Section C: Numerical Analysis
The taxonomic treatment based on 326 morphological attributes, 353 molecular attributes, sum of 679 used for computation and produced dendrogram revealed classification of the studied taxa of Caesalpinioideae which compared with the crrent system treatments as mentioned in Table (1). The resulted dendrogram showed that the taxa under investigation at each level of morphological, molecular or sum of 679 attributes were split into two seiries , thee clusters and a number of groups varied between six groups (at morphological level), five groups (molecular) and eight groups (at the sum level).
The application of such treatment could be discussed as in the following
Table (25): The Proposed Treatment of 326 Morphological Attributes, Based on Numerical Analysis of the Taxa Under Investigation of Caesalpinioideae.
Series Cluster Group Taxa under investigation
I A 1 Bauhinia alba, Bauhinia hookeri, Bauhinia variegata
II B 2 Brownea grandiceps, Saraca indica, Schotia brachypetala, Tamarindus indica, Haematoxylum campecianum
3 Caesalpinia ferrea, C. gilliesii, Peltophorum africanum, Delonix regia, Parkinsonia aculeata
4 Cassia fistula, C. nodosa, C. grandis, C. javanica, C. marginata, Ceratonia siliqua
5 Senna alata, S. didymobotrya, S. sophera, S. surattensis
C 6 Cercis chinensis, Gleditsia caspica
Table (26): The Proposed Treatment of 353 Molecular Attributes (RAPD & Isozymes), Based on Numerical Analysis of the Taxa Under Investigation of Caesalpinioideae.
Series Cluster Group Taxa under investigation
I A 1 Bauhinia alba, Bauhinia hookeri, Bauhinia variegate, Cassia javanica, Cercis chinenceis, Parkinsonia aculeata
2 Brownea grandiceps, Peltophorum africanum, Senna sophera, Cassia grandis, Gleditsia caspica, Cassia nodosa, Ceratonia siliqua, Senna surattensis
B 3 Caesalpinia gilliesii, Haematoxylum campecianum, Schotia brachypetala, Tamarindus indica, Delonix regia, Senna alta, S. didymobotrya
4 Cassia fistula, C. marginata, Saraca indica
II C 5 Caesalpinia ferrea
Table (27): The Proposed Treatment of 679 Morphological and Molecular Attributes, Based on Numerical Analysis of the Taxa Under Investigation of Caesalpinioideae.
Series Cluster Group Taxa under investigation
I A 1 Bauhinia alba, Bauhinia hookeri, Bauhinia variegata
2 Cercis chinensis, Gleditsia caspica
II B 3 Brownea grandiceps, Senna sophera, Peltophorum africanum
4 Cassia grandis, C. javanica, Ceratonia siliqua, Senna surattensis
5 Senna alata, S. didymobotrya
6 Cassia fistula, C. marginata, C. nodosa
C 7 Caesalpinia ferrea, C. gilliesii, delonix regia, Parkinsonia aculeata
8 Haematoxylum campecianum, Schotia brachipetala, Tamarindus indica, Saraca indica.
1. Phenetic Analysis of Morphological Attributes
The data obtained from the macromorphological attributes of the studied taxa of Caesalpinioidea were subjected to numerical analysis using the NTSYS-pc version 2.02 (Rolf, 1989).
The resulted dendrogram clarifies that the taxa under investigation divided into two main series. Series I includes only one cluster (A) and one group (1) with three studied species and series II includes two clusters (B & C) with five groups; (from 2 to 6) cluster B and (from 5 to 6 ) cluster C. The former cluster includes 16 studied species while the latter cluster includes six studied taxa. The interrelationships between these taxa are discussed.
2. Phenetic Analysis of Molecular Attributes
The resulted dendrogram clarifies that the taxa under investigation divided into two main series. Series I includes two clusters (A & B) and four groups (from 1 to 4). Cluster A with group 1 and 2 includes 14 studied species while cluster B with group 3 and 4 with ten studied species. Series II includes only one cluster (C) with one group (5) and one species. The interrelationships between these taxa are discussed.
3. Phenetic Analysis of both Morphological and Molecular Attributes
The generated dendrogram clarifies that the taxa under investigation divided into two main series (I and II) at taxonomic distance 1.3. Series I includes one cluster (A) with two groups (1 and 2). Cluster A with group 1 and 2 includes five studied taxa. Series II includes two clusters (B andC); cluster B with four groups (from 3 to 6) including 12 studied taxa while cluster C with two groups (7 and 8) including eight taxa. The interrelationships between these taxa are summarized as follows.
Series I
Group 1: includes Bauhinia alba, B. variegata and B. hookeri which separated at the taxonomic distance of 1.09.
Group 2: includes Cercis chinensis & Gleditsia caspica which separated at taxonomic distance 1.2.
The grouping of studied Bauhina sp. and Cercis chinensis in one cluster and two closely related groups (cluster A; Group 1 & 2) is comparable with current system of treatment of Caesalpinioideae as mentioined by Bentham & Hooker (1862), Post (1932), Emberger (1960), Engler (1964), Willis (1966), Brenan (1967), Hutchinson (1967), Pettigrew & Watson (1977), Smith (1977), Polhill & Raven (1983), Watson & Dalwitz (1983) and Lewis et al. (2005) Who classified Bauhinia and Cercis under Tribe Bauhinieae or Cercideae. Wunderlin et al. (1981; 1987) suggested the division of tribe Cercideae or Bauhinieae into two subtribes, Cercidinae and Bauhiniinae. The data extracted from cluster A; group 1 & 2 encourage this suggestion (studied Bauhinia species are classified under subtribe Bauhinineae while Cercis under subtribe Cercineae).
According to Watson & Dallwitz (1983), Gleditsia caspica (tribe Caesalpinieae), separated away from Caesalpinia, Delonix, Parkinsonia and Peltophorum in a separate subgroup.
Gleditsia caspica in the present study and on the bases of morphological and molecular criteria was separated away from tribe Caesalpinieae and grouped with Cercis chinensis (group 2 at 1.2 taxonomic value). It was suggested that data extracted enhance the grouping of this taxa with Cercis chinensis under subtribe Cercidineae.
Series II
Group 2: includes Brownea grandiceps, Senna sophera & Peltophorum africanum at a taxonomic value 1.16.
According to the different authors as mentioned in Table 1 & 2 in the present study, Brownea, Tamarindus, Saraca and Schotia were grouped under tribe Amhestieae. Hutchinson (1967) and Watson & Dallwitz (1983) separated Brownea away from the related taxa viz. Tamarindus, Schotia & saraca in a separate subgroup.
In the present study the morphological and molecular data was supported the suggestion of Hutchinson (1967) and Watson & Dallwitz (1983).
Group 4: included Cassia grandis, C. javanica, Ceratonia siliqua & Senna surattensis separated at 1.18. the two former Cassia sp. are more closely related than Ceratonia and Senna. In this connection Irwin and Barneby (1981) divided Cassieae into five subtribes viz. Ceratoniinae (Ceratonia), Dialiinae, Duparquetiinae, Cassiinae (Cassia), and Labicheinae and this is in accordance with the proposed treatment in the present study.
Group 5: includes Senna alata & S. didymobotrya at 1.11 taxonomic value.
Group 6: includes Cassia fistula, C. marginata & C. nodosa at taxonomic value 1.23. In the present study the morphological and molecular data supported the separation of studied Cassia and Senna species from each other and this is in agreement with Bentham (1871) & Taubert (1891) in which genus Cassia L. is segregated into three subgenera viz. Fistula, Senna & Lasiorhegma and into Cassia, Senna & Absus (Randell, 1976).
Group 7: includes Caesalpinia ferrea, C. gilleisii, Delonix regia & Parkinsonia aculeata at 1.25 taxonomic value. These taxa belong to tribe Caesalpinieae or Eucaesalpinieae in most of the current taxonomic treatments of classification (Bentham & Hooker, 1862; Post, 1932; Emberger, 1960; Engler, 1964; Willis, 1966; Brenan, 1967; Hutchinson, 1967; Pettigrew & Watson 1977; Smith, 1977; Polhill & Raven, 1983; Watson & Dalwitz, 1983 and Lewis et al., 2005).
Group 8: includes Haematoxylum campecianum, Schotia brachypetala, Tamarindus indica & Saraca indica at taxonomic level 1.25. The taxa under this group represent tribe Detarieae or Amhersiteae (except Haematoxylum, tribe Caesalpinieae or Eucaesalpinieae) as mentioned by Bentham & Hooker (1862), Post (1932), Emberger (1960), Engler (1964), Willis (1966) Brenan (1967), Hutchinson (1967), Pettigrew & Watson (1977), Smith (1977), Polhill & Raven (1983), Watson & Dalwitz (1983) and Lewis et al. (2005). Schotia brachypetala and Tamarindus indica are closely related at taxonomic value 0.94 and this is in contradiction with Pettigrew & Watson (1977) where Schotia and Brownea were placed together in a single subgroup, Saraca in subgroup and Tamarindus in subgroup. In this respect Haematoxylum was delimited by Pettigrew & Watson (1977) and Watson & Dallwitz (1983), this is in accordance with the data extracted in the present study. From the proposed treatment (Table 26 and Fig. 14) the following subcequent points revealed a taxonomic meaning:
The majority of studied taxa are arranged under the specific tribes based on morphological and molecular attributes.
The studied taxa of Cassieae (Cassia, Senna & Ceratonia) are considered paraphyletic (one ancestor; Cassia s.l. segregated away from the remainig descendants). This is supported by Irwin & Barneby (1981), Doyle et al. (1997), Kajita et al. (2001), Herendeen et al. (2003) and Wojciechowski et al. (2004) who concluded that Cassieae is not monophyletic based on analysis of molecular sequence data.
The proposed treatment and dendrogram resulted from morphological and molecular attributes supported the separation of Cassia and Senna as two taxonomic entities.
The taxonomic treatment based on 326 morphological attributes, 353 molecular attributes, sum of 679 used for computation and produced dendrogram revealed classification of the studied taxa of Caesalpinioideae which compared with the crrent system treatments as mentioned in Table (1). The resulted dendrogram showed that the taxa under investigation at each level of morphological, molecular or sum of 679 attributes were split into two seiries , thee clusters and a number of groups varied between six groups (at morphological level), five groups (molecular) and eight groups (at the sum level).
The application of such treatment could be discussed as in the following
Table (25): The Proposed Treatment of 326 Morphological Attributes, Based on Numerical Analysis of the Taxa Under Investigation of Caesalpinioideae.
Series Cluster Group Taxa under investigation
I A 1 Bauhinia alba, Bauhinia hookeri, Bauhinia variegata
II B 2 Brownea grandiceps, Saraca indica, Schotia brachypetala, Tamarindus indica, Haematoxylum campecianum
3 Caesalpinia ferrea, C. gilliesii, Peltophorum africanum, Delonix regia, Parkinsonia aculeata
4 Cassia fistula, C. nodosa, C. grandis, C. javanica, C. marginata, Ceratonia siliqua
5 Senna alata, S. didymobotrya, S. sophera, S. surattensis
C 6 Cercis chinensis, Gleditsia caspica
Table (26): The Proposed Treatment of 353 Molecular Attributes (RAPD & Isozymes), Based on Numerical Analysis of the Taxa Under Investigation of Caesalpinioideae.
Series Cluster Group Taxa under investigation
I A 1 Bauhinia alba, Bauhinia hookeri, Bauhinia variegate, Cassia javanica, Cercis chinenceis, Parkinsonia aculeata
2 Brownea grandiceps, Peltophorum africanum, Senna sophera, Cassia grandis, Gleditsia caspica, Cassia nodosa, Ceratonia siliqua, Senna surattensis
B 3 Caesalpinia gilliesii, Haematoxylum campecianum, Schotia brachypetala, Tamarindus indica, Delonix regia, Senna alta, S. didymobotrya
4 Cassia fistula, C. marginata, Saraca indica
II C 5 Caesalpinia ferrea
Table (27): The Proposed Treatment of 679 Morphological and Molecular Attributes, Based on Numerical Analysis of the Taxa Under Investigation of Caesalpinioideae.
Series Cluster Group Taxa under investigation
I A 1 Bauhinia alba, Bauhinia hookeri, Bauhinia variegata
2 Cercis chinensis, Gleditsia caspica
II B 3 Brownea grandiceps, Senna sophera, Peltophorum africanum
4 Cassia grandis, C. javanica, Ceratonia siliqua, Senna surattensis
5 Senna alata, S. didymobotrya
6 Cassia fistula, C. marginata, C. nodosa
C 7 Caesalpinia ferrea, C. gilliesii, delonix regia, Parkinsonia aculeata
8 Haematoxylum campecianum, Schotia brachipetala, Tamarindus indica, Saraca indica.
1. Phenetic Analysis of Morphological Attributes
The data obtained from the macromorphological attributes of the studied taxa of Caesalpinioidea were subjected to numerical analysis using the NTSYS-pc version 2.02 (Rolf, 1989).
The resulted dendrogram clarifies that the taxa under investigation divided into two main series. Series I includes only one cluster (A) and one group (1) with three studied species and series II includes two clusters (B & C) with five groups; (from 2 to 6) cluster B and (from 5 to 6 ) cluster C. The former cluster includes 16 studied species while the latter cluster includes six studied taxa. The interrelationships between these taxa are discussed.
2. Phenetic Analysis of Molecular Attributes
The resulted dendrogram clarifies that the taxa under investigation divided into two main series. Series I includes two clusters (A & B) and four groups (from 1 to 4). Cluster A with group 1 and 2 includes 14 studied species while cluster B with group 3 and 4 with ten studied species. Series II includes only one cluster (C) with one group (5) and one species. The interrelationships between these taxa are discussed.
3. Phenetic Analysis of both Morphological and Molecular Attributes
The generated dendrogram clarifies that the taxa under investigation divided into two main series (I and II) at taxonomic distance 1.3. Series I includes one cluster (A) with two groups (1 and 2). Cluster A with group 1 and 2 includes five studied taxa. Series II includes two clusters (B andC); cluster B with four groups (from 3 to 6) including 12 studied taxa while cluster C with two groups (7 and 8) including eight taxa. The interrelationships between these taxa are summarized as follows.
Series I
Group 1: includes Bauhinia alba, B. variegata and B. hookeri which separated at the taxonomic distance of 1.09.
Group 2: includes Cercis chinensis & Gleditsia caspica which separated at taxonomic distance 1.2.
The grouping of studied Bauhina sp. and Cercis chinensis in one cluster and two closely related groups (cluster A; Group 1 & 2) is comparable with current system of treatment of Caesalpinioideae as mentioined by Bentham & Hooker (1862), Post (1932), Emberger (1960), Engler (1964), Willis (1966), Brenan (1967), Hutchinson (1967), Pettigrew & Watson (1977), Smith (1977), Polhill & Raven (1983), Watson & Dalwitz (1983) and Lewis et al. (2005) Who classified Bauhinia and Cercis under Tribe Bauhinieae or Cercideae. Wunderlin et al. (1981; 1987) suggested the division of tribe Cercideae or Bauhinieae into two subtribes, Cercidinae and Bauhiniinae. The data extracted from cluster A; group 1 & 2 encourage this suggestion (studied Bauhinia species are classified under subtribe Bauhinineae while Cercis under subtribe Cercineae).
According to Watson & Dallwitz (1983), Gleditsia caspica (tribe Caesalpinieae), separated away from Caesalpinia, Delonix, Parkinsonia and Peltophorum in a separate subgroup.
Gleditsia caspica in the present study and on the bases of morphological and molecular criteria was separated away from tribe Caesalpinieae and grouped with Cercis chinensis (group 2 at 1.2 taxonomic value). It was suggested that data extracted enhance the grouping of this taxa with Cercis chinensis under subtribe Cercidineae.
Series II
Group 2: includes Brownea grandiceps, Senna sophera & Peltophorum africanum at a taxonomic value 1.16.
According to the different authors as mentioned in Table 1 & 2 in the present study, Brownea, Tamarindus, Saraca and Schotia were grouped under tribe Amhestieae. Hutchinson (1967) and Watson & Dallwitz (1983) separated Brownea away from the related taxa viz. Tamarindus, Schotia & saraca in a separate subgroup.
In the present study the morphological and molecular data was supported the suggestion of Hutchinson (1967) and Watson & Dallwitz (1983).
Group 4: included Cassia grandis, C. javanica, Ceratonia siliqua & Senna surattensis separated at 1.18. the two former Cassia sp. are more closely related than Ceratonia and Senna. In this connection Irwin and Barneby (1981) divided Cassieae into five subtribes viz. Ceratoniinae (Ceratonia), Dialiinae, Duparquetiinae, Cassiinae (Cassia), and Labicheinae and this is in accordance with the proposed treatment in the present study.
Group 5: includes Senna alata & S. didymobotrya at 1.11 taxonomic value.
Group 6: includes Cassia fistula, C. marginata & C. nodosa at taxonomic value 1.23. In the present study the morphological and molecular data supported the separation of studied Cassia and Senna species from each other and this is in agreement with Bentham (1871) & Taubert (1891) in which genus Cassia L. is segregated into three subgenera viz. Fistula, Senna & Lasiorhegma and into Cassia, Senna & Absus (Randell, 1976).
Group 7: includes Caesalpinia ferrea, C. gilleisii, Delonix regia & Parkinsonia aculeata at 1.25 taxonomic value. These taxa belong to tribe Caesalpinieae or Eucaesalpinieae in most of the current taxonomic treatments of classification (Bentham & Hooker, 1862; Post, 1932; Emberger, 1960; Engler, 1964; Willis, 1966; Brenan, 1967; Hutchinson, 1967; Pettigrew & Watson 1977; Smith, 1977; Polhill & Raven, 1983; Watson & Dalwitz, 1983 and Lewis et al., 2005).
Group 8: includes Haematoxylum campecianum, Schotia brachypetala, Tamarindus indica & Saraca indica at taxonomic level 1.25. The taxa under this group represent tribe Detarieae or Amhersiteae (except Haematoxylum, tribe Caesalpinieae or Eucaesalpinieae) as mentioned by Bentham & Hooker (1862), Post (1932), Emberger (1960), Engler (1964), Willis (1966) Brenan (1967), Hutchinson (1967), Pettigrew & Watson (1977), Smith (1977), Polhill & Raven (1983), Watson & Dalwitz (1983) and Lewis et al. (2005). Schotia brachypetala and Tamarindus indica are closely related at taxonomic value 0.94 and this is in contradiction with Pettigrew & Watson (1977) where Schotia and Brownea were placed together in a single subgroup, Saraca in subgroup and Tamarindus in subgroup. In this respect Haematoxylum was delimited by Pettigrew & Watson (1977) and Watson & Dallwitz (1983), this is in accordance with the data extracted in the present study. From the proposed treatment (Table 26 and Fig. 14) the following subcequent points revealed a taxonomic meaning:
The majority of studied taxa are arranged under the specific tribes based on morphological and molecular attributes.
The studied taxa of Cassieae (Cassia, Senna & Ceratonia) are considered paraphyletic (one ancestor; Cassia s.l. segregated away from the remainig descendants). This is supported by Irwin & Barneby (1981), Doyle et al. (1997), Kajita et al. (2001), Herendeen et al. (2003) and Wojciechowski et al. (2004) who concluded that Cassieae is not monophyletic based on analysis of molecular sequence data.
The proposed treatment and dendrogram resulted from morphological and molecular attributes supported the separation of Cassia and Senna as two taxonomic entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment