GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Title of Dataset: Data from: Molecular Phylogeny and Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Diastatea (Campanulaceae: Lobelioideae) 2. Author Information A. Principal Investigator Contact Information Name: Elizabeth P. Johnson Institution: Northern Arizona University Address: Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, PO Box 5640, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA Email: elizabotany@gmail.com B. Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Tina J. Ayers Institution: Northern Arizona University Address: Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, PO Box 5640, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA Email: tina.ayers@nau.edu 3. Date of data collection (single date, range, approximate date): 2011-2019 SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: n/a 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data: 3. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: n/a 4. Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: n/a 5. Was data derived from another source? no A. If yes, list source(s): 6. Recommended citation for this dataset: Johnson, E. P., T. J. Ayers. 2021. Data from: Molecular Phylogeny and Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Diastatea (Campanulaceae: Lobelioideae), Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.rr4xgxd89 DATA & FILE OVERVIEW 1. File List: Fig_S1_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_CombinedMLTreeOutgroupsExpanded.pdf Fig_S2_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_ITSMaximumLikelihoodTree.jpg Fig_S3_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_cpDNAMaximumLikelihoodTree.jpg Fig_S4_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastataeaRevision_SEMSeedIamges.tif Fig_S5_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_ChromosomeImages.jpg Table_S1_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_SamplesPerLocus.pdf Alignment_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_TotalConcatenatedDataset.fas Alignment_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_ITSDataset.fas Alignment_JohnsonAyers_2021_DiastateaRevision_cpDNADataset.fasta Fig_S1_CombinedMLTreeOutgroupsExpanded_Description: Maximum likelihood tree for the concatenated dataset with outgroup nodes expanded to show specimen information. Numbers above branches represent bootstrap values followed by posterior probabilities. Posterior probabilities below 0.95 are shown as dashes. Fig_S2_ITSMaximumLikelihoodTree_Description: Numbers above branches represent bootstrap values. Fig_S3_cpDNAMaximumLikelihoodTree_Description: Concatenated chloroplast dataset which includes ndhF-rpl32 and atpB-rbcL. Numbers above branches represent bootstrap values. Fig_S4_SEMSeedImages_Description: Scanning electron micrograph images of seed coat surface in Diastatea. A. D. aptera (Ayers et al. 1767). B. D. tenera subsp. durangensis (Jiménez 186). C. D. ciliata (Reveal et al. 4183). D. D. micrantha (Ayers et al. 1766) with striations obvious due to incomplete filling of seed. Fig_S5_ChromosomeImages_Description: Photos of chromosomes obtained from root tips. A. Diastatea aptera, 2n = 14. B. D. virgata, 2n = 14. C. D. micrantha, 2n =14. Table_S1_SamplesPerLocus_Description: Number of specimens out of total available where data were obtained. Alignment_TotalConcatenatedDataset__Description: Sequences obtained from atpB-rbcL and ndhF-rpl32 regions of the chloroplast, and the nrITS region, were concatenated into one alignment for use in phylogenetic analysis. Alignment_ITSDataset_Description: Sequences obtained from the nrITS region were aligned to perform a phylogenetic analysis. Alignment_cpDNADataset_Description: Sequences obtained from atpB-rbcL and ndhF-rpl32 regions of the chloroplast were concatenated and aligned to perform a phylogenetic analysis. METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: Fig_S1_CombinedMLTreeOutgroupsExpanded_Methods: IQ-Tree version 1.6.8 (Nguyen et al. 2015, Trifinopoulos et al. 2016) was used to conduct the phylogenetic analysis on a concatenated dataset that included atpB-rbcL, ndhF-rpl32, and the ITS. The alignment was partitioned as follows: ITS1: 1–397; 5.8S: 398–559; ITS2: 560–903; ndhF-rpl32: 904–2236; atpB-rbcL: 2237–3010. BIC scores were used to determine that IQ-Tree’s -spp partition model was the best fit for our data, allowing each partition its own evolutionary rate (Chernomor et al. 2016). ModelFinder (Kalyaanamoorthy et al. 2017) was used to find the best fit substitution model for each of five partitions and are as follows: ITS1 and ITS2: GTR+F+I+G4; 5.8S: JC+R2; ndhF-rpl32: TVM+F+G4; atpB-rbcL: TVM+F. Maximum likelihood (ML) analyses were run using ultrafast bootstrapping (UFBoot) (Hoang et al. 2017) for 1000 replicates. Phylogenetic trees were visualized using FigTree (v1.4.4). Fig_S2_ITSMLTree_Methods: IQ-Tree version 1.6.8 (Nguyen et al. 2015, Trifinopoulos et al. 2016) was used to conduct the phylogenetic analysis on the ITS dataset. The alignment was partitioned as follows: ITS1: 1–397; 5.8S: 398–559; ITS2: 560–903. BIC scores were used to determine that IQ-Tree’s -spp partition model was the best fit for our data, allowing each partition its own evolutionary rate (Chernomor et al. 2016). ModelFinder (Kalyaanamoorthy et al. 2017) was used to find the best fit substitution model for each of the partitions and are as follows: ITS1 and ITS2: GTR+F+I+G4; 5.8S: JC+R2. Maximum likelihood (ML) analyses were run using ultrafast bootstrapping (UFBoot) (Hoang et al. 2017) for 1000 replicates. Fig_S3_cpDNAMLTree_Methods: IQ-Tree version 1.6.8 (Nguyen et al. 2015, Trifinopoulos et al. 2016) was used to conduct the phylogenetic analysis on a concatenated chloroplast dataset that included atpB-rbcL and ndhF-rpl32. The alignment was partitioned as follows: ndhF-rpl32: 1–1332; atpB-rbcL: 1333–2106. BIC scores were used to determine that IQ-Tree’s -spp partition model was the best fit for our data, allowing each partition its own evolutionary rate (Chernomor et al. 2016). ModelFinder (Kalyaanamoorthy et al. 2017) was used to find the best fit substitution model for each partition and are as follows: ndhF-rpl32: TVM+F+G4; atpB-rbcL: TVM+F. Maximum likelihood (ML) analyses were run using ultrafast bootstrapping (UFBoot) (Hoang et al. 2017) for 1000 replicates. Fig_S4_SEMSeedImages_Methods: Seeds were removed from dried specimens, mounted on stubs and sputter-coated for 30 s with gold palladium. The images were taken at the NAU Imaging and Histology Core Facility on a Zeiss Supra 40 VP Scanning Electron Microscope. Fig_S5_ChromosomeImages_Methods: Chromosome counts were made from germinated seeds with 2–3 mm long root tips treated with 0.05% colchicine for 90 min followed by fixation in formalin-acetic acid-alcohol (1:1:3) at room temperature for 2 hrs. The root tips were then stored at 4°C for 1–4 hrs before processing. After fixation the tips were treated with 60°C 1M HCl for 2–3 min to loosen tissue, rinsed in distilled water, and then stained for 1 hr in 1% aceto-orcein before seed coat was removed and root tip mounted on slide in 45% acetic acid-glycerol (9:1) and flattened. Photos were taken at 1000x using MagnaFire 2.0 imaging software on a Leica DMLD compound microscope. Table_S1_SamplesPerLocus_Methods: The number of samples representing each individual locus both from Diastatea (ingroup) and Palmerella, Lobelia, Campanula, and Trachelium (outgroup), before concatenation of the dataset. Alignment_TotalConcatenatedDataset_Methods: Sequences were assembled and edited using Lasergene-SeqMan Pro (DNASTAR, Madison, Wisconsin). They were aligned in MAFFT (Katoh and Standley 2013) using the L-INS-i refinement method for atpB-rbcL and ndhF-rpl32 regions, and the Q-INS-i method for the ITS region. Q-INS-i was chosen to align the ITS region due to the presence of secondary structures in that region (Katoh and Toh 2008). The datasets were concatenated using SeaView (Gouy et al. 2010). The alignment was partitioned as follows: ITS1: 1–397; 5.8S: 398–559; ITS2: 560–903; ndhF-rpl32: 904–2236; atpB-rbcL: 2237–3010. Alignment_ITSDataset__Methods: Sequences were assembled and edited using Lasergene-SeqMan Pro (DNASTAR, Madison, Wisconsin). They were aligned in MAFFT (Katoh and Standley 2013) using the Q-INS-i method. Q-INS-i was chosen to align the ITS region due to the presence of secondary structures in that region (Katoh and Toh 2008). The alignment was partitioned as follows: ITS1: 1–397; 5.8S: 398–559; ITS2: 560–903. Alignment_cpDNADataset_Methods: Sequences were assembled and edited using Lasergene-SeqMan Pro (DNASTAR, Madison, Wisconsin). They were aligned in MAFFT (Katoh and Standley 2013) using the L-INS-i refinement method for both the atpB-rbcL and ndhF-rpl32 regions. The datasets were concatenated using SeaView (Gouy et al. 2010). The alignment was partitioned as follows: ndhF-rpl32: 1–1332; atpB-rbcL: 1333–2106.