Search for: All records

Abstract The genusTauschiahas long been a source of taxonomic consternation for researchers. The group of species currently included in this genus are distributed primarily across the western United States and Mexico, but a few species occur in Central America and northern South America. Its circumscription is highly problematic, and its species have been moved countless times between more than a dozen genera. The advent of molecular phylogenetics has allowed some testing of generic boundaries inTauschiaand related taxa, but the sampling of previous studies was limited to a few species representing too small of a range to sort out the confusion. Here, we expand the sample size to include plants from throughout the range of the genus and use this to examine relationships among species ofTauschia, as well as to the larger clades to which it belongs within tribe Selineae. We also detail the complex taxonomic history ofTauschiaand related genera, provide a complete synonymy of the genus as it is currently defined, and confirm the polyphyly ofTauschiavia phylogenetic analysis of nuclear and cpDNA sequences. 

Abstract Speciation processes in plants can be difficult to evaluate, but are essential to understanding evolutionary processes that lead to diversification. Determining the juncture at which a genetically and/or morphologically divergent population can be reliably considered a separate species is often challenging. This is particularly so with respect to recent divergences amongst closely related taxa wherein factors such as incomplete lineage sorting may yield confounding results. Taxa in theCymopterus terebinthinus(Apiaceae) species complex have long puzzled botanists. Named entities in this group display similar, yet apparently distinct morphologies that have been classified as varieties under various generic names highlighting long‐standing nomenclatural instability. Previous phylogenetic studies have challenged the monophyly of this complex. This study aims to clarify taxonomic boundaries and infer evolutionary relationships among the fourC. terebinthinusvarieties andC. petraeusby applying phylogenetic inference and incorporating ecological, morphological, and geographical evidence. We sampled from populations of all varieties ofC. terebinthinusandC. petraeusfor target capture with the Angiosperms353 bait kit. We performed phylogenetic analyses with maximum likelihood (RAxML and IQ‐TREE) and coalescent‐based phylogenetic analysis (ASTRAL). We also conducted principal component analysis of soil samples and climatic variables. We find thatC. terebinthinusand its varietal infrataxa comprise a monophyletic clade that includesC. petraeus. Clade groupings correspond to previous taxonomic assignments and morphology. Clades are often closely associated with geographical variables and at times correlated with ecological variables. Exceptions to this are here attributed to various evolutionary factors that often confound other phylogenetic analyses such as incomplete lineage sorting, introgression, and paralogous loci. Our findings suggests that geographical factors might play a major role in genetic and morphological differentiation in this complex. Despite finding well‐supported clades that correspond to defined morphological characters; further sampling amongC. petraeuspopulations is required to make taxonomic decisions.