Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Megaphylogenetic Specimen-Level Approaches to the Carex (Cyperaceae) Phylogeny Using ITS, ETS, and matK Sequences: Implications for Classification
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Megaphylogenetic Specimen-Level Approaches to the Carex (Cyperaceae) Phylogeny Using ITS, ETS, and matK Sequences: Implications for Classification
Do you wish to request the book?
Megaphylogenetic Specimen-Level Approaches to the Carex (Cyperaceae) Phylogeny Using ITS, ETS, and matK Sequences: Implications for Classification
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Megaphylogenetic Specimen-Level Approaches to the Carex (Cyperaceae) Phylogeny Using ITS, ETS, and matK Sequences: Implications for Classification
2016
Overview
We present the first large-scale phylogenetic hypothesis for the genus Carex based on 996 of the 1983 accepted species (50.23%). We used a supermatrix approach using three DNA regions: ETS, ITS and matK. Every concatenated sequence was derived from a single specimen. The topology of our phylogenetic reconstruction largely agreed with previous studies. We also gained new insights into the early divergence structure of the two largest clades, core Carex and Vignea clades, challenging some previous evolutionary hypotheses about inflorescence structure. Most sections were recovered as non-monophyletic. Homoplasy of characters traditionally selected as relevant for classification, historical misunderstanding of how morphology varies across Carex, and regional rather than global views of Carex diversity seem to be the main reasons for the high levels of polyphyly and paraphyly in the current infrageneric classification.
