Abstract
The taxonomic status of and evolutionary relationship between Tasmannia and Drimys (Winteraceae) have been subjects of controversy for many years. In this paper, a molecular phylogenetic analysis of the family with sequences of previously unpublished Tasmannia and Drimys species confirms earlier conclusions that Tasmannia and Drimys do not form a monophyletic group, despite the fact that they appear to share distinctive inflorescence and floral morphological attributes. Examination of alternative hypotheses of relationships with likelihood-ratio tests and parametric bootstrapping supports the separation of Tasmannia and Drimys. A detailed analysis of floral development in Tasmannia lanceolata and T. xerophila indicates that timing and position of sepal initiation differs between them, but that the position of subsequent organ initiation predictably follows from sepal position. This is in contrast to Drimys winteri, where a prolonged delay between sepal and petal initiation leads to the production of many phyllotactic patterns. The prolonged period of calyx tube growth leading to the formation of a calyptra in Tasmannia and Drimys probably evolved in parallel in the two lineages.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Tasmannia and Drimys do not form a monophyletic group.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tasmannia and Drimys do not form a monophyletic group”
Claim · model-written summary
Likelihood-ratio tests and parametric bootstrapping support separating Tasmannia and Drimys.
- Outcome
- separatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Examination of alternative hypotheses of relationships with likelihood-ratio tests and parametric bootstrapping supports the separation of Tasmannia and Drimys.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sepal initiation differs in timing and position between T. lanceolata and T. xerophila.
- Taxon
- Tasmannia lanceolata
Tasmannia lanceolatae0 - Organ / stage
- sepale0
- Outcome
- timing and position of sepal initiatione0
- Direction
- differse0
- Comparator
- T. xerophilae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“floral development in Tasmannia lanceolata and T. xerophila indicates that timing and position of sepal initiation differs between them”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsequent organ initiation in Tasmannia follows sepal position.
Verbatim
e0“the position of subsequent organ initiation predictably follows from sepal position”
e1“Tasmannia lanceolata and T. xerophila”
Claim · model-written summary
In Drimys winteri, a long interval between sepal and petal initiation produces many phyllotactic patterns.
- Taxon
- Drimys winteri
Drimys winterie0 - Organ / stage
- sepal and petale0
- Outcome
- many phyllotactic patternse0
- Qualifier
- prolonged delaye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drimys winteri, where a prolonged delay between sepal and petal initiation leads to the production of many phyllotactic patterns”
Claim · model-written summary
Calyptra formation in Tasmannia and Drimys probably evolved independently in parallel.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The prolonged period of calyx tube growth leading to the formation of a calyptra in Tasmannia and Drimys probably evolved in parallel in the two lineages.”