A worldwide molecular phylogeny and classification of the leafy spurges, Euphorbia subgenus Esula (Euphorbiaceae)

The leafy spurges, Euphorbia subg. Esula, make up one of four main lineages in Euphorbia. The subgenus comprises about 480 species, most of which are annual or perennial herbs, but with a small number of dendroid shrubs and nearly leafless, pencilâ stemmed succulents as well. The subgenus constitutes the primary northern temperate radiation in Euphorbia. While the subgenus is most diverse from central Asia to the Mediterranean region, members of the group also occur in Africa, in the Indoâ Pacific region, and in the New World. We have assembled the largest worldwide sampling of the group to date (273 spp.), representing most of the taxonomic and geographic breadth of the subgenus. We performed phylogenetic analyses of sequence data from the nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid ndhF regions. Our individual and combined analyses produced wellâ resolved phylogenies that confirm many of the previously recognized clades and also establish a number of novel groupings and placements of previously enigmatic species. Euphorbia subg. Esula has a clear Eurasian center of diversity, and we provide evidence for four independent arrivals to the New World and three separate colonizations of tropical and southern Africa. One of the latter groups further extends to Madagascar and New Zealand, and to more isolated islands such as Réunion and Samoa. Our results confirm that the dendroid shrub and stemâ succulent growth forms are derived conditions in E. subg. Esula. Stemâ succulents arose twice in the subgenus and dendroid shrubs three times. Based on the molecular phylogeny, we propose a new classification for E. subg. Esula that recognizes 21 sections (four of them newly described and two elevated from subsectional rank), and we place over 95% of the accepted species in the subgenus into this new classification.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146962/1/tax6221.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146962/2/tax6221-sup-004-pdf.pd

The future of botanical monography : report from an international workshop, 12–16 March 2012, Smolenice, Slovak Republic

Monographs are fundamental for progress in systematic botany. They are the vehicles for circumscribing and naming taxa, determining distributions and ecology, assessing relationships for formal classification, and interpreting long-term and short-term dimensions of the evolutionary process. Despite their importance, fewer monographs are now being prepared by the newer generation of systematic botanists, who are understandably involved principally with DNA data and analysis, especially for answering phylogenetic, biogeographic, and population genetic questions. As monographs provide hypotheses regarding species boundaries and plant relationships, new insights in many plant groups are urgently needed. Increasing pressures on biodiversity, especially in tropical and developing regions of the world, emphasize this point. The results from a workshop (with 21 participants) reaffirm the central role that monographs play in systematic botany. But, rather than advocating abbreviated models for monographic products, we recommend a full presentation of relevant information. Electronic publication offers numerous means of illustration of taxa, habitats, characters, and statistical and phylogenetic analyses, which previously would have been prohibitively costly. Open Access and semantically enhanced linked electronic publications provide instant access to content from anywhere in the world, and at the same time link this content to all underlying data and digital resources used in the work. Resources in support of monography, especially databases and widely and easily accessible digital literature and specimens, are now more powerful than ever before, but interfacing and interoperability of databases are much needed. Priorities for new resources to be developed include an index of type collections and an online global chromosome database. Funding for sabbaticals for monographers to work uninterrupted on major projects is strongly encouraged. We recommend that doctoral students be assigned smaller genera, or natural portions of larger ones (subgenera, sections, etc.), to gain the necessary expertise for producing a monograph, including training in a broad array of data collection (e.g., morphology, anatomy, palynology, cytogenetics, DNA techniques, ecology, biogeography), data analysis (e.g., statistics, phylogenetics, models), and nomenclature. Training programs, supported by institutes, associations, and agencies, provide means for passing on procedures and perspectives of challenging botanical monography to the next generation of young systematists.Appreciation is expressed to: the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for financial support that allowed the workshop to be convened; the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) for additional financial support for the workshop.http://www.botanik.univie.ac.at/iapt/s_taxon.phpam201

The future of botanical monography : report from an international workshop, 12–16 March 2012, Smolenice, Slovak Republic

Monographs are fundamental for progress in systematic botany. They are the vehicles for circumscribing and naming taxa, determining distributions and ecology, assessing relationships for formal classification, and interpreting long-term and short-term dimensions of the evolutionary process. Despite their importance, fewer monographs are now being prepared by the newer generation of systematic botanists, who are understandably involved principally with DNA data and analysis, especially for answering phylogenetic, biogeographic, and population genetic questions. As monographs provide hypotheses regarding species boundaries and plant relationships, new insights in many plant groups are urgently needed. Increasing pressures on biodiversity, especially in tropical and developing regions of the world, emphasize this point. The results from a workshop (with 21 participants) reaffirm the central role that monographs play in systematic botany. But, rather than advocating abbreviated models for monographic products, we recommend a full presentation of relevant information. Electronic publication offers numerous means of illustration of taxa, habitats, characters, and statistical and phylogenetic analyses, which previously would have been prohibitively costly. Open Access and semantically enhanced linked electronic publications provide instant access to content from anywhere in the world, and at the same time link this content to all underlying data and digital resources used in the work. Resources in support of monography, especially databases and widely and easily accessible digital literature and specimens, are now more powerful than ever before, but interfacing and interoperability of databases are much needed. Priorities for new resources to be developed include an index of type collections and an online global chromosome database. Funding for sabbaticals for monographers to work uninterrupted on major projects is strongly encouraged. We recommend that doctoral students be assigned smaller genera, or natural portions of larger ones (subgenera, sections, etc.), to gain the necessary expertise for producing a monograph, including training in a broad array of data collection (e.g., morphology, anatomy, palynology, cytogenetics, DNA techniques, ecology, biogeography), data analysis (e.g., statistics, phylogenetics, models), and nomenclature. Training programs, supported by institutes, associations, and agencies, provide means for passing on procedures and perspectives of challenging botanical monography to the next generation of young systematists.Appreciation is expressed to: the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for financial support that allowed the workshop to be convened; the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) for additional financial support for the workshop.http://www.botanik.univie.ac.at/iapt/s_taxon.phpam201

Taxonomic revision of euphorbia subsect. Myrsiniteae in Iran

The present paper updates the taxonomy of Euphorbia subsect. Myrsiniteae for the Flora of Iran since the publication of Flora Iranica in 1964. We provide a key, descriptions, distribution maps and illustrations for the seven taxa of the subsection occurring in the country. The presence of E. monostyla and the absence of E. rigida is confirmed. The distribution of E. spinidens, E. myrsinites, E. marschalliana subsp. marschalliana and E. marschalliana subsp. armena is updated, and E. marschalliana subsp. woronowii is considered a synonym of E. marschalliana subsp. marschalliana. © Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board 2011.Peer Reviewe

A worldwide molecular phylogeny and classification of the leafy spurges, Euphorbia subgenus Esula (Euphorbiaceae)

The leafy spurges, Euphorbia subg. Esula, make up one of four main lineages in Euphorbia. The subgenus comprises about 480 species, most of which are annual or perennial herbs, but with a small number of dendroid shrubs and nearly leafless, pencil-stemmed succulents as well. The subgenus constitutes the primary northern temperate radiation in Euphorbia. While the subgenus is most diverse from central Asia to the Mediterranean region, members of the group also occur in Africa, in the Indo-Pacific region, and in the New World. We have assembled the largest worldwide sampling of the group to date (273 spp.), representing most of the taxonomic and geographic breadth of the subgenus. We performed phylogenetic analyses of sequence data from the nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid ndhF regions. Our individual and combined analyses produced well-resolved phylogenies that confirm many of the previously recognized clades and also establish a number of novel groupings and placements of previously enigmatic species. Euphorbia subg. Esula has a clear Eurasian center of diversity, and we provide evidence for four independent arrivals to the New World and three separate colonizations of tropical and southern Africa. One of the latter groups further extends to Madagascar and New Zealand, and to more isolated islands such as Réunion and Samoa. Our results confirm that the dendroid shrub and stem-succulent growth forms are derived conditions in E. subg. Esula. Stem-succulents arose twice in the subgenus and dendroid shrubs three times. Based on the molecular phylogeny, we propose a new classification for E. subg. Esula that recognizes 21 sections (four of them newly described and two elevated from subsectional rank), and we place over 95% of the accepted species in the subgenus into this new classification.Funding was made available by the U.S. National Science Foundation through a Planetary Biodiversity Inventory Grant (DEB-0616533) to P.E. Berry, by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science through project CGL2009-13322-C03-03 to L. Barres and J. Molero, and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research through project 10-04-00290-а to D. Geltman and A. Kryukov.Peer reviewe

(276–279) Proposals to provide for registration of new names and nomenclatural acts

The Melbourne Congress of 2011 authorized a Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils), which was established the following year (Wilson in Taxon 61: 878–879. 2012). Its explicit mandate was “to consider what would be involved in registering algal and plant names (including fossils), using a procedure analogous to that for fungal names agreed upon in Melbourne and included in the Code as Art. 42”, but expectations at the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne went farther than that. There was the hope that registration systems for at least some of the main groups would soon be set up, to be used and tested on a voluntary basis and, if found to be generally accepted, would persuade the subsequent Congress in Shenzhen, in 2017, to declare registration of new names an additional requirement for valid publication. The Melbourne Congress also approved mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties in fungi, starting on 1 Jan 2013. The new Art. 42 of the Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) requires authors to register any fungal nomenclatural novelty, prior to publication, with a recognized repository, whereupon they are provided with a unique identifier for each name, to be included in the protologue along with other Code-mandated information. Years before registration became mandatory, mycologists had been encouraged, often prompted by journal editors, to register their nomenclatural novelties prior to publication. Most complied. Consequently, when mandatory registration was proposed, it had strong support from the mycological community. There are currently three recognized repositories for fungal names. They vary somewhat in how they operate, but they share records of their registered novelties as soon as publication has been effected. One consequence of implementing mandatory registration is that locating new fungal names and combinations and associated protologue information is much simpler now than it was before. This makes it easier to incorporate the information into taxonomic studies and to update taxonomic treatments, inventories, and indices. A corollary is that, no matter what publication outlet an author chooses, the name cannot fail to be noticed. The positive experience in mycology makes extension of the registration concept to plants and algae a compelling idea. That experience shows that the best way to make mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties palatable to botanists and phycologists is the establishment of trial registration at repositories with a history of involvement in and commitment to the indexing of names. Trial registration enables users to acquaint themselves with registration procedures, make suggestions on how they might be improved, and appreciate, by personal experience, the benefits of registration. Unfortunately, the task of establishing such repositories proved to be more complex and time-consuming than had been foreseen. Substantial progress has been made in the establishment of such centres (Barkworth & al., in this issue, pp. 670–672) but the Committee is not in a position to make firm proposals to regulate registration procedures, even less to make registration mandatory from a concrete future date. Nevertheless, the Committee sees it as imperative that the Shenzhen Congress be offered the opportunity to move forward with registration without having to wait six more years. In this spirit, we offer the proposals below. Proposal (276) would declare registration an ongoing concern of the botanical, mycological, and phycological community and provide the basic structure for making it possible. Proposal (277) and Prop. (278) would, in addition, define a flexible framework within which a system of voluntary registration could be developed for various categories of organisms. Proposal (279) would provide for future mandatory registration in a way that does not depend on the six-year intervals between International Botanical Congresses. Presentation of each proposal is followed by a summary of the support received from members of the Committee.Fil: Barkworth, Mary E.. State University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Watson, Mark. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Barrie, Fred R.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. Field Museum Of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Belyaeva, Irina V.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Chung, Richard C. K.. Forest Research Institute ; MalasiaFil: Dasková, Jirina. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Davidse, Gerrit. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Dönmez, Ali A.. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Doweld, Alexander B.. National Institute Of Carpology; RusiaFil: Dressler, Stefan. Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut Und Naturmuseum; AlemaniaFil: Flann, Christina. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Gandhi, Kanchi. Harvard University; Estados UnidosFil: Geltman, Dmitry. Russian Academy of Science; RusiaFil: Glen, Hugh F.. Forest Hills; SudáfricaFil: Greuter, Werner. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Head, Martin J.. Brock University; CanadáFil: Jahn, Regine. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Janarthanam, Malapati K.. Goa University; IndiaFil: Katinas, Liliana. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División de Plantas Vasculares; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Kirk, Paul M.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Klazenga, Niels. Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria; AustraliaFil: Kusber, Wolf-Henning. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Kvacek, Jirí. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Malécot, Valéry. Universite D'angers; FranciaFil: Mann, David G.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Marhold, Karol. Charles University; República ChecaFil: Nagamasu, Hidetoshi. Kyoto University; JapónFil: Nicolson, Nicky. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Paton, Alan. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Patterson, David J.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Michelle J.. Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève; SuizaFil: van Reine, Willem F Prud' Homme. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Schneider, Craig W.. Trinity College Hartford; Estados UnidosFil: Sennikov, Alexander. Russian Academy Of Sciences; RusiaFil: Smith, Gideon F.. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University; Sudáfrica. Universidad de Coimbra; PortugalFil: Stevens, Peter F.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Yang, Zhu-Liang. Kunming Institute Of Botany Chinese Academy Of Sciences; ChinaFil: Zhang, Xian-Chun. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Zuccarello, Giuseppe C.. Victoria University Of Wellington; Nueva Zeland

Report of the Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils)

The Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils) was established at the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Melbourne in 2011, its mandate being to consider what would be involved in registering algal and plant names (including fossils), using a procedure analogous to that for fungal names agreed upon in Melbourne and included as Art. 42 in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. Because experience with voluntary registration was key to persuading mycologists of the advantages of mandatory registration, we began by asking institutions with a history of nomenclatural indexing to develop mechanisms that would permit registration. The task proved more difficult than anticipated, but considerable progress has been made, as is described in this report. It also became evident that the Nomenclature Section needs a structure that will allow ongoing discussion of registration and associated issues. Simultaneously with this report we are submitting four proposals that would provide such a structure