In addition, our COI-5P sequences for Bermudian K. limminghei were also closest to this cluster of species (Fig. 1, as M. crenata). A representative of each of the previous genetic groups was then included in single gene (LSU rDNA, rbcL, COI-5P) phylogenetic analyses including a diverse representation of kallymeniacean taxa (Table 1) to place them into a phylogenetic context. For nodes supported in the analyses of the various genes, there were no significant conflicts and only the Bayesian result for the multigene alignment is presented (Fig. 2). Analyses of the selleck chemical multigene alignment solidly resolved a monophyletic lineage for our diverse species assigned
to the Meredithia/Psaromenia cluster including the generitypes for both, but excluding the generitype of Cirrulicarpus, C. gmelinii (Grunow) Tokida et T. Masaki, which selleck screening library was sister to Erythrophyllum delesserioides J. Agardh (Fig. 2), a member of the tightly aligned “Beringia, Erythrophyllum, Kallymeniopsis” generic cluster (Clarkston and Saunders 2012). Within the previous cluster, two monophyletic groups were strongly resolved one each containing the respective generitype of Meredithia and Psaromenia with a host of novel genetic species groups (Fig. 2). Analyses indicated that Cirrulicarpus nanus (J. Agardh) Womersley and C. australis Womersley et R.E. Norris are neither conspecific nor
members of Cirrulicarpus as posited in the literature (see Womersley 1994). The former is moved back to Meredithia and the latter is sister to the “Kallymenia” tasmanica Harv. species complex, a complex requiring additional study. Even allowing for these changes, Cirrulicarpus is still not monophyletic as the southern C. polycoelioides (J. Agardh) Womersley failed to join the
northern generitype and its closely related North Pacific allies (Fig. 2). At the time Womersley (1994) moved C. polycoelioides from Kallymenia to Cirrulicarpus he discussed uncertainty regarding its taxonomic placement. He noted affinities of the species with the genera Cirrulicarpus and Kallymenia, opting for an alliance with the former based strictly on aspects of gross morphology. As with previous studies, Callophyllis laciniata (Huds.) Kütz. medchemexpress did not group with its congeners including the generitype C. variegata (Bory) Kütz. (Fig. 3). In addition, the genus Kallymenia, even excluding Bermudian records for “Kallymenia” limminghei (as M. crenata), was not monophyletic, resolving in three distinct lineages (Fig. 2), these in turn including “cryptic” species complexes (e.g., K. tasmanica in Fig. 2, but also true for K. cribrosa Harv. and K. cribrogloea Womersley et R.E. Norris [data not shown]). In addition, a number of kallymeniacean taxa from Australia were included that will require further study (i.e., the many unknown Kallymeniaceae species [given as Kallymeniac spp. in Fig. 2], “Glaphyrymenia” sp.1Tas and sp.1WA, and “Pugetia” sp.1Aus).