Abstract
Different views on recognising taxa associated with the Campomanesia xanthocarpa group (Myrtaceae) demonstrate the difficulties in clearly delimiting species. Studies using Inter Simple Sequence Repeats (ISSR) molecular markers were carried out on 201 individuals from 13 populations of C. xanthocarpa Mart. ex O.Berg, C. adamantium (Cambess.) O.Berg, C. costata M.Ibrahim & Landrum and C. littoralis D.Legrand in an attempt to improve understanding of species boundaries between these species. SplitsTree, analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), principal component analysis (PCA), Neighbour-Joining (NJ) dendrogram and STRUCTURE showed inconsistencies between morphological and genetic data in these taxa. Therefore C. adamantium and C. xanthocarpa are treated as distinct taxa in this study, as are C. costata, C. littoralis and C. rhombea O.Berg that were previously considered part of C. xanthocarpa. Structured populations in C. adamantium were not congruent with taxonomic data or poorly supported in the data analysed. These were maintained as a single polymorphic species and new integrative approaches are necessary to improve understanding of taxon boundaries. We present a taxonomic treatment based on these decisions. This study contributes to the systematic treatment of Campomanesia and encourages specific delimitation studies to resolve remaining taxonomic issues within the genus.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Morphological and genetic data gave inconsistent species boundaries.
- Taxon
- Campomanesia xanthocarpa
.jpeg?width=60)
Campomanesia xanthocarpat0 - Outcome
- inconsistencies between morphological and genetic datae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpeg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“SplitsTree, analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), principal component analysis (PCA), Neighbour-Joining (NJ) dendrogram and STRUCTURE showed inconsistencies between morphological and genetic data in these taxa”
t0“Campomanesia xanthocarpa”
Claim · model-written summary
C. adamantium and C. xanthocarpa were treated as distinct taxa.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“C. adamantium and C. xanthocarpa are treated as distinct taxa in this study”
Claim · model-written summary
C. costata, C. littoralis and C. rhombea were treated as distinct from C. xanthocarpa.
- Taxon
- C. costata, C. littoralis and C. rhombea O.BergCampomanesia costataCampomanesia rhombeaCampomanesia xanthocarpa var. littoralise0
- Outcome
- previously considered part of C. xanthocarpae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“C. costata, C. littoralis and C. rhombea O.Berg that were previously considered part of C. xanthocarpa”
Claim · model-written summary
Structured C. adamantium populations were not congruent with taxonomic data or were poorly supported.
- Taxon
- C. adamantium
Campomanesia adamantiume0 - Outcome
- not congruent with taxonomic data or poorly supportede0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Structured populations in C. adamantium were not congruent with taxonomic data or poorly supported in the data analysed”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors maintained C. adamantium as one polymorphic species.
- Taxon
- C. adamantiumCampomanesia adamantiume1
- Outcome
- single polymorphic speciese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These were maintained as a single polymorphic species”
e1“Structured populations in C. adamantium”