Monophyly of the Asteridae and Identification of Their Major Lineages Inferred From DNA Sequences of rbeL Richard G. Olmstead; Helen J. Michaels; Kathy M. Scott; Jeffrey D. Palmer Annals of the Missouri Boranical Garden, Vol. 79, No. 2 (1992), 249-265. Stable URL hitp:/flinks jstororgisii sici=0026-6493% 281992%2979%3A2%3C249%3 AMOTAAI%3E2.0,CO%3B2-C Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden is currently published by Missouri Botanical Garden Press. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use ofthis work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www jstor.org/joumnals/mobot html Each copy of any part of @ JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission. STOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact jstor-info@umich edu hupslwww jstor.org/ Mon Feb 9 14:26:22 2004MONOPHYLY OF THE ASTERIDAE AND Richard G. Olmstead,’ Helen J. Michaels, Kathy M. Scott IDENTIFICATION OF THEIR. “4/4”? Palmer MAJOR LINEAGES INFERRED FROM DNA SEQUENCES OF rbcLt ‘Ansreact A pasiony analysis of 57 angionperm rcL sequences was conducted to test the monophyly af the Astrdae and to tently major Ineages within the heeise, Tove major eladen, the Caryophlida, the Rosiae pls Dilerisae, tnd the Aste senu lato, emerge from an unrelvedraiaton inthe ghee” dvats. The Amerie sna. at {nce the Eas, Coral, and APisles in adtion tothe Asterida ses. sr. Two tao lineages within the ‘tera som at are estifd: the Dipscales, piles, Asterles, ac Capel in one, andthe Centanales ‘Srophularley amily, Beagle, at Slanals in the oer. Thr analyse demonstrates the wt of molecu plnlogenice to help place problematic taxa, such asthe Menyanthaces, eacea, and Caliichacese, within the ‘trae. Inplcaone from th pylogencic analysis and erence fom the fowl record lad to the sugpestion tat the org and dveriiaton of the mae higher dat neags occured during eelavely short period of ime abot 80-95 millon years ago ‘The modern concept of the Asteridee, sensu ‘Takhtajan (1980) and Cronquist (1981), is derived from the ancestral Monopetalae (dle Jussieu, 1789) and Gamopetalae (de Candolle, 1813) by the elim: ination of many groups of plants bearing the org inal defining feature of fused corollas (Wagenitz, 1992), Cronquist (1981: 852) stated that “the Asterdae are the most advanced subclass of di cotyledons.” This statement puts into words @ gen- erally held perception, based on traditional as- sumptions regarding trends in character evolution inthe angiosperms, that the subclass is of relatively recent origin compared to other major groups of dicots Spome, 1969, 1975; Stebbins, 1974). ‘There is no consen:us of opinion concerning the monophyly of the Asteridae. Whereas a combi nation of floral and embryological characters seems ta define @ natural group, portrayed as monophy- letic in the treatments of Cronquist (1981) and ‘Takhtajan (1980, but not 1987), chemical char- acters suggest two separate asterid lineages, each derived independently from ancestors in the Ros dao (Dahlgren, 1980). As Wagenitz(1977) pointed ‘out, no division of the Asteridae into separate lin ceages can be constructed without having to pos tulate parallel evolution in morphology, embryol- ‘ogy, and phytocheristry. Parsimony-hased methods ‘of phylogeny reconstruction offer a means of as sessing phylogenetic information in which paral: lelisms exist, by establishing objective criteria for accepting one hypothesis of relationships (Le. tree) cover another hypothesis. Parsimony-hased phylog- eny reconstructions among major groups in the dicots are few. Donoghue & Doyle (1989), in their analysis of basal angiosperm lineages, identified a “higher”-icot clade (ie, derived relative to the bhasal dicots). This clade, to which all Asteridae, Rosidae, Dillenidee, Caryophylidae, and Hama- rmelidae, as well as certain members of the Mag- nolidae, belong is characterized by the presence of tricolpate pollen. Hamby & Zimmer (1991) conducted @ parsimony analysis of nuclear ribo: somal RNA sequences in angiosperms and other seed plant groups, bu found litle resolution among "We thank S. Dewi M. Donoghue, M. Chase, K. Kron, B. Zimmer, and M. Kills for eritial reading of the manuscript and M, Chase, G. Furie, D. Giana, E. Golenberg, D. Lex J. Nogent, J. Retig, and K. Sytsma fo proving paid spines, Ths rsa bs en suport by AS grant BLT 760 “Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, US.A. ® Preset sve: Department of P.O. Biology, University of Cslorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A “Department of Biology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403, US.A, ANN. Missourt Bor. Garb. 79: 249-265. 1992.‘Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden Burmanniacese Lilisceae Orchidaceae Commelridae Poaceae Dicots Magnotidae Lauraceae ‘Magnolacece [Nelumbonacese Nymphacscese Hamamelidae Cereiphyllaceae Platanaceae Caryophylidae Amaranthacese yophyllaceee Chenopodiaceae Phytlacaceae Plumboginacese Polygonaceae Diese Beastcncese Ericacese Fouguiriacese Malvaceae Vielacene Rosidae Apiaceae Araliacese CCornacese Fabaceae Grosulrineae Hydrangescese Linacese Onagraceae Polygalacese Serifagscese Voehysincese Asteridae Apoeynacene Asteraceae Bignoniaceae Boraginaceee Calltrichacene Calyeeraceae Burmannia biflora Lilium superbum Oncidium exeavatum Cenchrus setigeras Puccinellia ditans Persea americana ‘M. macrophylla Nelumbo lute Nuphar variegata Nymphaea odorata Cercidiphyllum japonica! Platans racemosa Amaranthus hypochondriacus Stellaria media Spinacia oleracea Phytolacea americana Plumbogo cepensis Rheum >cultorum Brassica campestris Rhododendron hippophacoides Fouguleriasplendent Gossypium hirtun Viola sonar Coriandram saioune Hedera heli Comus mas Medicago sativa Bresia madagascarenss Carpentria californica Linum perenne Clarkia vaniana Seeuridaca diversiflia. Heuchera micrantha Parnassia finbriata Penthorum sedoides Quatea sp. Apocynum cannabinune Barnadesia earyophylia. Catalpa sp Borage ofteinalie Calltriche heterophylla Boopis anthemoides MIC (unpublished) MIC (unpublished) MIC (unpublised) Dobley et al. (1990) Doabley et al. (1990) Goenberg eta. (1990) Goleberg eta. (1990) Tes et a. (1991) Tes et al. (1991) Tes et a. (1991) RGO sn EMG (unpublished) Michalowski et a (1990) JHR, JRM & HDW (unpublished) araweki otal. (1981) SHR, JME & HDW (unpublished) DEG eta. (onpublbed) DEG etal. (unpublished) IMN (unpublished) MWC & KK (unpublished) Matthaei BG 860162 Galo eta. (1990) [RCO (ao voucher) IDP (no voucher) RKY sn Donoghue tal (1992) Aldrich etal (1986) Solis eral. (1990) Solis etal. (1990) MWC (unpublished) KIS & BC (unpublished) MWC (unpublished) Solis etal. (1990) Solis etal (1990) Solis etal. (1990) MIC (unpublished) GO (no voucher) Michaels etal (in prep.) CHD sn RCO (oo voucher) cP 2152 Michael etal (in prep.)