A large-scale chloroplast phylogeny of the Lamiaceae sheds new light on its subfamilial classification.

Lamiaceae, the sixth largest angiosperm family, contains more than 7000 species distributed all over the world. However, although considerable progress has been made in the last two decades, its phylogenetic backbone has never been well resolved. In the present study, a large-scale phylogenetic reconstruction of Lamiaceae using chloroplast sequences was carried out with the most comprehensive sampling of the family to date (288 species in 191 genera, representing approximately 78% of the genera of Lamiaceae). Twelve strongly supported primary clades were inferred, which form the phylogenetic backbone of Lamiaceae. Six of the primary clades correspond to the current recognized subfamilies Ajugoideae, Lamioideae, Nepetoideae, Prostantheroideae, Scutellarioideae, and Symphorematoideae, and one corresponds to a portion of Viticoideae. The other five clades comprise: 1) Acrymia and Cymaria; 2) Hymenopyramis, Petraeovitex, Peronema, and Garrettia; 3) Premna, Gmelina, and Cornutia; 4) Callicarpa; and 5) Tectona. Based on these results, three new subfamilies-Cymarioideae, Peronematoideae, and Premnoideae-are described, and the compositions of other subfamilies are updated based on new findings from the last decade. Furthermore, our analyses revealed five strongly supported, more inclusive clades that contain subfamilies, and we give them phylogenetically defined, unranked names: Cymalamiina, Scutelamiina, Perolamiina, Viticisymphorina, and Calliprostantherina.

Evolutionary relationships within the lamioid tribe Synandreae (Lamiaceae) based on multiple low-copy nuclear loci.

The subfamily Lamioideae (Lamiaceae) comprises ten tribes, of which only Stachydeae and Synandreae include New World members. Previous studies have investigated the phylogenetic relationships among the members of Synandreae based on plastid and nuclear ribosomal DNA loci. In an effort to re-examine the phylogenetic relationships within Synandreae, the current study incorporates data from four low-copy nuclear loci, PHOT1, PHOT2, COR, and PPR. Our results confirm previous studies based on chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal markers in supporting the monophyly of tribe Synandreae, as well as sister relationships between Brazoria and Warnockia, and between that pair of genera and a monophyletic Physostegia. However, we observe incongruence in the relationships of Macbridea and Synandra. The placement of Synandreae within Lamioideae is poorly resolved and incongruent among different analyses, and the sister group of Synandreae remains enigmatic. Comparison of the colonization and migration patterns corroborates a single colonization of the New World by Synandreae during the Late Miocene/Tortonian age. This is in contrast to the only other lamioid tribe that includes New World members, Stachydeae, which colonized the New World at least twice-during the mid-Miocene and Pliocene. Edaphic conditions and intolerance of soil acidity may be factors that restricted the distribution of most genera of Synandreae to southeastern and south-central North America, whereas polyploidy could have increased the colonizing capability of the more wide-ranging genus, Physostegia.

A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?

The proposal to implement a phylogenetic nomenclatural system governed by the PhyloCode), in which taxon names are defined by explicit reference to common descent, has met with strong criticism from some proponents of phylogenetic taxonomy (taxonomy based on the principle of common descent in which only clades and species are recognized). We examine these criticisms and find that some of the perceived problems with phylogenetic nomenclature are based on misconceptions, some are equally true of the current rank-based nomenclatural system, and some will be eliminated by implementation of the PhyloCode. Most of the criticisms are related to an overriding concern that, because the meanings of names are associated with phylogenetic pattern which is subject to change, the adoption of phylogenetic nomenclature will lead to increased instability in the content of taxa. This concern is associated with the fact that, despite the widespread adoption of the view that taxa are historical entities that are conceptualized based on ancestry, many taxonomists also conceptualize taxa based on their content. As a result, critics of phylogenetic nomenclature have argued that taxonomists should be free to emend the content of taxa without constraints imposed by nomenclatural decisions. However, in phylogenetic nomenclature the contents of taxa are determined, not by the taxonomist, but by the combination of the phylogenetic definition of the name and a phylogenetic hypothesis. Because the contents of taxa, once their names are defined, can no longer be freely modified by taxonomists, phylogenetic nomenclature is perceived as limiting taxonomic freedom. We argue that the form of taxonomic freedom inherent to phylogenetic nomenclature is appropriate to phylogenetic taxonomy in which taxa are considered historical entities that are discovered through phylogenetic analysis and are not human constructs.