Mudhand

So, finally, the Winkworth, Lundberg and Donoghue paper is public! The title is the exciting “Toward a resolution of Campanulid phylogeny, with special reference to the placement of Dipsacales” and it is published in the latest issue of Taxon. The abstract reads as follow: “Broad-scale phylogenetic analyses of the angiosperms and of the Asteridae have failed to confidently resolve relationships among the major lineages of the campanulid Asteridae (i.e., the euasterid II of APG II, 2003). To address this problem we assembled presently available sequences for a core set of 50 taxa, representing the diversity of the four largest lineages (Apiales, Aquifoliales, Asterales, Dipsacales) as well as the smaller “unplaced” groups (e.g., Bruniaceae, Paracryphiaceae, Columelliaceae). We constructed four data matrices for phylogenetic analysis: a chloroplast coding matrix (atpB, matK, ndhF, rbcL), a chloroplast non-coding matrix (rps16 intron, trnT-F region, trnV-atpE IGS), a combined chloroplast dataset (all seven chloroplast regions), and a combined genome matrix (seven chloroplast regions plus 18S and 26S rDNA). Bayesian analyses of these datasets using mixed substitution models produced often well-resolved and supported trees. Consistent with more weakly supported results from previous studies, our analyses support the monophyly of the four major clades and the relationships among them. Most importantly, Asterales are inferred to be sister to a clade containing Apiales and Dipsacales. Paracryphiaceae is consistently placed sister to the Dipsacales. However, the exact relationships of Bruniaceae, Columelliaceae, and an Escallonia clade depended upon the dataset. Areas of poor resolution in combined analyses may be partly explained by conflict between the coding and non-coding data partitions. We discuss the implications of these results for our understanding of campanulid phylogeny and evolution, paying special attention to how our findings bear on character evolution and biogeography in Dipsacales.” The paper is in greatest part written by Richard, who also conducted most of the analyses… I contributed (or I hope I did!) with some input in sampling and some knowledge and feed-back. Many thanks Richard for writing this thing up!!!