金缕梅类科的系统发育分析

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文运用分支分类的方法对金缕梅类进行了系统发育的分析。金缕梅类作为单元发生群包括下

列19科：昆栏树科、水青树科、连香树科、领春木科、杜仲科、金缕梅科、悬铃木科、交让木科、假槲树科、双颊果科、折扇叶科、黄杨科、西蒙得木科、木麻黄科、山毛榉科、桦木科、杨梅科、马尾树科和胡桃科。木兰科在分析中被选择作为外群类。在对大量性状进行评估之后，选择了32对性状作为建立数据矩阵的基本资料。性状极化主要以外类群比较、化石证据和通行的形态演化规律为依据。首次引入了不合谐数的概念来检测性状极化结果的正确程度，并对少数不合谐数较大的性状的极性进行了调整。采用最大同步法、最小平行进化法和综合分析法进行运算，按照最简约的原则，选出演化长度最短的谱系分支图，作为本文讨论的基础，并在此基础上，探讨了金缕梅类科的系统关系。

关键词: 金缕梅类, 系统发育, 谱系分支分析

Abstract:

A cladistic analysis of the families in the Hamamelidae is made in the present pa-

per. As a monophyletic group, the subclass Hamamelidae includes 19 families, namely, the

Trochodendraceae, Tetracentraceae, Cercidiphyllaceae, Eupteleaceae, Eucommiaceae,

Hamamelidaceae (incl. Rhodoleiaceae and Altingiaceae), Platanaceae, Daphniphyllaceae,

Balanopaceae, Didymelaceae, Myrothamnaceae, Buxaceae, Simmondsiaceae, Casuarinaceae,

Fagaceae (incl. Nothofagaceae), Betulaceae, Myricaceae, Rhoipteleaceae and Juglandaceae.

The Magnoliaceae was selected for outgroup comparison after careful consideration.

Thirty-two informative character states were used in this study. Three principles, namely,

outgroup comparison, fossil evidence and generally accepted viewpoints of morphological

evolution, were used for polarization of the characters. An incompatible number concept was

first introduced to evaluate the reliable degree of polarization of the characters and, by this

method, the polarization of the three character states was corrected.

A data matrix was constructed by the 19 ingroup families and 32 character states. The

data matrix was analysed with the Minimal Parallel Evolutionary Method, Maximal Same

Step Method (Xu 1989), and Synthetic Method. Three cladograms were constructed and a

parsimonious cladogram (Length= 131)was used as the base for discussing the systematic re-

lationships of families in the Hamamelidae.

According to the cladogram, the earlist group differented in the subclass Hamamelidae

consists of two vesselless wood families, the Trochodendraceae and Tetracentraceae. This re-

sult supports the concept proposed by Takhtajan (1987)and Cronquist (1981, 1988)that the

Trochodendrales is probably a primitive taxon in the Hamamelidae.

As in a clade group, the Cercidiphyllaceae, Eucommiaceae, Balanopaceae and

Didymelaceae originated apparently later than the Trochodendrales. The Cercidiphyllaceae

diverged earlier in this group, which implies that this family and the Trochodendrales form a

primitive group in the subclass. The Cercidiphyllaceae is either placed in Hamamelidales

(Cronquist 1981, Thorne 1983), or treated as an independent order (Takhtajan 1987).This

analysis suggests that the Cercidiphyllaceae is a relatively isolated taxon, far from the

Hamamelidaceae but close to the Trochodendrales in relation. The Eucommiaceae and

Didymelaceae are both isolated families and considered as two distinct orders (Takhtajan

1987, Cronquist 1981, 1988).The Balanopaceae is included in the Fagales (Cronquist 1981,

1988) or Pittosporales (Thorne 1983), or treated as a distinct order Balanopales (Takhtajan

1987 ).Obviously the Balanopaceae and Eucommiaceae are not closely related because of the

sole synapomorphy (placentation).In fact these four families are more or less isolated taxa

and it is probably more reasonable to treat them as independent orders.

Cronquist ( 1981, 1988) places the Eupteleaceae, Platanaceae and Myrothamnaceae in

the Hamamelidales, while Takhtajan (1987)puts Hamamelidaceae and Platanaceae into the

Hamamelidales and treats the Eupteleaceae and Myrothamnaceae as two independent

monofamilial orders. These three families are grouped by more synapomorphies (palmate-

veined, serrate or lobate leaves, deciduous and anemophilous plants)which may indicate their

close phylogenetical affinity.

A core group of the Hamamelidae includes ten families, among which the Hama-

melidaceae originated earlier than the others, so that it is a relatively primitive family.

The Betulaceae, Fagaceae and Myricaceae differentiated later than the Hamamelidaceae.

The former two are very closely related, and thus thought to be two neighbouring orders by

Takhtajan (1987)or included in the Fagales by Cronquist (1981, 1988)and Thorne (1983).

The Myricaceae and Fagaceae are connected in the cladogram by only a single

synapomorphy (endosperm absent), and therefore the close relationship does not exist be-

tween them.

The Buxaceae, Simmondsiaceae and Daphniphyllaceae form an advanced group, in

which they are weakly linked with each other by only one synapomorphy (pollen

grains＜25μm). The Daphniphyllaceae is closely related to the Simmondsiaceae, but the

Buxaceae is rather isolated.

The Rhoipteleaceae and Juglandaceae share a number of synapomorphies (axile

placentation, endosperm absent, embryo larger, fruit indehiscent) , forming a highly

specialized group. The opinion that the Juglandales is composed of the Juglandaceae and

Rhoipteleaceae(Cronquist 1981; 1988, Lu et Zhang 1990)is confirmed by this analysis. A

contrary point of view, which treated them as two distinct orders by Takhtajan (1987), appar-

ently could not be accepted.

The Casuarinaceae was regarded as the primitive angiosperm (Engler 1893), but in fact

it is a highly reduced and specialized group. It is united with Rhoipteleaceae and Juglandaceae

by four synapomorphies, i. e. placentation type, endosperm absent, embryo large and fruit

indehiscent. However, the family presents six autapomorphies, and thus the position of the

Casuarinaceae as an advanced family is confirmed by this analysis.

Finally a strict consensus tree, which represents the phylogenetic relationships of the

families in the Hamamelidae, was given as a result of the analysis.

Key words: Hamamelidae, Phylogeny, Cladistic analysis

路安民, 李建强, 徐克学. 金缕梅类科的系统发育分析[J]. 中国科学院大学学报.

Lu An-Ming, Li Jian-Qiang, Xu Ke-Xue. A Phylogenetic Analysis of Families in the Hamamelidae[J]. .

[1]	包颖, 葛颂. 利用多基因序列探讨稻属药稻复合体二倍体物种的系统发育关系[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2003, 41(6): 497-508.
[2]	王玛丽, 陈之端, 张宪春, 陆树刚, 赵桂仿. 蹄盖蕨科的系统发育: 叶绿体DNA trnL-F区序列证据[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2003, 41(5): 416-426.
[3]	张文驹,瞿礼嘉,高巍,顾红雅,陈章良,陈家宽. 用ITS序列确定小麦B基因组的可能供体间的关系[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1999, 37(5): 417-424.
[4]	王建波,张文驹,陈家宽. 核rDNA的ITS序列在被子植物系统与进化研究中的应用[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1999, 37(4): 407-416.
[5]	孙坤, 陈家宽,陈之端. 被子植物系统学中花发育研究的进展及对今后研究的思考[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1998, 36(6): 558-568.
[6]	汪小全,邓峥嵘,洪德元. 铁破锣属的系统位置——ITS(nrDNA)序列证据[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1998, 36(5): 403-410.
[7]	俸宇星,汪小全,潘开玉,洪德元. rbc L基因序列分析对连香树科和交让木科系统位置的重新评价——兼论低等金缕梅类的关系[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1998, 36(5): 411-422.
[8]	吴征镒,汤彦承,路安民,陈之端. 试论木兰植物门的一级分类——一个被子植物八纲系统的新方案[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1998, 36(5): 385-402.
[9]	施苏华,唐绍清,陈月琴,屈良鹄,张宏达. 11种金花茶植物的RAPD分析及其系统学意义[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1998, 36(4): 317-322.
[10]	汪小全,李振宇. rDNA片段的序列分析在苦苣苔亚科系统学研究中的应用[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1998, 36(2): 97-105.
[11]	陈之端, 汪小全, 孙海英, 韩英, 张志宪, 邹喻苹, 路安民. 马尾树科的系统位置:来自 rbc L基因核苷酸序列的证据[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1998, 36(1): 1-7.
[12]	李建华, A. Linn Bogle, Anita S. Klein, 潘开玉. 金缕梅科银缕梅属与帕罗堤属的亲缘关系——核糖体DNA ITS序列证据[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1997, 35(6): 481-493.
[13]	汪小全, 韩英, 邓峥嵘, 洪德元. 松科系统发育的分子生物学证据[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1997, 35(2): 97-106.
[14]	李宽钰, 黄敏仁, 王明庥. 用RAPD探讨毛白杨起源[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1997, 35(1): 24-31.
[15]	潘锦堂. 鬼灯檠属的系统发育、分类和地理分布[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 1994, 32(4): 316-327.

金缕梅类科的系统发育分析

A Phylogenetic Analysis of Families in the Hamamelidae

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

访问统计

联系我们