共查询到11条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
从18SrDNA序列初探散胞盘菌亚科属间亲缘关系 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
散胞盘菌亚科Encoelioideae建于1932年,为盘菌纲Discomycetes锤舌菌目Leotiales锤舌菌科（广义）Leotiaceae的成员,它包括腐生、植物寄生、真菌上生的盘状子囊菌,现含18属,其中若干为单种属。传统分类从形态学角度将外囊盘表层细胞松散结合或者表面覆盖短的菌丝延伸物视为此亚科的主要特征,宏观上,其成员的共性表现为外囊盘被表面糠皮状、鳞屑状或霜状。迄今,学者们从未对散孢盘菌亚科这一性状是否反映属间亲缘关系进行过任何探讨,国际基因库中亦无此亚科的可利用序列。为了探明此性状在系统演化过程中的作用以及散胞盘菌亚科的属间亲缘关系,我们对此亚科中绿散胞盘菌Chlorencoelia、复柄盘菌属Cordierites、散胞盘菌属Encoelia、霍氏盘菌属Holwaya、拟爪毛盘菌属Unguiculariopsis、 以及丝绒盘菌属Velutarina代表种的18S rDNA片段进行了序列测定,受实验材料所限,每属只获得了一个种的18S rDNA序列。为了分析和比较,还对同一科内锤舌菌亚科Leotioideae中绿杯菌属Chlorociboria一个种的相关序列进行了测定。在构建系统树的过程中,核盘菌科的核盘菌Sclerotinia sclerotiorum被选为外群;从基因库中调入属于同一个目的地舌菌科和锤舌菌亚科几个属的代表即胶鼓菌属Bulgaria、锤舌菌属Leotia、? 相似文献
2.
散胞盘菌亚科Ｅｎｃｏｅｌｉｏｉｄｅａｅ建于１９３２年,为盘菌纲Ｄｉｓｃｏｍｙｃｅｔｅｓ锤舌菌目Ｌｅｏｔｉａｌｅｓ锤舌菌科（广义）Ｌｅｏｔｉａｃｅａｅ的成员,它包括腐生、植物寄生、真菌上生的盘状子囊菌,现含１８属,其中若干为单种属。传统分类从形态学角度将外囊盘表层细胞松散结合或者表面覆盖短的菌丝延伸物视为此亚科的主要特征,宏观上,其成员的共性表现为外囊盘被表面糠皮状、鳞屑状或霜状。迄今,学者们从未对 相似文献
3.
4.
JUAN RODRÍGUEZ-OUBIÑA SANTIAGO ORTIZ 《Botanical journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London》1995,119(1):59-64
Two new species, Dicoma gillettii and Dicoma scoparia (Asteraceae), both from Somalia, are described and illustrated. The differences between the new species and related taxa are listed. 相似文献
5.
JOEL D. VELASCO 《Biological journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London》2008,93(4):865-869
Samadi and Barberousse attempt to provide a precise, formal definition of the species category that is faithful to the internodal species concept (Samadi S, Barberousse A. 2006. The tree, the network, and the species. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 89: 509–521). Here, it is argued that their study is technically flawed. Most of the necessary corrections to their definitions are provided in order to accurately portray the internodal concept. It is then argued that the internodal concept is fundamentally flawed; it does not solve the 'classical problems' that Samadi and Barberousse claim it does. In particular, it does not allow for the possibility of interspecies hybridization. In addition, the proposal is unworkable in practice, and also theoretically problematic because it entails that, in many lineages, speciation events are taking place every few generations. © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2008, 93 , 865–869. 相似文献
6.
7.
M. M. Marfenkova 《Paleontological Journal》2009,43(3):251-257
Taxonomical composition of the family Koktjubinidae Marfenkova, 1991 is revised. Genera and species Koktjubina venusta Marfenkova, 1991, K. exotica (Vdovenko, 1962), Dzhamansorina grata Marfenkova, 1991, D. kipshakensis Marfenkova, 1991, D. minima (Vdovenko, 1962), Admiranda convexa Marfenkova, 1991, Ulanbela Marfenkova, 1991, and Ulanbela anabensis (Marfenkova, 1991) are redescribed. The Koktjubinidae are found to be more widely spread: Kyrgyzstan, western Europe, Morocco, Turkey, China, and Canada. 相似文献
8.
9.
绒鼠属于1896年建立?针对该属有几个亚属、多少个有效种的问题100多年来一直争论不休,一般认为该属有3个亚属：Eothenomp亚属、Anteliomys亚属,和Caryomys亚属。部分人认为只有前两个亚属;少数人认为没有亚属分化。至于该属的种类争论更大,命名的种类多达20个,但没有一人同时承认20个种,比较多数人认为有11个种。我们通过研究该属部分种的阴茎形态学认为：该属有3个亚属,即Eothenomys亚属、Anteliomys亚属、和Caryomys亚属。 相似文献
10.
11.
Grant V 《American journal of botany》1998,85(6):741-752
The system of classification of the Polemoniaceae currently in use was published by Grant in 1959. Much new evidence concerning relationships in the family has been obtained by numerous workers since 1959, and the old system is in need of revision. A revised system down to the genus level, based on conventional and unconventional characters, including molecular evidence, is presented here. Nineteen genera are grouped into eight tribes and two subfamilies. Three new tribes are described: Acanthogilieae, Loeselieae, and Leptodactyloneae. Several genera are transferred to new groups. The phylogeny of the family is discussed in the light of both the older and new evidence. The approach used in constructing both the 1959 and new systems is that of evolutionary systematics. Two recent (1996, 1997) family-wide surveys of cpDNA and rDNA use cladistic methods of analysis to arrive at sets of major groups. Some of this molecular evidence has been adopted for the present revised system. However, much incongruence still exists between the new sets of clades, on the one hand, and the present revised system or the still-viable parts of the 1959 system on the other hand. The incongruences call for an examination and comparison of the contrasting methods of evolutionary systematics and molecular cladistics. A fundamental flaw in the 1996 and 1997 treatments is the attempt to classify plants on the basis of single-gene gene trees. 相似文献