Systematics of Gagea and Lloydia (Liliaceae) and infrageneric classification of Gagea based on molecular and morphological data
Introduction
Liliaceae s.s. was identified as being monophyletic by Patterson and Givnish (2002), including the two subfamilies Medeoloideae and Lilioideae (Tamura, 1998). The Lilioideae subfamily can be subdivided into two clades: one clade (Tribe Lilieae including Lilium L., Fritillaria L., Nomocharis Franch., Cardiocrinum Endl. and Notholirion Wall. ex Boiss.) which appears to have diversified in the Himalayas roughly 12 million years ago and a further clade (Tribe Tulipaea including Erythronium L., Tulipa L., Gagea Salisb., Lloydia Salisb. ex Rchb.) which originated in East Asia around the same time. Gagea based on matK sequences (Allen et al., 2003), Lloydia based on rbcL sequences (Vinnersten and Bremer, 2001) and both genera based on matK sequences (Ronsted et al., 2005) were shown to be sister groups to the Amana–Tulipa–Erythronium clade.
Within the Liliaceae, Gagea Salisb. (Salisbury, 1806) represents a relatively unexplored Palaearctic genus of small perennial geophytes. The distribution of the genus is restricted to the temperate and subtropical regions of Eurasia and does not extend into any areas with either a tropical climate or permafrost (Levichev, 1999b). Due to the brief ephemeroide growth phase, there is a lack of herbal vouchers in most herbariums and also of complete monographs. The genus comprises a figure of between 70 and approximately 275 species depending on the author (Stroh, 1937, Uphof, 1958–1960, Melchior, 1964, Willis, 1980, Davlianidze, 1976, Tamura, 1998, Levichev, 1999b, Peruzzi, 2003), and more and more species are being currently described (e.g., Levichev, 1981, Levichev, 1988, Levichev, 2006a, Tison, 2004, Henker, 2005, Levichev and Ali, 2006, Levichev unpubl.). Overlapping primitive and advanced morphological characters, e.g., the number of ground leaves, the formation of subterranean organs (Levichev, 1999a), pollen morphology (e.g., Kosenko and Levichev, 1988, Zarrei and Zarre, 2005) and karyotypes (e.g., Peruzzi, 2003, Peruzzi and Aquaro, 2005) complicate the classification of the species and the infrageneric arrangement. In addition, there are several problems originating from the great variation in vegetative and generative characters during the various ontogenic stages of Gagea under the varying ecological conditions (Levichev, 1990a, Levichev, 1999a). Hypothesized interspecific hybridisation (e.g., Levichev, 1990b, Tison, 1998, Peterson et al., 2004, John et al., 2004, Peterson and Peterson, 2005, Peterson and Peterson, 2006) appears to be common within this genus. All these phenomena mean taxonomic problems in the genus Gagea, the description of a large number of species and a nomenclature which is overloaded with synonyms (Levichev, 1999b). As a result, more than 670 specific and intraspecific combinations have been published.
An initial attempt at infrageneric classification was carried out by Koch (1849) who divided Gagea into two sections (Holobolbos and Didymobolbos); this was followed by the addition of a further two sections (Tribolbos and Platyspermum) by Boissier (1882). At the beginning of the twentieth century, Terracciano, 1905, Terracciano, 1906, Pascher, 1904, Pascher, 1907 constructed independent infrageneric classifications. Pascher (1904) classified the Gagea species into the subgenera Gagea (Eugagea) with four sections and Hornungia with two sections. Pascher (1907) subsequently confirmed this classification but added several new subsections. Terracciano, 1905, Terracciano, 1906 also established two subgenera (Gagea and Gageastrum) both having two sections, but neither Pascher nor Terracciano submitted a complete revision. In the course of time, Pascher’s classification received greater acceptance than that of Terracciano. It can be seen that Stroh, 1937, Uphof, 1958–1960 adhered to Pascher’s infrageneric classification. To date, almost all floras (e.g., Heyn and Dafni, 1971, Heyn and Dafni, 1977, Dasgupta and Deb, 1983, Feinburn-Dotham, 1986, Rechinger, 1986, Wendelbo and Rechinger, 1990, Grubov and Egorova, 2003) have in principle accepted Pascher’s (1907) infrageneric classification, despite the fact that this classification was originally based on the knowledge of a limited number of species. Davlianidze, 1976, Levichev, 1990a, Levichev, 1997 published more recent classifications. Davlianidze (1976) examined 26 Caucasian species. He accepted the two subgenera according to Pascher and additionally established six new sections within each of these subgenera. Levichev (1990a) published a new classification of western Tien Shan species utilising general morphological characters as well as cross-sections of basal leaves and the peduncle and also the constitution of the leaves. Unlike all infrageneric classifications since Terracciano, 1905, Terracciano, 1906, Pascher, 1904, Pascher, 1907, he did not utilise the subgeneric rank, but divided the genus into ten sections, some of which were identical to those of Davlianidze (1976). Currently, Levichev recommends a subgeneric classification of the genus Gagea into 13 sections (see Table 1). The initial molecular studies (Peterson et al., 2004), based on the cpDNA and nrDNA data of seven Gagea species from Germany, all belonging to the subgenus Gagea Pascher, displayed two clades. One clade included members of the G. sect. Gagea Pascher and G. sect. Tribolbos Boiss., the other included members of the G. sect. Didymobolbos Koch and G. sect. Monophyllos Pascher. Interestingly, G. spathacea, which is classified by Pascher (1904) in the G. sect. Monophyllos, was the sister to all other Gagea species and Lloydia serotina in the cpDNA psbA–trnH tree.
The molecular data of several authors showed that Gagea and Lloydia represent sister genera. On the basis of sequence variation in the chloroplast, encoded rbcL and ndhF genes and morphological character-states (Patterson and Givnish, 2002) and also on the basis of matK data (Ronsted et al., 2005), Lloydia was considered to be the sister genus of Gagea, whereas only G. wilczekii and L. serotina were examined for systematic investigation in the core Liliales (discussed in Peterson et al., 2004, Peterson and Peterson, 2006). In our earlier molecular study (Peterson et al., 2004), we found that L. serotina—the type of the genus—was placed within the investigated Gagea species. This was the first molecular evidence which questioned the taxonomic position of Lloydia as a separate sister genus to Gagea. Up to this point, our further molecular studies and analyses including morphological data (Peterson and Peterson, 2005, Peterson and Peterson, 2006) had indicated that Gagea and Lloydia are monophyletic. These studies incorporated L. serotina, L. triflora and also G. graeca the latter was initially described as a member of the genus Lloydia. Lloydia consists however of 12–20 species (Willis, 1980, Hyam and Pankhurst, 1995, Mabberley, 1997). Most species of these small bulbiferous herbs occur in the Himalayan region of Eastern Asia. L. serotina is the most widespread relative of the genus; it is distributed across large regions of Europe and northern Asia as well as in western North America.
The objective of our study was to evaluate the generic and infrageneric circumscription of Lloydia and Gagea with the aid of molecular and morphological data. This study represents the first infrageneric classification of Gagea based on molecular data. We include both cpDNA (trnL–trnF intergenic spacer, psbA–trnH intergenic spacer) and nrDNA (ITS region: ITS1 + 5.8SrDNA + ITS2) data of 58 Gagea species, 6 Lloydia species and a number of outgroup species. The molecular results are discussed in comparison with the classification of Levichev (Levichev, 1990a, Levichev, 2006b; unpublished) and with the common classification of Pascher, 1904, Pascher, 1907. Major morphological characters for the division of Gagea Salisb. into 13 independent sections are discussed. We include important concluding remarks on the taxonomic status of Lloydia within the Liliaceae based on both molecular and morphological data. Our investigation represents a contribution to the understanding of the systematics of the Liliaceae.
Section snippets
Sampling strategy
We sampled species from all 13 Gagea sections (taxa, origins, voucher numbers and GenBank accession numbers are listed in Appendix A) according Levichev (1990a, unpublished) whereas species-rich sections were sampled as far as possible more comprehensively (Appendix A, Table 1). Part of the material was collected on our own expeditions to a variety of regions in Central Europe, the western part of Russia, Central Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean region. Most Gagea samples, Lloydia triflora
Morphological results
We investigated 50 random flowering specimens representing 25 Gagea species from the Herbarium Halensis according the occurrence of a nectary. No nectary was detected in any of these. The same was also true for all investigated herbarium specimens of G. lutea (23), G. pratensis (14), G. bohemica (44), G. villosa (8) and G. graeca (18). These taxa were also investigated in vivo (10 flowers of each). The fresh flowers from all these species showed a small pit similar to a nectary with a bead of
Infrageneric classification of Gagea Salisb
In view of the analyses of cpDNA, ITS and combined data, the genus Gagea is paraphyletic in all phylogenetic trees. The position of the Lloydia species is discussed below.
The pure white flowering G. graeca (section Anthericoides) was basal in the phylogenetic trees (NJ, BA, ML) together with L. serotina (cpDNA NJ tree, combined BA tree) and L. delicatula (cpDNA NJ tree) as sister to all other Gagea and other Lloydia species. Only in the combined PA tree L. triflora was basal. G. graeca differs
Conclusions
Levichev’s Gagea classification which stands in conflict to Pascher’s classification is supported by the molecular data. Our analyses display the collective monophyly of Gagea and Lloydia. Nevertheless, additional morphological and molecular studies will be necessary for the detailed classification of Lloydia within the genus Gagea which will have to include the critical investigation of L. triflora.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (E) for providing Lloydia material. We would like to thank Doerte Harpke from the Biocentre of the Martin-Luther-University of Halle for her assistance in the BA, ML and PA tree constructions. The financial support from Russian Foundation for Basic Research (05-04-48669) provided to I.G. Levichev is gratefully acknowledged.
References (78)
- et al.
Consistency, characters and the likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference
Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
(1997) - et al.
Non-concerted ITS evolution in Mammillaria (Cactaceae)
Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
(2006) Zur Morphologie in der Gattung Gagea Salisb. (Liliaceae) I. Die unterirdischen Organe
Flora
(1999)- et al.
Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the monophyly of Fritillaria and Lilium (Liliaceae; Liliales) and the infrageneric classification of Fritillaria
Mol. Phyl. Evol.
(2005) - et al.
Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics
- et al.
Pollenmorphology of the genus Gagea (Liliaceae) in Iran
Flora
(2005) - et al.
Phylogeny and Biogeography of Erythronium (Liliacea) inferred from chloroplast matK and nuclear rDNA ITS sequences
Syst. Bot.
(2003) - Ascherson, P., Graebner, P., 1905–1907. Synopsis der Mitteleuropäischen Flora. Bd. 3. W. Engelmann,...
- et al.
Participation of endoplasmic reticulum in the unequal distribution of plastids during generative cell formation in Gagea lutea (L.) Ker-Gaw. (Liliaceae)
Acta Biol. Cracoviensia Ser. Bot.
(1999) - Boissier, E., 1882. Gagea. In: Flora Orientalis. Geneve et Basiliae 5,...
Heterogeneity of the internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1) in Tulipa (Liliaceae)
Plant Syst. Evol.
Evolution of bird-pollination in some Australian legumes (Fabaceae)
Taxonomic revision of the genus Gagea Salisb. (Liliaceae) in India and adjoining regions
J. Bombay Natural Hist. Society
Conspectus of the Caucasian representatives of the genus Gagea Salisb
I. Not. Syst. Geogr. Inst. Bot. Thbilissiensis
Conspectus of the Caucasian representatives of the genus Gagea Salisb
II. Not. Syst. Geogr. Inst. Bot. Thbilissiensis
Caucasian Representatives of the Genus Gagea Salisb.
Homoplasy in the Commelinaceae: a comparison of different classes of morphological characters
Gagea
The taxonomic position of Lloydia graeca (Liliaceae) and related species
Israel J. Bot.
Gagea
BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT
Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser.
Die Goldsterne von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung kritischer und neuer Sippen
Botanischer Rundbrief für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Studies in the genus Gagea (Liliaceae) I. The platyspermous species in Israel and neighbouring areas
Israel J. Bot.
Studies in the genus Gagea (Liliaceae) II. The non-platyspermous species from the Galilee, the Golan Heights and Mt. Hermon
Israel J. Bot.
Lloydia Salisb. ex Rchb
Plants and Their Names
MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees
Bioinformatics
Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology
Science
On the origin of European lilies: phylogenetic analysis of Lilium section Liriotypus (Liliaceae) using sequences of the nuclear ribosomal transcribed spacers
Willdenowia
Beiträge zur vergleichenden Morphologie der Pflanzen. Lloydia serotina (Beschluss)
Botanische Zeitung
Zum taxonomischen Rang zweier kritischer Sippen der Gattung Gagea in Mitteleuropa
Mitteilungen zur floristischen Kartierung in Sachen-Anhalt
A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences
J. Mol. Evol.
Beiträge zu einer Flora des Orientes (Fortsetzung). Gagea
Linnaea
Pollen morphology in genera Gagea and Lloydia (Liliaceae)
Bot. Zhurn.
The new species of the genus Gagea (Liliaceae) from western Tian-Shan
Bot. Zhurn.
New species of the genus Gagea (Liliaceae) from western part of Tian-Shan
Bot. Zhurn.
The synopsis of the genus Gagea (Liliaceae) from the western Tian-Shan
Bot. Zhurn.
On age variation and hybridization of some representatives of Gagea (Liliaceae)
Bot. Zhurn.
Cited by (50)
On the limits of drought-Life history of Gagea bulbifera (Liliaceae)
2015, Flora: Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of PlantsCitation Excerpt :Such flattened seeds are likely to represent an adaptation to anemochorous dispersal. Platyspermous seeds seem to be a plesiomorphic trait, occurring in different sections of the genus (Peterson et al., 2008; Peruzzi et al., 2008), uniformly in the closely related genus Tulipa (e.g., Botschantzeva, 1982), but also in other Liliaceae genera (Fritillaria, Lilium). Only for a few species of Gagea quantitative data on seed set per plant are available.
Minor differences with big consequences: Reproductive patterns in the genus Gagea (Liliaceae)
2013, Flora: Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of PlantsCitation Excerpt :Therefore, in many species only a single basal leaf is visible, but in others, like G. spathacea (Hayne) Salisb., vigorously growing vegetative plants develop two free basal leaves. As it is common in sect. Didymobulbos (Peterson et al., 2008; Tison et al., 2013), older vegetative and flowering plants of G. villosa (Bieb.) Sweet have two basal leaves.
No sex at all? Extremely low genetic diversity in Gagea spathacea (Liliaceae) across Europe
2012, Flora: Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of PlantsCitation Excerpt :Both conditions can pose an inherent obstacle to meiotic division and are known to restrict sexual reproductive success (cf. Westergård, 1936; compare Peterson et al., 2010 for clonal 5× G. bohemica in Bohemia and Wales). Hybridisation is generally common within Gagea (e.g., Peruzzi, 2008; Peruzzi et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2008, 2009, 2011). For G. spathacea, Levichev et al. (2010) suggest an ancient hybrid origin resulting from an intersectional or even intergeneric cross, but give no hint towards putative parental taxa.