loans and/or permission to sample leaf material, we thank the following herbaria: ARIZ, GH, LPB, MEXU, MO, NYGB, TEX/LL, and US. We thank Tammy Sage for assistance with preliminary anatomical studies. This research was supported in part by a Doctoral Dissertation Award (DEB 0808388) from the National Science Foundation to DRH, multiple grants from The University of Texas at Austin Graduate Program in Plant Biology to DRH, the Lundell Chair of BBS, and the S.F. Blake Professorship to RKJ.

Literature Cited

1.

Abbott, R. J., A. C. Brennan, J. K. James, D. G. Forbes, M. J. Hegarty, and S. J. Hiscock. 2009. Recent hybrid origin and invasion of the British Isles by a self-incompatible species, Oxford ragwort (Senecio squalidus L., Asteraceae). Biological Invasions 11: 1145–1158. Google Scholar

2.

Albers, C. C. 1942. Thimole in the volatile oil of Pectis texana Cory. Pharmaceutical Arch. 13: 29–31. Google Scholar

3.

Alvarez, I., and J. F. Wendel. 2003. Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 29: 417–434. Google Scholar

4.

Aristeguieta, L. 1964. Flora de Venezuela. Vol. 10, pt. 2 Compositae. Instituto Botanico, Caracas. Google Scholar

5.

Asprey, G. F., and Pt. Thornton. 1953. Medicinal Plants of Jamaica. Part I. West Indian Medical J. 2: 1–86. Google Scholar

6.

Axelrod, D. I. 1979. Age and origin of Sonoran Desert vegetation. Occas. Paps. Calif. Acad. Sci. 132: 1–74. Google Scholar

7.

Baker, H. G. 1955. Self-compatibility and establishment after ‘long-distance’ dispersal. Evol. 9: 347–348. Google Scholar

8.

Baldwin, B. G. 1993. Molecular phylogenetics of Calycadenia (Compositae) based on its sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA: chromosomal and morphological evolution reexamined. Amer. J. Bot. 80: 222–238. Google Scholar

9.

Baldwin, B. G., B. L. Wessa, and J. L. Panero. 2002. Nuclear rDNA evidence for major lineages of helenioid Heliantheae (Compositae). Syst. Bot. 27: 161–198. Google Scholar

10.

Barker, M. S., N. C. Kane, M. Matvienko, A. Kozik, R. W. Michelmore, S. J. Knapp, and L. H. Rieseberg. 2008. Multiple paleopolyploidizations during the evolution of the Compositae reveal parallel patterns of duplicate gene retention after millions of years. Molec. Biol. Evol. 25: 2445–2455. Google Scholar

11.

Barreda, V. D., L. Palazzesi, M. C. Telleria, L. Katinas, J. V. Crisci, K. Bremer, M. G. Passalia, R. Corsolini, R. R. Brizuela, and F. Bechis. 2010. Eocene Patagonia fossils of the daisy family. Science 329: 1621. Google Scholar

12.

Barringer, B. C. 2007. Polyploidy and self-fertilization in flowering plants. Amer. J. Bot. 94: 1527–1533. Google Scholar

13.

Bautista, H. P. 1987. Pectis L. (Compositae-Tageteae). Espécies ocorrentes no Brasil. Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro 28: 5–107. Google Scholar

14.

Becerra, J. X. 2005. Timing the origin and expansion of the Mexican tropical dry forest. Proc. Nalt. Acad. Sci. (USA) 102: 10919–10923. Google Scholar

15.

Besnard, G., A. M. Muasya, F. Russier, E. H. Roalson, N. Salamin, and P.-A. Christin. 2009. Phylogenomics of C4 photosynthesis in sedges (Cyperaceae): multiple appearances and genetic convergence. Molec. Biol. Evol. 26: 1909–1919. Google Scholar

16.

Bradley, C. E., and A. J. Haagen-Smit. 1949. Essential oil of Pectis papposa. Econ. Bot. 3: 407–412. Google Scholar

17.

Brennan, A. C., D. A. Tabah, S. A. Harris, and S. J. Hiscock. 2011. Sporophytic self-incompatibility in Senecio squalidus (Asteraceae): S allele dominance interactions and modifiers of cross-compatibility and selfing rates. Heredity 106: 113–123. Google Scholar

18.

Britton, N. L., and A. Brown. 1913. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States, Ed. 2. Vol 3. C. Scribner’s Sons, New York. Google Scholar

19.

Britton, N. L., and C. F. Millspaugh. 1920. The Bahama Flora, pp. 456–457. Authors, New York. Google Scholar

20.

Brown, N. J., K. Parsley, and J. M. Hibberd. 2005. The future of C4 research - maize, Flaveria or Cleome? Trends Pl. Sci. 10: 215–221. Google Scholar

21.

Bye, R. 1996. Medicinal plants of the Sierra Madre: comparative study of Tarahumara and Mexican market plants. Econ. Bot. 40: 103–124. Google Scholar

22.

Cabrera, A. L. 1978. Compositae (Parte X). In A. L. Cabrera [ed.], Flora de la Provincia de Jujuy, Republica Argentina. Coleccion Cientifica del INTA, Buenos Aires. Google Scholar

23.

Carr, G. D. 1988. Chromosome evolution and speciation in Hawaiian flowering plants. In T. F. Stuessyand M. Ono [eds.], Evolution and Speciation of Island Plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar

24.

Carr, G. D., R. M. King, A. M. Powell, and H. Robinson. 1999. Chromosome numbers in Compositae. XVIII. Amer. J. Bot 86: 1003–1013. Google Scholar

25.

Cassini, H. 1819. Sixième mémoire sur la famille des Synanthérées, contenant les caractères des tribus. J. Physique Chimie Hist. Nat. 88: 150–163, 189–204. Google Scholar

26.

Cerling, T. E. 1999. Paleorecords of C4 plants and ecosystems. In R. F. Sageand R. K. Monson [eds.], C4 plant biology, 445–469, Academic Press, San Diego, California. Google Scholar

27.

Christin, P.-A., C. P. Osborne, R. F. Sage, M. Arakaki, and E. J. Edwards. 2011. C4 eudicots are not younger than C4 monocots. J. Exp. Bot. 62: 3171–3181. Google Scholar

28.

Christin, P.-A., T. L. Sage, E. J. Edwards, M. R. Ogburn, R. Khoshravesh, and R. F. Sage. 2010. Complex evolutionary transitions and the significance of C3–C4 intermediate forms of photosynthesis in Molluginaceae. Evol. 65: 643–660. Google Scholar

29.

Christin, P.-A., G. Besnard, E. Samaritani, M. R. Duvall, T. R. Hodkinson, V. Savolainen, and N. Salamin. 2008. Oligocene CO2 decline promoted C4 photosynthesis in grasses. Current Biol. 18: 37–43. Google Scholar

30.

Cunningham, C. W. 1997. Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined? Molec. Biol. Evol. 14: 733–740. Google Scholar

31.

da Silva, Milton Helie L., Eloisa Helena A. Andrade, and José Guilherme S. Maia. 2005. The essential oil of Pectis elongata Kunth occurring in north Brazil. Flav. Frag. J. 20: 462–464. Google Scholar

32.

Darlu, P., and G. Lecointre. 2002. When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Molec. Biol. Evol. 19: 432–437. Google Scholar

33.

de Candolle, A. P. 1836. Prodromus systematis naturis regni vegetabilis, sive enumeratio contracta ordinum generum, specierumque plantarum. Treuttel & Würtz, Paris. Google Scholar

34.

Dillon, M., and B. L. Turner. 1982. Chromosome numbers of some Peruvian Compositae. Rhodora 84: 131–137. Google Scholar

35.

Downie, S. R., D. S. Katz-Downie, and M. F. Watson. 2000. A phylogeny of the flowering plant family Apiaceae based on chloroplast DNA rpl16 and rpoC1 intron sequences: towards a suprageneric classification of subfamily Apioideae. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 273–292. Google Scholar

36.

Downum, K. R., D. J. Keil, and E. Rodriguez. 1985. Distribution of acetylenic thiophenes in the Pectidnae. Bioch. Syst. Ecol. 13: 109–113. Google Scholar

37.

Downum, K. R., and E. Rodriguez. 1986. Toxicological action and ecological importance of plant photosensitizers. J. Chem. Ecol. 12: 823–834. Google Scholar

38.

Downum, K. R., S. Villegas, E. Rodriguez, and D. J. Keil. 1989. Plant photosensitizers: A survey of their occurrence in arid and semiarid plants from North America. J. Chem. Ecol. 15: 345–355. Google Scholar

39.

Drummond, A. J., and A. Rambaut. 2007. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol. Biol. 7: 214. Google Scholar

40.

Elias, S. A., T. R. Van Devender, and R. de Baca. 1995. Insect fossil evidence of late glacial and Holocene environments in the Bolson De Mapimi, Chihuahuan Desert, Mexico: comparisons with the Paleobotanical record. Palaios 10: 454–464. Google Scholar

41.

Engelmann, S., O. E. Blasing, U. Gowik, P. Svensson, and P. Westhoff. 2003. Molecular evolution of C4 phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase in the genus Flaveria - a gradual increase from C3 to C4 characteristics. Planta 217: 717–725. Google Scholar

42.

Felsenstein, J. 1988. Phylogenies from molecular sequences: Inference and reliability. Ann. Rev. Genet. 22: 521–565. Google Scholar

43.

Fernald, M. L. 1897. A systematic study of the United States and Mexican species of Pectis. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sci. 33: 57–86. Google Scholar

44.

Gardner, G. 1846. Flora of Brazil. London J. Bot. 5: 239–242. Google Scholar

45.

Gowik, U., and P. Westhoff. 2011. The path from C3 to C4 photosynthesis. Pl. Physiol. 155: 56–63. Google Scholar

46.

Gray, A. 1849. Plantae Fendlerianae Novi-Mexicanae. Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. 4: 1–116. Google Scholar

47.

Gray, A. 1852. Plantae Wrightianae Texano-Neo-Mexicanae. I. Smithsonian Contr. Knowledge 3: 1–146. Google Scholar

48.

Gray, A. 1884. Contributions to North American botany. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 19: 1–96. Google Scholar

49.

Gray, A. 1888. Synoptical Flora of North America. The Gamopetalae. Compositae. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections591. Google Scholar

50.

GSA. 2009. Geologic Timescale. The Geological Society of America. Accessed March, 2012.  http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/Google Scholar

51.

Hansen, D. R., G. S. Spicer, and R. Patterson. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships between and within Phacelia sections Whitlavia and Gymnobythis (Boraginaceae). Syst. Biol. 34: 737–746. Google Scholar

52.

Harpke, D., and A. Peterson. 2008. 5.8S motifs for the identification of pseudogenic ITS regions. Botany 86: 300–305. Google Scholar

53.

Hillis, D. M., and J. J. Bull. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42: 182–192. Google Scholar

54.

Hind, D. J. N. 2002. A new species of Porophyllum. (Compositae: Heliantheae) from Bahia, Brazil. Kew Bull. 57: 705–709. Google Scholar

55.

Hiscock, S. J. 2000. Self-incompatibility in Senecio squalidus L (Asteraceae). Ann. Bot. 85: 181–190. Google Scholar

56.

Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17: 754–755. Google Scholar

57.

Jansen, R. K., and J. D. Palmer. 1987. A chloroplast DNA inversion marks an ancient evolutionary split in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84: 5818–5822. Google Scholar

58.

Johnson, R. R. 1969. Monograph of the plant genus Porophyllum (Compositae: Helenieae). Kansas Univ. Sci. Bull. XL VIII: 225–267. Google Scholar

59.

Jørgensen, P. M., and S. León-Yánez. 1999. Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of Ecuador. In P. M. Jørgensen, and S. León-Yánez [eds.], Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical GardenMissouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis. Google Scholar

60.

Jung, M.-J., C.-W. Hsien, Y.-C. Kao, and C.-L. Yeh. 2011. Pectis L. (Asteraceae), a newly recorded genus to the Flora of Taiwan. Taiwania 56: 173–176. Google Scholar

61.

Kadereit, G., T. Borsch, K. Weising, and H. Freitag. 2003. Phylogeny of Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Internatl. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 959–986. Google Scholar

62.

Keil, D. J. 1975. Revision of Pectis sect. Heteropectis. (Compositae: Tageteae). Madroño 23: 181–191. Google Scholar

63.

Keil, D. J. 1977a. A revision of Pectis section Pectothrix (Compositae: Tageteae). Rhodora 79: 32–78. Google Scholar

64.

Keil, D. J. 1977b. Chromosome studies in North and Central American species of Pectis L. (Compositae: Tageteae). Rhodora 79: 79–93. Google Scholar

65.

Keil, D. J. 1978. Revision of Pectis section Pectidium (Compositae Tageteae). Rhodora 80: 135–146. Google Scholar

66.

Keil, D. J. 1984. New species of Pectis (Asteraceae) from the West-Indies, Mexico, and South-America. Brittonia 36: 74–80. Google Scholar

67.

Keil, D. J. 1996. Pectis. pp. 22–43 in The Comps of Mexico: A systematic account of the Family Asteraceae. 6: Tageteae and Anthemideae. Phytologia Mem. 10: 1–93. Google Scholar

68.

Keil, D. J. 2002. Two new species of Pectis (Asteraceae: Tageteae) from South America. Novon 12: 471–473. Google Scholar

69.

Keil, D. J. 2006. Pectis. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds . 1993+ Flora of North America North of Mexico. 28+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol.21, pp. 222–230. Google Scholar

70.

Keil, D. J., and S. Stuessy. 1975. Chromosome counts of Compositae from the United States, Mexico, and Guatemala. Rhodora 77: 171–195. Google Scholar

71.

Keil, D. J., and D. J. Pinkava. 1976. Chromosome counts and taxonomic notes for Compositae from the United States and Mexico. Amer. J. Bot. 63: 1393–1403. Google Scholar

72.

Keil, D. J., and J. D. Morefield. 1989. Porophyllum pygmaeum (Asteraceae) a disinctive new species from southern Nevada. Syst. Bot. 14: 583–588. Google Scholar

73.

Keil, D. J., M. A. Luckow, and D. J. Pinkava. 1988. Chromosome-studies in Asteraceae from the United-States, Mexico, the West-Indies, and South-America. Amer. J. Bot. 75: 652–668. Google Scholar

74.

Kellogg, E. A. 1999. Phylogenetic aspects of the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. In R. F. Sageand R. K. Monson [eds.], C4 Plant Biology, pp. 411–444, Academic Press, San Diego, California. Google Scholar

75.

Kim, K. J., K. S. Choi, and R. K. Jansen. 2005. Two chloroplast DNA inversions originated simultaneously during the early evolution of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Molec. Biol. Evol. 22: 1783–1792. Google Scholar

76.

Kimball, R. T., and D. J. Crawford. 2004. Phylogeny of Coreopsideae (Asteraceae) using ITS sequences suggests lability in reproductive characters. Molec. Phylogenet. Evol. 33: 127–139. Google Scholar

77.

Lagasca, M. 1816. Genera et species plantarum 28. Matriti ex Typographia Regia. Google Scholar

78.

Lessing, C. F. 1830. De synanthereis herbarii regni Berolinensis. Dissertatio secunda. Nassauvieae. Linnaea 5: 1–236. Google Scholar

79.

Linnaeus, C. 1759. Systema naturae. Ed. 10. Tomus II: Vegetabilia, Stockholm. Google Scholar

80.

Liogier, A. H. 1962. Flora de Cuba, Tomo V. Editorial Universitaria, Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras. Google Scholar

81.

Liogier, A. H. 1996. La flora de la Española. VIII. Universidad Central del Este, San Pedro de Macoris. Google Scholar

82.

Liogier, A. H. 2000. Flora of Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands: a Systematic Synopsis. Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras.  Google Scholar

83.

Loockerman, D. J., B. L. Turner, and R. K. Jansen. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships within the Tageteae (Asteraceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF gene sequences. Syst. Bot. 28: 191–207. Google Scholar

84.

Löve, Á. 1974. IOPB Chromosome number reports XLV. Taxon 23: 619–624. Google Scholar

85.

Maddison, D. R., and W. Maddison. 2005. MacClade 4: Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. Google Scholar

86.

Marchese, J. A., F. Broetto, L. C. Ming, C. Ducatti, R. A. Rodella, M. C. Ventrella, G. D. R. Gomes, and L. de Franceschi. 2005. Carbon isotope composition and leaf antomy as a tool to characterize the photosynthetic mechanism of Artemisia annua L. Brazilian J. Pl. Physiol. 17: 187–190. Google Scholar

87.

Marshall, D. M., R. Muhaidat, N. J. Brown, Z. Liu, S. Stanley, H. Griffiths, R. F. Sage, and J. M. Hibberd. 2007. Cleome, a genus closely related to Arabidopsis, contains species spanning a developmental progression from C3 to C4 photosynthesis. Plant J. 51: 886–896. Google Scholar

88.

McKown, A. D., and N. G. Dengler. 2007. Key innovations in the evolution of Kranz anatomy and C4 vein pattern in Flaveria (Asteraceae). Amer. J. Bot. 94: 382–399. Google Scholar

89.

McKown, A. D., J. M. Moncalvo, and N. G. Dengler. 2005. Phylogeny of Flaveria (Asteraceae) and inference of C4 photosynthesis evolution. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1911–1928. Google Scholar

90.

McNeill, J. 2006. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Seventeenth International Botanical Congress, Vienna, Austria, 146. Google Scholar

91.

McVaugh, R. 1984. Pectis. In W. R. Anderson [ed.], Flora Novo-Galiciana, 760–771, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Google Scholar

92.

Molero, J., A. Rovira, J. Simón, R. Duré, and D. Franco. 2002. IOPB chromosome data 18. Newsletter Int. Organ. Pl. Biosyst. (Pruhonice) 34: 22–24. Google Scholar

93.

Monson, R. K. 2003. Gene duplication, neofunctionalization, and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Internatl. J. Pl. Sci. 164: S43–S54. Google Scholar

94.

Muhaidat, R., R. F. Sage, and N. G. Dengler. 2007. Diversity of Kranz anatomy and biochemistry in C4 eudicots. Amer. J. Bot. 94: 362–381. Google Scholar

95.

Ocampo, G., and J. T. Columbus. 2010. Molecular phylogenetics of suborder Cactineae (Caryophyllales), including insignts into photosynthetic diversification and historical biogeography. Amer. J. Bot. 97: 1827–1847. Google Scholar

96.

Osborne, C. P. 2011. The Geologic History of C4 Plants. In A. S. Raghavendraand R. F. Sage [eds.], Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration, 339–357, Springer, Dordrecht. Google Scholar

97.

Panero, J. L. 2007. Compositae: Tribe Tageteae Cass (1819). In J. W. Kadereitand C. Jeffrey [eds.], Flowering Plants, Eudicots, Asterales, 420–431, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Google Scholar

98.

Panero, J. L., and V. A. Funk. 2008. The value of sampling anomalous taxa in phylogenetic studies: major clades of the Asteraceae revealed. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 47: 757–782. Google Scholar

99.

Petersen, B. J., and B. Fry. 1987. Stable isotopes in ecosystem studies. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 293–320. Google Scholar

100.

Pinkava, D. J., and D. J. Keil. 1977. Chromosome counts of Compositae from the United States and Mexico. Amer. J. Bot. 64: 680–686. Google Scholar

101.

Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14: 817–818. Google Scholar

102.

Powell, A. M., and B. L. Turner. 1963. Chromosome numbers in the Compositae. VII. Additional species from the southwestern United States and Mexico. Madroño 17: 128–140. Google Scholar

103.

Powell, A. M., and S. Sikes. 1970. Chromosome numbers of some Chihuahuan Desert Compositae. S. W. Naturalist 15: 175–186. Google Scholar

104.

Ralston, B., G. Nesom, and B. L. Turner. 1989. Documented plant chromosome numbers 1989:1. Chromosome numbers in Mexican Asteraceae with special reference to the Tribe Tageteae. Sida 13: 359–368. Google Scholar

105.

Rambaut, A. 2008. FigTree version 1.3.1. Distributed by the author.  http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree. Accessed March 2012. Google Scholar

106.

Rambaut, A., and A. J. Drummond. 2007. Tracer v1.5 2003-2009 MCMC Trace Analysis Package.  http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/TracerGoogle Scholar

107.

Raven, P. H., and D. W. Kyhos. 1961. Chromosome numbers in Compositae. II. Helenieae. Amer. J. Bot. 48: 842–850. Google Scholar

108.

Reveal, J. L., and R. Moran. 1977. Miscellaneous chromosome counts of western American plants—IV. Madroño 24: 227–235. Google Scholar

109.

Reveal, J. L., and R. Spellenberg. 1976. Miscellaneous chromosome counts of Western American plants—III. Rhodora 78: 37–72. Google Scholar

110.

Robinson, H. 1981. A revision of the tribal and subtribal limits of the Heliantheae (Asteraceae). Smithsonian Contrib. Bot. 51: 1–102. Google Scholar

111.

Robinson, H., A. M. Powell, R. M. King, and J. F. Weedin. 1981. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

112.

Rydberg, P. A. 1916. (Carduales) Carduaceae. Tageteae, Anthemidae. N. Am. Fl. 34: 181–288. Google Scholar

113.

Sage, R. F. 2003. The evolution of C4 photosynthesis. New Phytol. 161: 341–370. Google Scholar

114.

Sage, R. F., P.-A., Christin, and E. J. Edwards. 2011. The C4 plant lineages of planet Earth. J. ExPt. Bot. 62: 3155–3169. Google Scholar

115.

Sage, R. F., T. L. Sage, and R. W. Kocacinar. 2012. Photorespiration and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Ann. Rev. Pl. Biol. 63: 19–47. Google Scholar

116.

Sage, R. F., T. L. Sage, R. W. Pearcy, and T. Borsch. 2007. The taxonomic distribution of C4 photosynthesis in Amaranthaceae sensu stricto. Amer. J. Bot. 94: 1992–2003. Google Scholar

117.

Schöch, E. 1971. Mata und Aspartat als Hauptprodukte der 14CO2-Kurzzeit Fixierung nun auch bei einer Composite. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 64: 367–368. Google Scholar

118.

Schöch, E., and K. Kramer. 1971. Korrelation von Merkmalen der C4-Photosynthese bei Vertretern verschiedner Ordnungen der Angiospermen. Planta 101: 51–66. Google Scholar

119.

Seemann, B. 1852-1857. The Botany of the Voyage of H.M.S. Herald: Under the Command of Captain Henry Kellett, R.N., C.B., During the Years 1845-51. Lovell Reeve, London. Google Scholar

120.

Shaw, J., E. B. Lickey, E. E. Schilling, and R. L. Small. 2007. Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. Amer. J. Bot. 94: 275–288. Google Scholar

121.

Shimodaira, H. 2002. An approximately unbiasted test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst. Biol. 51: 492–508. Google Scholar

122.

Shimodaira, H., and M. Hasegawa. 2001. CONSEL: for assession the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17: 1246–1247. Google Scholar

123.

Smith, B. N., and B. L. Turner. 1975. Distribution of Kranz syndrome among Asteraceae. Amer. J. Bot. 62: 541–545. Google Scholar

124.

Soares, C. C., T. M. Marques, G. G. Rigolin, E. Neis, A. M. V. Friaça, A. S. Silva, G. S. Barreto, and L. Lopes. 2009. Atividade analgésica do extrato da Pectis jangadensis (S. Moore). Braz. J. Pharmacognosy 19(1A): 77–81. Google Scholar

125.

Spaulding, W. G., E. B. Leopold, and T. R. van Devender. 1983. Late Wisconsin paleoecology of the American Southwest. In S. C. Porter [ed.], Late-Quarternary Environments of the United States. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Google Scholar

126.

Stamatakis, A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analysis with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2688–2690. Google Scholar

127.

Strother, J. L. 1977. Tageteae—systematic review. In V. H. Heywood, J. B. Harborne, and B. L. Turner [eds.], The Biology and Chemistry of the Compositae, 769–783, Academic Press, New York. Google Scholar

128.

Strother, J. L. 1983. More chromosome studies in Compositae. Amer. J. Bot. 70: 1217–1224. Google Scholar

129.

Strother, J. L., and J. L. Panero. 2001. Chromosome studies: Mexican Compositae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 499–502. Google Scholar

130.

Timme, R. E., J. V. Kuehl, J. L. Boore, and R. K. Jansen. 2007. A comparative analysis of the Lactuca and Helianthus (Asteraceae) plastid genomes: identification of divergent regions and categorization of shared repeats. Amer. J. Bot. 94: 302–312. Google Scholar

131.

Turner, B. L. 1996. Porophyllam. pp. 43–50 in The Comps of Mexico: A systematic account of the Family Asteraceae. 6: Tageteae and Anthemideae. Phytologia Memoirs 10: 1–93. Google Scholar

132.

Turner, B. L., and D. Flyr. 1966. Chromosome numbers in the Compositae. X. North American species. Amer. J. Bot. 53: 24–33. Google Scholar

133.

Turner, B. L., J. Bacon, L. Urbatsch, and B. Simpson. 1979. Chromosome numbers in South American Compositae. Amer. J. Bot. 66: 173–178. Google Scholar

134.

Turner, B. L., J. H. Beaman, and H. F. L. Rock. 1961. Chromosome numbers in the Compositae. V. Mexican and Guatemalan species. Rhodora 63: 121–129. Google Scholar

135.

Van Devender, T. R. 2000. The deep history of the Sonoran Desert. In S. J. Phillipsand P. W. Cormus [eds.], A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert, 61–69, Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum Press, Tucson. Google Scholar

136.

Vogan, Pt. J., M. W. Frohlich, and R. F. Sage. 2007. The functional significance of C3–C4 intermediate traits in Heliotropium L. (Boraginaceae): gas exhange perspectives. Plant. Cell Environ. 30: 1337–1345. Google Scholar

137.

Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai'i (Bishop Museum Special Publication). University of Hawai'i Press, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Google Scholar

138.

Werle, E., C. Schneider, M. Renner, M. Völker, and W. Fiehn. 1994. Convenient single-step, one tube purification of PCR products for direct sequencing. Nucl. Acids Res. 20: 4354–4355. Google Scholar

139.

Westhoff, P., and U. Gowik. 2004. Evolution of C4 phosphoenolpyrovate carboxylase. Genes and proteins: a case study with the genus Flaveria. Ann. Bot. 93: 13–23. Google Scholar

140.

White, T. J., S. L. Bruns, and J. Taylor. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In M. Innis, D. Gelfand, J. Sninsky, and T. White [eds.], PCR Protocols: a Guide to Methods and Application, 315–322, Academic Press, San Diego. Google Scholar

141.

Wiggins, I. L., and D. M. Porter. 1971. Flora of the Galápagos Islands. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Google Scholar

142.

Wilcox, T. P., D. J. Zwickl, T. A. Heath, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of Bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support. Molec. Phylogenet. Evol. 25: 361–371. Google Scholar

143.

Wilgenbusch, J. C., D. L. Warren, and D. L. Swofford. 2004. AWTY: A system for graphical exploration of MCMC convergence in Bayesian phylogenetic inference.,  http://ceb.csit.fsu.edu/awtyGoogle Scholar

144.

Zhao, Z., and B. L. Turner. 1993. Documented chromosome numbers 1993: 3. Miscellaneous U.S.A. and Mexican species, mostly Asteraceae. Sida 15: 649–653. Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix 1. List of taxa sampled in the folowing order: taxon, i.d. number (when more than one accession per species): voucher information (herbarium), GenBank accession numbers for ITS, matK, 3’ ndhF, rpl16 intron, trnL-rpl32, 3’ trnV-ndhC, 5’ trnY-rpoB. An asterisk denotes accessions that did not amplify for a particular locus. Herbarium acronyms follow Index Herbariorum.

Chrysactinia mexicana A. Gray, Coahuilla, Mexico, E. L. Bridges 13067 (TEX), KJ524912, KJ525212, KJ525071, KJ557938, KJ558064, KJ525508, KJ525358. Nicolletia edwardsii A. Gray, Coahuilla, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 65 (TEX), KJ524913, KJ525213, KJ525072, KJ557939, KJ558065, KJ525509, KJ525359. Pectis amplifolia D.J. Keil, Oaxaca, Mexico, M. Elorsa C. 5010 (TEX), KJ524915, KJ525215, KJ525074, KJ557941, KJ558067, KJ525511, KJ525361. Pt. angustifolia var. angustifolia Torr., No.1: Chihuahua, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 80 (TEX), KJ524916, KJ525216, KJ525075, KJ557942, KJ558068, KJ525512, KJ525362. No. 2: Texas, U.S.A., B.L. Turner 22409 (TEX), KJ524917, KJ525217, KJ525076, KJ557943, KJ558069, KJ525513, KJ525363. Pt. angustifolia var. fastigiata (A. Gray) D.J. Keil, No. 1: Texas, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 148 (TEX), KJ525060, KJ525351, KJ525204, KJ558055, KJ558212, KJ525641, KJ525499. No. 2: Texas, U.S.A., W. R. Carr 15797 (TEX), KJ524918, KJ525218, KJ525077, KJ557944, KJ558070, KJ525514, KJ525364. Pt. angustifolia var. tenella (DC.) D.J. Keil, No. 1: Mexico, D. R. Hansen 63 (TEX), *, KJ525219, KJ525078, KJ557945, KJ558071, KJ525515, KJ525365. No. 2: Coahuila, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 69 (TEX), KJ524919, KJ525220, KJ525079, KJ557946, KJ558072, KJ525516, KJ525366. Pt. barberi Greenm., Chihuahua, Mexico, J. Spencer 1454 (TEX), KJ524920, KJ525221, KJ525080, KJ557947, KJ558073, KJ525517, KJ525367. Pt. berlandieri DC., Tamaulipas, Mexico, M. C. Johnston 5579 (TEX), KJ524921, KJ525222, KJ525081, KJ557948, KJ558074, KJ525518, KJ525368. Pt. bonplandiana Kunth, Belize City, Belize, R. D.Worthington 21255 (TEX), KJ524922, KJ525223, KJ525082, KJ557949, KJ558075, KJ525519, KJ525369. Pt. brevipedunculata Sch. BiPt., No. 1: Bahia, Brazil, V. C. Souza 5.391 (LL), KJ524923, KJ525224, KJ525083, *, KJ558076, KJ525520, KJ525370. No. 2: Minas Gerais, Brazil, R. M. Harley H 49978 (MO), KJ525030, KJ525323, KJ525178, KJ558029, KJ558182, KJ525614, KJ525471. Pt. canescens Kunth, No. 1: Nariño, Colombia, B. R. Ramirez. Pt. s.n. (MO), KJ525029, KJ525322, KJ525177, *, KJ558181, KJ525613, KJ525470. No. 2: Guerrero, Mexico, A. Cronquist 10842 (TEX), KJ524924, KJ525225, KJ525084, KJ557950, KJ558077, KJ525521, KJ525371. No. 3: Sinaloa, Mexico, M. Ruiz G. 2006-459 (TEX), KJ524966, KJ525262, KJ525121, KJ557978, KJ558120, KJ525556, KJ525411. Pt. capillipes (Benth.) Hemsl., El Salvador, J. M. Tucker 456 (LL), KJ524925, *, KJ525085, *, KJ558078, *, KJ525372. Pt. carthusianorum Less., Dominican Republic, Dr. A. & P. Liogier (NYBG), KJ524926, *, KJ525086, *, KJ558079, * KJ525373. Pt. ciliaris L., No. 1: San Cristobal, Dominican Republic, T. Classe 4401 (TEX), KJ524983, *, *, KJ557992, KJ558137, KJ525571, *. No. 2: Monte Plata, Dominican Republic, D. R. Hansen 98 (TEX), KJ524927, KJ525226, KJ525087, KJ557951, KJ558080, KJ525522, KJ525374. cf. ciliaris L., Guyas, Ecuador, E. Asplund 5620 (TEX), KJ524928, KJ525227, KJ525088, *, KJ558081, KJ525523, KJ525375. Pt. coulteri Harv. & A. Gray, No. 1: Sonora, Mexico, A. Sanders 13193 (TEX), KJ524929, KJ525228, *, KJ557952, KJ558082, KJ525524, KJ525376. No. 2: Sonora, Mexico, A.L. Reina G. 2007-254 (TEX), KJ524931, KJ525230, KJ525090, *, KJ558084, KJ525526, KJ525378. No. 3: Sonora, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 117 (TEX), KJ524930, KJ525229, KJ525089, KJ557953, KJ558083, KJ525525, KJ525377. Pt. cubensis (A. Rich.) Griseb., Grand Cayman Island, N. Chevalier 149 (NYBG), KJ524932, KJ525231, KJ525091, KJ557954, KJ558085, KJ525527, KJ525379. Pt. cylindrica (Fernald) Rydb., No. 1: Sonora, Mexico, A. L. Reina G. 2006-507 (TEX), KJ524933, KJ525232, KJ525092, KJ557955, KJ558086, KJ525528, KJ525380. No. 2: Sonora, Mexico, T. R. Van Devender 2007-865 (TEX), KJ524934, KJ525233, KJ525093, KJ557956, KJ558087, KJ525529, KJ525381. Pt. decemcarinata McVaugh, No. 1: Michoacan, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 139 (TEX), KJ525050, KJ525341, KJ525195, KJ558045, KJ558202, KJ525631, KJ525490. No. 2: Michoacan, Mexico, Jose C. Soto Nuñez 3582 (MO), KJ525034, KJ525326, KJ525180, KJ558031, KJ558186, KJ525616, KJ525474. No. 3: Michoacan, Mexico, M. Luckow 2937 (TEX), KJ524935, KJ525234, KJ525094, KJ557957, KJ558088, KJ525530, KJ525382. Pt. depressa Fernald, No. 1: Guerrero, Mexico, A. M. Powell & J. Edmondson 768 (TEX), KJ524936, KJ525235, KJ525095, KJ557958, KJ558089, KJ525531, KJ525383. No. 2: Guerrero, Mexico, Y. Yahara 1353 (TEX), KJ525063, *, *, *, KJ558215, *, KJ525502. Pt. diffusa Hook. & Arn., Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 135 (TEX), KJ525048, KJ525339, KJ525193, KJ558043, KJ558200, KJ525629, KJ525488. Pt. elongata var. elongata Kunth, Concepción, Paraguay, E. M. Sardini 38698 (MO), *, *, *, KJ558185, *, *. Pt. elongata var. fasciculiflora (DC.) D.J. Keil, No. 1: Guerrero, Mexico, Fred R. Barrie 732 (TEX), KJ524937, *, *, *, KJ558090, *, *. No. 2: Guerrero, Mexico, R. Torres C. 1809 (MO), KJ525033, KJ525325, *, KJ558030, KJ558184, *, KJ525473. Pt. elongata var. floribunda (A. Rich.) D.J. Keil, No. 1: Monte Plata, Dominican Republic, D. R. Hansen 100 (TEX), KJ524938, KJ525236, KJ525096, KJ557959, KJ558091, KJ525532, KJ525384. No. 2: Veracruz, Mexico, J. Dorantes 5076 (TEX), KJ524939, KJ525237, *, *, KJ558092, *, KJ525385. Pt. elongata var. oerstediana (Rydb.) D.J. Keil, Guatemala, E. Contreras 10400 (TEX), KJ524940, KJ525238, KJ525097, *, KJ558093, *, KJ525386. Pt. ericifolia D.J. Keil, Barbuda, Richard S. Cowan 1663 (NYBG), KJ524941, *, *, *, KJ558094, *, *. Pt. exilis D.J. Keil, No. 1: Guerrero, Mexico, J. Calónico Soto 17612 (MEXU), KJ525058, KJ525349, KJ525202, KJ558053, KJ558210, KJ525639, KJ525497. No. 2: Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 138 (TEX), KJ525049, KJ525340, KJ525194, KJ558044, KJ558201, KJ525630, KJ525489. Pt. exserta McVaugh, No. 1: Jalisco, Mexico, R. McVaugh 26321 (MEXU), KJ525055, KJ525346, KJ525200, KJ558050, KJ558207, KJ525636, KJ525495. No. 2: Jalisco, Mexico, A. C. Sanders 11177 (MO), KJ525032, KJ525324, KJ525179, *, KJ558183, KJ525615, KJ525472. Pt. filipes var. filipes Harv. & A. Gray, Sonora, Mexico, A.L. Reina G. 2006-509 (TEX), KJ524943, KJ525240, KJ525099, KJ557961, KJ558096, KJ525534, KJ525388. Pt. filipes var. subnuda Fernald, No. 1: Texas, U.S.A., Emily J. Lott 5257 (TEX), KJ524944, KJ525241, KJ525100, KJ557962, KJ558097, KJ525535, KJ525389. No. 2: New Mexico, U.S.A., R. D. Worthington 27323 (TEX), KJ524945, KJ525242, KJ525101, KJ557963, KJ558098, KJ525536, KJ525390. No. 3: Arizona, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 85 (TEX), KJ524942, KJ525239, KJ525098, KJ557960, KJ558095, KJ525533, KJ525387. Pt. glaucescens (Cass.) D.J. Keil, No. 1: Bahama Islands, D. S. Correll 49664 (NYBG), KJ524947, KJ525244, KJ525103, KJ557965, KJ558100, KJ525538, KJ525392. No. 2: Florida, U.S.A., Ruben Pt. 8755 (TEX), KJ524948, *, KJ525104, *, KJ558101, *, *. No. 3: Districto Nacional, Dominican Republic, D. R. Hansen 111 (TEX), KJ524946, KJ525243, KJ525102, KJ557964, KJ558099, KJ525537, KJ525391. Pt. graveolens Klatt, Colombia, J. E. Ramos 459 (MO), KJ525028, KJ525321, KJ525176, KJ558028, KJ558180, KJ525612, KJ525469. Pt. haenkeana (DC.) Sch. Bip, No. 1: Guerrero, Mexico, M. Luckow 3548 (TEX), KJ524949, KJ525245, KJ525105, KJ557966, KJ558102, KJ525539, KJ525393. No. 2: Oaxaca, Mexico, J. Calónico Soto 24000 (MEXU), KJ525056, KJ525347, *, KJ558051, KJ558208, KJ525637, *. Pt. holochaeta var. cana D.J. Keil, No. 1: Michoacan, Mexico, J. C. Soto Núñez 4257 (MEXU), KJ525054, KJ525345, KJ525199, KJ558049, KJ558206, KJ525635, KJ525494. No. 2: Michoacan, Mexico, M.Luckow with F.Barrie 3493 (LL), KJ524950, KJ525246, KJ525106, KJ557967, KJ558103, KJ525540, KJ525394. Pt. holochaeta var. holochaeta (S.F.Blake) D.J. Keil, Guerrero, Mexico, J. Calónico Soto 11952 (MEXU), KJ525057, KJ525348, KJ525201, KJ558052, KJ558209, KJ525638, KJ525496. Pt. humifusa Sw., No. 1: Puerto Rico, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 95 (TEX), KJ524951, KJ525247, KJ525107, KJ557968, KJ558104, KJ525541, KJ525395. No. 2: Puerto Rico, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 96 (TEX), KJ524952, KJ525248, KJ525108, *, KJ558105, KJ525542, KJ525396. Pt. imberbis A. Gray, No. 1: Arizona, U.S.A., E. Lehto L20487 (LL), KJ524953, KJ525249, KJ525109, KJ557969, KJ558106, KJ525543, KJ525397. No. 2: Arizona, U.S.A., J. E. Bowers 3702 (ARIZ), KJ524955, KJ525251, KJ525111, *, KJ558108, KJ525545, KJ525399. No. 3: Arizona, U.S.A., M. Fishbein #1508 (ARIZ), KJ524954, KJ525250, KJ525110, KJ557970, KJ558107, KJ525544, KJ525398. Pt. incisifolia I.M. Johnst., No. 1: Coahuila, Mexico, J. Henrickson 6991 (LL), KJ525066, KJ525355, KJ525209, KJ558060, KJ558217, KJ525646, KJ525505. No. 2: Chihuahua, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 72 (TEX), KJ524956, KJ525252, KJ525112, KJ557971, KJ558109, KJ525546, KJ525400. Pt. latisquama Sch. BiPt. ex Greenm., Puebla, Mexico, Robert Merrill King 3557 (LL), KJ524957, KJ525253, KJ525113, KJ557972, KJ558110, KJ525547, KJ525401. Pt. leavenworthii Standl., No. 1: Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 132 (TEX), KJ525047, KJ525338, KJ525192, KJ558042, KJ558199, KJ525628, KJ525487. No. 2: Michoacán, Mexico, B.L. Turner P-70 (TEX), KJ524958, KJ525254, KJ525114, *, KJ558111, KJ525548, KJ525402. Pt. leonis Rydb., , Cuba, George R. Proctor 3138 (NYBG), KJ524959, KJ525255, *, *, KJ558112, KJ525549, KJ525403. Pt. liebmannii Sch. BiPt. ex Hemsl., No. 1: Oaxaca, Mexico, Misael Elorsa C. 778 (MEXU ), KJ525059, KJ525350, KJ525203, KJ558054, KJ558211, KJ525640, KJ525498. No. 2: Oaxaca, Mexico, Hinton et al. 26470 (TEX), KJ524960, KJ525256, KJ525115, *, KJ558113, KJ525550, KJ525404. Pt. linearifolia Urb., Florida, U.S.A., J. D. Ray, Jr. 10160 (TEX), KJ524961, KJ525257, KJ525116, KJ557973, KJ558114, KJ525551, KJ525405. Pt. linearis La Llave, Jamaica, M.R. Crosby 141 (LL), KJ524962, KJ525258, KJ525117, KJ557974, KJ558115, KJ525552, KJ525406. Pt. linifolia var. hirtella S.F. Blake, No. 1: Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 123 (TEX), KJ525045, KJ525337, KJ525191, KJ558040, KJ558196, KJ525626, KJ525485. No. 2: Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 143 (TEX), KJ525052, KJ525343, KJ525197, KJ558047, KJ558204, KJ525633, KJ525492. Pt. linifolia var. linifolia L., No. 1: Amazonas, Peru, H. van der Werff 15886 (MO), KJ525027, KJ525320, KJ525175, KJ558027, KJ558179, KJ525611, KJ525468. No. 2: Azua, Dominican Republic, D. R. Hansen 107 (TEX), KJ524963, KJ525259, KJ525118, KJ557975, KJ558116, KJ525553, KJ525407. No. 3: Arizona, U.S.A., E. Lehto L20273 (LL), KJ524964, KJ525260, KJ525119, KJ557976, KJ558117, KJ525554, KJ525408. Pt. longipes A. Gray, No. 1: Arizona, U.S.A., S. Sundberg 2114 (TEX), KJ524965, KJ525261, KJ525120, KJ557977, KJ558118, KJ525555, KJ525409. No. 2: Sonora, Mexico, T. R. Van Devender 2008-249 (TEX), KJ525044, KJ525336, KJ525190, KJ558039, KJ558195, KJ525625, KJ525484. Pt. luckoviae D.J. Keil, No. 1: Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 140 (TEX), KJ525051, KJ525342, KJ525196, KJ558046, KJ558203, KJ525632, KJ525491. No. 2: Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 145 (TEX), KJ525053, KJ525344, KJ525198, KJ558048, KJ558205, KJ525634, KJ525493. Pt. multiceps Urb., Dominican Republic, A. H. Liogier 12330 (NYBG), KJ524967, KJ525263, KJ525122, KJ557979, KJ558121, KJ525557, KJ525412. Pt. multiflosculosa (DC.) Sch. BiPt., , Costa Rica, W. Haber 9243 (LL), KJ524968 (ITS clone 1), KJ524969 (ITS clone 2), KJ525264, KJ525123, KJ557980, KJ558123, KJ525558, KJ525414. Pt. multiseta var. ambigua (Fernald) D.J. Keil, Baja Calif. Sur, Mexico, S. W. Sikes 274 (TEX), KJ524970, KJ525265, KJ525124, KJ557981, KJ558124, KJ525559, KJ525415. Pt. multiseta var. multiseta Benth., No. 1: Baja Calif Sur, Mexico, Melissa Luckow 2827 (TEX), KJ524971, KJ525266, KJ525125, KJ557982, KJ558125, KJ525560, KJ525416. No. 2: Baja Calif Sur, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 149 (TEX), KJ525061, KJ525352, KJ525205, KJ558056, KJ558213, KJ525642, KJ525500. Pt. odorata Griseb., No. 1: Beni, Bolivia, S.G. Beck 12815 (LPB), KJ524972, KJ525267, KJ525126, KJ557983, KJ558126, KJ525561, KJ525417. No. 2: Central, Paraguay, F. Mereles 3971 (MO), KJ525026, KJ525319, KJ525174, KJ558026, KJ558178, KJ525610, KJ525466. Pt. oligocephala var. oligocephala Sch. BiPt., No. 1: Goiás, Brazil, H. S. Irwin (NYBG), KJ524973, KJ525268, KJ525127, KJ557984, KJ558127, KJ525562, KJ525418. No. 2: Goiás, Brazil, W. R. Anderson 6859 (NYBG), KJ524974, KJ525269, KJ525128, *, KJ558128, KJ525563, KJ525419. Pt. papposa var. grandis D.J. Keil, No. 1: Chihuahua, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 78 (TEX), KJ524976, KJ525271, KJ525130, KJ557986, KJ558130, KJ525564, KJ525421. No. 2: Texas, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 62 (TEX), KJ524975, KJ525270, KJ525129, *, KJ558129, KX815121, KJ525420. Pt. papposa var. papposa Harv. & A. Gray, No. 1: Arizona, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 83 (TEX), KJ524977, KJ525272, KJ525131, KJ557986, KJ558131, KJ525565, KJ525422. No. 2: California, U.S.A., B. Pitzer 4021 (TEX), KJ525068, KJ525357, KJ525211, KJ558062, KJ558219, KJ525648, KJ525507. Pt. portoricensis Urb., , Puerto Rico, T. A. Zanoni (NYBG), KJ524978, KJ525273, KJ525132, KJ557987, KJ558132, KJ525566, KJ525423. Pt. pringlei Fernald, No. 1: Chihuahua, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 74 (TEX), KJ524979, KJ525274, KJ525133, KJ557988, KJ558133, KJ525567, KJ525424. No. 2: Chihuahua, Mexico, A. Cronquist 10759, (TEX), KJ525067, KJ525356, KJ525210, KJ558061, KJ558218, KJ525647, KJ525506. Pt. propetes Greenm., Zacatecas, Mexico, D. E. Breedlove 61549 (TEX), KJ524980, KJ525275, KJ525134, KJ557989, KJ558134, KJ525568, KJ525425. Pt. prostrata Cav., No. 1: Arizona, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 86 (TEX), KJ524981, KJ525276, KJ525135, KJ557990, KJ558135, KJ525569, KJ525426. No. 2: Sinaloa, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 120 (TEX), KJ524984, KJ525278, KJ525137, KJ557993, KJ558138, KJ525572, KJ525428. No. 3: Texas, U.S.A., W. R. Carr 19134 (TEX), KJ524982, KJ525277, KJ525136, KJ557991, KJ558136, KJ525570, KJ525427. No. 4: Managua, Nicaragua, M. Guzman 425 (MO), KJ525038, KJ525330, KJ525184, KJ558033, KJ558190, KJ525619, KJ525478. Pt. purpurea var. sonorae D.J. Keil, Sonora, Mexico, T. R. Van Devender 92-1061 (TEX), KJ524985, KJ525279, KJ525138, KJ557994, KJ558139, KJ525573, KJ525429. Pt. pusilla Urb., Haiti, E. L. Ekman 8343 (LL), KJ524986, KJ525280, KJ525139, KJ557995, KJ558140, KJ525574, KJ525430. Pt. repens Brandegee, No. 1: Queretaro, Mexico, J. Rzedowski (TEX), KJ524987, KJ525281, KJ525140, KJ557996, KJ558141, KJ525575, KJ525431. No. 2: Guanajuato, Mexico, R. Galván 2578 (MO), KJ525039, KJ525331, KJ525185, KJ558034, KJ558191, KJ525620, KJ525479. Pt. saturejoides (Mill.) Sch. BiPt., No. 1: Oaxaca, Mexico, A. Saynes V. 4246 (TEX), KJ524988, KJ525282, KJ525141, KJ557997, KJ558143, KJ525576, KJ525433. No. 2: El Progreso, Guatemala, M. Garcia 671 (MO), KJ525037, KJ525329, KJ525183, KJ558032, KJ558189, KJ525618, KJ525477. No. 3: Oaxaca, Mexico, M. Elorsa C. 7760 (TEX), KJ524914, KJ525214, KJ525073, KJ557940, KJ558066, KJ525510, KJ525360. Pt. sessiliflora (Less.) Sch. BiPt., No. 1: Jujuy, Argentina, A. Krapovickas 46652, (TEX), KJ524989, KJ525283, KJ525142, KJ557998, *, KJ525577, KJ525434. No. 2: La Paz, Bolivia, St. G. Beck 7987 (LPB), KJ524990, KJ525284, KJ525143, KJ557999, KJ558144, KJ525578, KJ525435. Pt. sinaloensis Fernald, No. 1: Sinaloa, Mexico, A.L.Reina G. 2005-1606 (ARIZ), KJ524992, KJ525286, KJ525145, KJ558001, KJ558146, KJ525580, KJ525437. No. 2: Sinaloa, Mexico, D. Flyr 135 (TEX), KJ524991, KJ525285, KJ525144, KJ558000, KJ558145, KJ525579, KJ525436. Pt. stella Malme, Mato Grosso, Brazil, G. Hatschbach 62720 (MO), KJ525025, KJ525318, *, *, KJ558177, *, *. Pt. stenophylla var. biaristata (Rydb.) D.J. Keil, Sonora, Mexico, S. Sikes 1788 (TEX), KJ525064, *, KJ525207, KJ558058, *, KJ525644, KJ525503. Pt. stenophylla var. puberula (Greenm.) D.J. Keil, Sinaloa, Mexico, A. T. Whittemore 83-035 (TEX), KJ525065, KJ525354, KJ525208, KJ558059, KJ558216, KJ525645, KJ525504. Pt. stenophylla var. stenophylla A.Gray, Chihuahua, Mexico, W. A.Weber & R. Bye 8382 (TEX), KJ524994, KJ525288, KJ525147, KJ558003, KJ558148, KJ525582, KJ525439. Pt. c.f. stenophylla A.Gray, Sonora, Mexico, A. L.Reina G. 2007-1034 (TEX), KJ524993, KJ525287, KJ525146, KJ558002, KJ558147, KJ525581, KJ525438. Pt. tenuicaulis Urb., No. 1: Dominican Republic, Bro. A. H. Liogier (NYBG), KJ524995, KJ525289, KJ525148, *, KJ558149, KJ525583, KJ525440. No. 2: Boyaca, Colombia, John Olsen and Linda Escobar 590 (LL), KJ524996, KJ525290, KJ525149, KJ558004, KJ558150, KJ525584, KJ525441. Pt. tenuifolia (DC.) Sch. BiPt., Galápagos Islands, Ecuador, I. L. Wiggins & D. M. Porter 210 (NYBG), KJ524997, KJ525291, KJ525150, *, KJ558151, KJ525585, KJ525442. Pt. uniaristata var. holostemma A. Gray, No. 1: Valle, Honduras, D. Keil 9509 (MO), KJ525036, KJ525328, KJ525182, *, KJ558188, KJ525617, KJ525476. No. 2: Nueva Segovia, Nicauragua, W.D. Stevens 3069 (MO), KJ525035, KJ525327, KJ525181, *, KJ558187, KJ525617, KJ525475. Pt. uniaristata var. jangadensis (S. Moore) D.J. Keil, Sinaloa, Mexico, T. R. Van Devender 2004-1488 (TEX), KJ524998, KJ525292, KJ525151, KJ558005, KJ558152, KJ525586, KJ525443. Pt. uniaristata var. uniaristata DC., No. 1: Sonora, Mexico, A. L. Reina G. 2006-1311 (TEX), KJ524999, KJ525293, KJ525152, KJ558006, KJ558153, KJ525587, KJ525444. Pt. vandevenderi B.L. Turner, Sonora, Mexico, A. L. Reina G. 2007-1030 (TEX), KJ525000, KJ525294, KJ525153, KJ558007, KJ558154, KJ525588, KJ525445. Pt. vollmeri Wiggins, Baja Calif Sur, Mexico, T. L.Burgess 6134 (ARIZ), KJ525001, KJ525295, KJ525154, KJ558008, KJ558155, KJ525589, KJ525446. Porophyllum amplexicaule Engelm. ex A. Gray, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, Hinton 22702 (TEX), KJ525002, KJ525296, KJ525155, KJ558009, KJ558156, KJ525590, KJ525447. Pr. angustissimum Gardner, Minas Gerais, Brazil, H. S. Irwin (LL), KJ525003, KJ525297, KJ525156, KJ558010, KJ558157, KJ525591, KJ525448. Pr. calcicola B.L. Rob. & Greenm., Guerrero, Mexico, S.D. Koch 7984 (TEX), KJ525004, KJ525298, KJ525157, KJ558011, KJ558158, KJ525592, KJ525449. Pr. coloratum var. coloratum (Kunth) DC., Sonora, T. R. Van Devender 95-447 (TEX), KJ525005, KJ525299, KJ525158, KJ558012, KJ558159, KJ525593, KJ525450. Pr. coloratum var. obtusifolium (DC.) McVaugh, Aguascalientes, Mexico, J. Rzedowski & R. McVaugh 868 (TEX), KJ525006, KJ525300, KJ525159, KJ558013, KJ558160, KJ525594, KJ525451. Pr. filiforme Rydb., Nuevo Leon, Mexico, Hinton 20959 (TEX), KJ525007, KJ525302, *, *, *, *, KJ525453. Pr. gracile Benth, California, USA, L. Gross 1276 (RSA), KJ525009, KJ525303, KJ525161, KJ558015, KJ558161, KJ525596, KJ525454. Pr. greggii A. Gray, Texas, U.S.A., S. Sikes & J. Smith 531 (TEX), KJ525010, KJ525304, KJ525162, KJ558016, KJ558162, KJ525597, KJ525455. Pr. lanceolatum DC., Corrientes, Argentina, A. Schinini (TEX), KJ525011, KJ525305, KJ525163, KJ558017, KJ558163, KJ525598, KJ525456. Pr. leiocarpum (Urb.) Rydb, , Puerto Rico, A. H. Liogier (NYBG), KJ525012, KJ525306, KJ525164, KJ558018, KJ558164, KJ525599, KJ525457. Pr. linaria (Cav.) DC., No. 1: Puebla, Mexico, David Keil 15479 (TEX), KJ525013, KJ525307, KJ525165, KJ558019, KJ558165, KJ525600, KJ525458; No 2: Oaxaca, Mexico, J. I. Calzada 20259 (TEX), KJ525014, KJ525308, KJ525166, KJ558020, KJ558166, KJ525601, KJ525459. Pt. lindenii Sch. Bip, Jalisco, Mexico, J. L. Panero 2872 (TEX), KJ525015, KJ525309, KJ525167, KJ558021, KJ558167, KJ525602, KJ525460. Pr. linifolium (Ard.) DC. Central, Paraguay, E. M. Zardini 36323 (MO), KJ525043, KJ525335, KJ525189, KJ558038, KJ558194, KJ525624, KJ525483. Pr. macrocephalum DC., No. 1: Honduras, T. F. Daniel 9591 (MO), KJ525040, KJ525332, KJ525186, KJ558035, KJ558192, KJ525621, KJ525480. No. 2: Tamaulipas, Mexico, T. F. Patterson 7388 (TEX), KJ525016, KJ525310, KJ525168, KJ558022, KJ558168, KJ525603, KJ525461. No. 3: Chiapas, Mexico, A. Reyes-Garcia 5623 (TEX), KJ525041, KJ525333, KJ525187, KJ558036, *, KJ525622, KJ525481. No. 4: Sonora, Mexico, A.L. Reina G 2006-1180 (TEX), KJ525021, KJ525315, KJ525172, KJ558024, KJ558173, KJ525607, KJ525465. Pr. maritimum Brandegee, No. 1: Baja California Sur, Mexico, M. Luckow 2866 (TEX), KJ525017, KJ525311, KJ525169, *, KJ558169, KJ525604, KJ525462. No. 2: Baja California Sur, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 150 (TEX), KJ525062, KJ525353, KJ525206, KJ558057, KJ558214, KJ525643, KJ525501. Pr. pausodynum B.L. Rob. & Greenm., Sonora, Mexico, Richard S. Felger 85-1530 (TEX), KJ525018, KJ525312, *, *, KJ558170, *, *. Pr. punctatum (Mill.) S.F. Blake, No. 1: Sinaloa, Mexico, J. L. Panero 6179 (TEX), KJ525020, KJ525314, KJ525171, KJ558023, KJ558172, KJ525606, KJ525464. No. 2: Belize, R. D. Worthington 23852 (TEX), KJ525019, KJ525313, KJ525170, *, KJ558171, KJ525605, KJ525463. Pr. ruderale (Jacq.) Cass., Ecuador, R. M. King 10060 (MO), KJ525042, KJ525334, KJ525188, KJ558037, KJ558193, KJ525623, KJ525482. Pr. cf. ruderale (Cass.) A. Gray ex B.L. Rob., Goiás, Brazil, H. S. Irwin (TEX), KJ525007, KJ525301, KJ525160, KJ558014, *, KJ525595, KJ525452. Pr. scoparium A. Gray, Chihuahua, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 79 (TEX), KJ525022, KJ525316, *, *, KJ558174, KJ525608, *. Pr. viridiflorum (Kunth) DC., Guerrero, Mexico, J. L. Panero 6187 (TEX), KJ525023, KJ525317, KJ525173, KJ558025, KJ558175, KJ525609, KJ525466. Pr. zimapanum B.L. Turner, Zacatecas, Mexico, L. Woodruff 397 (TEX), KJ525024, *, *, *, KJ558176, *, *. Tagetes erecta Fernald, Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 126 (TEX), KJ525046, *, *, KJ558041, KJ558197, KJ525627, *.

Appendix 2. List of taxa used for molecular dating, in the following order: taxon, available voucher information (herbarium), GenBank accession numbers for matK, ndhF. Herbarium acronyms follow Index Herbariorum. If the matK and ndhF sequences are from different collections, they are listed separately after the species name. Sequences representing Barnadesia and Flaveria were taken from different species because matK and ndhF were not available from the same species.

Arctotis hirsuta (Harv.) Pt. Beauv., J. Panero 2002-61, cultivated, seed source: Kirstenboch Botanical Garden, South Africa (TEX), EU385224, EU385133. Artemisia tridentata Nutt., matK: AF456776; ndhF: A. Kornkven 11872 (OKL), AF153630. Barnadesia Mutis ex L. f. matK: B. spinosa L.f., Argentina, Panero and Crozier 8492 (TEX), EU385327; ndhF: B. caryophyla (Vell.) S.F. Blake, L39394. Centaurea melitensis L., USA, J. Panero 2002-48, (TEX), EU385332, EU385140. Chrysactinia mexicana A. Gray, Coahuilla, Mexico, E. L. Bridges 13067 (TEX), KJ525212, KJ525071. Dicoma capensis Less., South Africa, Trinder-Smith 349 (US), EU385344, EU385152. Doniophyton anomalum (D. Don) Kurtz, Argentina, Bonifacino 96, (US), EU385348, EU385156. Flaveria Juss., matK: F. australasica Hook., AF456788; ndhF: F. ramosissima Klatt, Keil 15588 (TEX); AF405266. Gerera serrata (Thunb.) Druce, South Africa, Koekemoer 2001 (US), EU385356, EU385164. Gochnatia hypoleuca (DC.) A. Gray, Mexico, J. Panero MEX-1 (TEX), EU385357, EU385165. Helianthus annuus L. cultivar line HA383, ABD47127.1, ABD47204. Inula britannica L., Santos and Francisco ACC55-98, cultivated at TEX, (ORT), AY215812, AF384737. Lactuca sativa L. cultivar Salinas, ABD47214.1, ABD47291.1. Mutisia retrorsa Cav., Argentina, Bonifacino 148 (US), EU385376, EU385185. Nicolletia edwardsii A. Gray, Coahuilla, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 65 (TEX), KJ525213, KJ525072. Pectis angustifolia var. angustifolia Torr., Texas, U.S.A., B.L. Turner 22409 (TEX), KJ525217, KJ525076. Pectis barberi Greenm., Chihuahua, Mexico, J. Spencer 1454 (TEX), KJ525221, KJ525080. Pectis coulteri Harv. & A. Gray, Sonora, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 117 (TEX), KJ525229, KJ525089. Pectis cylindrica (Fernald) Rydb., Sonora, Mexico, A.L. Reina G. 2006-507 (TEX), KJ525232, KJ525092. Pectis decemcarinata McVaugh, Michoacan, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 139 (TEX), KJ525341, KJ525195. Pectis elongata var. floribunda (A. Rich.) D.J. Keil, Monte Plata, Dominican Republic, D. R. Hansen 100 (TEX), KJ525236, KJ525096. Pectis filipes var. filipes Harv. & A. Gray, Sonora, Mexico, A.L. Reina G. 2006-509 (TEX), KJ525240, KJ525099. Pectis filipes var. subnuda Fernald, New Mexico, U.S.A., R. D. Worthington 27323 (TEX), KJ525242, KJ525101. Pectis humifusa Sw., Puerto Rico, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 95 (TEX), KJ525247, KJ525107. Pectis imberbis A. Gray, Arizona, U.S.A., M. Fishbein #1508 (ARIZ), KJ525250, KJ525110. Pectis incisifolia I.M. Johnst., Chihuahua, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 72 (TEX), KJ525252, KJ525112. Pectis linifolia L. Arizona, U.S.A., E. Lehto L20273 (LL), KJ525260, KJ525119. Pectis linifolia var. hirtella S.F. Blake, Michoacán, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 143 (TEX), KJ525045, KJ525337. Pectis longipes A. Gray, Arizona, U.S.A., Scott Sundberg 2114 (TEX), KJ525261, KJ525120. Pectis multiseta var. multiseta Benth., Baja Calif Sur, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 149 (TEX), KJ525352, KJ525205. Pectis oligocephala var. oligocephala Sch. BiPt., Goiás, Brazil, W. R. Anderson 6859 (NYBG), KJ525269, KJ525128. Pectis papposa var. grandis D.J. Keil, Texas, U.S.A., D. R. Hansen 62 (TEX), KJ525270, KJ525129. Pectis papposa var. papposa Harv. & A. Gray, California, U.S.A., B. Pitzer 4021 (TEX), KJ525357, KJ525211. Pectis tenuifolia (DC.) Sch. BiPt., Galápagos Islands, Ecuador, Ira L. Wiggins & D. M. Porter 210 (NYBG), KJ525291, KJ525150. Pectis uniaristata var. uniaristata DC., No. 1: Sonora, Mexico, A.L. Reina G. 2006-1311 (TEX), KJ525293, KJ525152. Pectis vandevenderi B.L. Turner, Sonora, Mexico, A. L. Reina G. 2007-1030 (TEX), KJ525294, KJ525153. Perezia purpurata Wedd., Argentina, Simon 594 (US) EU385385, EU385194. Porophyllum amplexicaule Engelm. ex A. Gray, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, Hinton 22702 (TEX), KJ525296, KJ525155. Porophyllum angustissimum Gardner, Minas Gerais, Brazil, H. S. Irwin (LL), KJ525297, KJ525156. Porophyllum coloratum var. coloratum (Kunth) DC., Sonora, Mexico, T. R. Van Devender 95-447 (TEX), KJ525299, KJ525158. Porophyllum gracile Benth, California, USA, L. Gross 1276 (RSA), KJ525303, KJ525161. Porophyllum linaria (Cav.) DC., Puebla, Mexico, David Keil 15479 (TEX), KJ525307, KJ525165. Porophyllum macrocephalum DC., Sonora, Mexico, A. L. Reina G 2006-1180 (TEX), KJ525315, KJ525172. Porophyllum maritimum Brandegee, Baja California Sur, Mexico, D. R. Hansen 150 (TEX), KJ525353, KJ525206. Sonchus oleraceus L., USA, J. Panero 2002-80, (TEX). EU385397, EU385206. Tagetes patula L., matK: Mexico: Commercial source, Bayer s.n. (CANB), AF151515; ndhF: AB530942.

Copyright 2016 by the Plant Resources Center, The University of Texas at Austin.
Debra R. Hansen, Robert K. Jansen, Rowan F. Sage, José Luis Villaseñor, and Beryl B. Simpson "Molecular Phylogeny of Pectis (Tageteae, Asteraceae), a C4 Genus of the Neotropics, and its Sister Genus Porophyllum," Lundellia 19(1), 6-38, (1 December 2016). https://doi.org/10.25224/1097-993X-19.1.6
Published: 1 December 2016
JOURNAL ARTICLE
33 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
Asteraceae
C4 photosynthesis
Pectidinae
Pectis
Porophyllum
Tageteae
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top