Published February 28, 2024 | Version v1
Dataset Open

Alignments and tree files from: Phylogenetic relationships within tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) reveal complex patterns of polyphyly in Hibiscus and Pavonia

  • 1. Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria*
  • 2. Eastern Michigan University
  • 3. Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Description

The diverse and spectacular Hibisceae tribe comprises over 750 species. No studies, however, have broadly sampled across the dozens of genera in the tribe, leading to uncertainty in the relationships among genera. The non-monophyly of the genus Hibiscus is infamous and challenging, whereas the monophyly of most other genera in the tribe has yet to be assessed, including the large genus Pavonia. Here we significantly increase taxon sampling in the most complete phylogenetic study of the tribe to date. We assess monophyly of most currently recognized genera in the tribe and include three and thirteen newly sampled sections of Hibiscus and Pavonia, respectively. We also include five rarely sampled genera and 137 species previously unsampled. Our phylogenetic trees demonstrate that Hibiscus, as traditionally defined, encompasses at least 20 additional genera. The status of Pavonia emerges as comparable in complexity to Hibiscus. We offer clarity in the phylogenetic placement of several taxa of uncertain affinity (e.g., Helicteropsis, Hibiscadelphus, Jumelleanthus, and Wercklea). We also identify two new clades and elevate them to the generic rank with the recognition of two, new monotypic genera: 1) Blanchardia M.M.Hanes & R.L.Barrett is a surprising Caribbean lineage that is sister to the entire tribe, and 2) Astrohibiscus McLay & R.L.Barrett represents former members of Hibiscus caesius s.l. Cravenia McLay & R.L.Barrett is also described as a new genus for the Hibiscus panduriformis clade which is allied to Abelmoschus. Finally, we introduce a new classification for the tribe and clarify the boundaries of Hibiscus and Pavonia.

Notes

Anything that can open nexus (.nex) and newick files (.new, .tre), including Geneious, Aliview, FigTree, R, or standard text editors such as Wordpad and TextEdit. 

Supp. Fig. 1 can be opened with pdf readers such as Adobe Acrobat Reader, Foxit PDF Reader, or internet browsers such as Google Chrome, and Microsoft Edge. 

Funding provided by: Division of Undergraduate Education
Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/02kd4km72
Award Number: NSF DUE-1564969

Funding provided by: Division of Biological Infrastructure
Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/04qn9mx93
Award Number: NSF DBI-2002400

Funding provided by: Eastern Michigan University
Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/02ehshm78
Award Number: Faculty Research Fellowship

Funding provided by: Australian Biological Resources Study
Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/00289aa83
Award Number: RF217-33

Methods

Sequences were derived from Sanger sequencing, Illumina genome skimming, and GenBank. Alignments were made using MAFFT & Muscle, then checked by eye. Phylogenetic trees were computed using IQ-TREE and MrBayes. Specimen names and collecting numbers correspond to Appendix 1 in the manuscript. 

Files

README.md

Files (3.0 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:0facd0503e87d922dddd2f0a562005cb
2.8 MB Download
md5:750ce1abb1b4ab624bf868ab8d4c23ea
20.7 kB Download
md5:c98182ebbfe3504712626b2b55c43390
165.6 kB Download
md5:e493e3c969b61e4b7cd4b112b90e1d9c
1.1 kB Preview Download
md5:3297a202dc0427a348b4e1ada76f2fea
21.6 kB Preview Download