用SSR标记研究柑橘属及其近缘属植物的亲缘关系

用SSR标记分析了29份柑橘属及近缘属植物的亲缘关系。7对SSR引物在29个样品中扩增得到114个等位基因,平均每个位点有16.3个等位基因。计算匹配系数后用邻接法进行聚类,结果表明,澳洲指橘与柑橘属的亲缘关系很近;SSR位点的高纯合频率支持富民枳种的地位;枳与柑橘属的关系较远,枳不大可能是从柑橘属衍生而来;Swingle的亚属的划分以及田中的原生柑橘类和后生柑橘类的划分界线不清晰;现代栽培柑橘的起源与大翼橙关系密切;柑橘属的枸橼、柚和宽皮橘都很好地分离,支持其为现代栽培柑橘的3个基本种的观点。     

珍珠菜属系统发育关系的初步研究

本文运用形态学性状对珍珠菜属（Lysimachia)进行系统发育分析。内类群包括珍珠菜属29个代表种以及珍珠菜族其它单种、寡种属;仙客来属（Cylclamen)被选作外类群。最简约性分析表明,珍珠菜属并不构成－自然分类群;在其严格一致化树的二岐分支中,异花珍珠菜（L.crispidens)单独构成一支,其它所有内类群构成一支。香草亚属（subgen.Idiophyton)、木黄连花亚属（subgne.Lysimachiopsis)以及珍珠菜亚属（subgen.palladia)均表现为单系群,而黄连花亚属（subgen.Lysimachia)则为一异形的并系群。球尾花亚属（subgen.Naumburgia)仍“内藏”于珍珠菜属的主体之中。而喉鳞花亚属（subgen.Seleucia)则偏离出来而与七瓣莲属（Trien talis)构成姐妹群。如何准确地界定珍珠菜属和进行属下分类群的划分,还需进一步研究。     

中国羊蹄甲属新分类群

<正> 在《中国植物志》第39卷中,作者对羊蹄甲属采用了广义的概念,属以下分为3个亚属:羊蹄甲亚属subgen.Bauhinia,厚盘亚属subgen.Lasiobema Korth,显托亚属subgen.Phanera(Lour.)Wunderlin,Larsen et Larsen.在编写过程中,发现一些新分类群,现报道如下:     

果皮和种皮微形态特征在杜鹃花属系统学研究中的应用

采用扫描电子显微镜对国产杜鹃花属Rhododendron6个亚属的代表种和近缘类群杜香属Ledum杜香L.palustre的果皮和种皮微形态特征进行观察,对杜鹃花属植物果皮微形态特征进行了系统描述,并通过比较现存杜鹃花属植物和种子化石,新发现一些居间的种子类型。结果表明,果皮和种皮微形态特征具有一定的系统学意义。叶状苞亚属subgen.Therorhodion的叶状苞杜鹃R.redowskianum的果实有短而疏的刺毛,无气孔,种子为无翅类,扁平,外围轮廓长椭圆形。杜鹃亚属subgen.Rhododendron植物果皮为百合花杜鹃型,具有鳞片,气孔器散生于指状突起之间,与叶表皮的微形态特征一致,其种子为百合花杜鹃型,表面具宽而浅的沟,呈脑纹状,有别于无鳞类杜鹃花。常绿杜鹃亚属subgen.Hymenanthes果皮为云锦杜鹃型,其角质层表面不规则,无表皮毛,偶见气孔;种子为云锦杜鹃型。映山红亚属subgen.Tsutsusi果皮为岭南杜鹃型,密生长表皮毛,角质层致密;种子为南边杜鹃型和岭南杜鹃型。微形态特征与“常绿杜鹃亚属和(国产)映山红亚属均为内部支持率很高的单系类群”的分子系统发育研究结果一致。马银花亚属subgen.Azaleastrum的马银花组sect.Azaleastrum和长蕊杜鹃组sect.Choniastrum微形态区别明显,支持各自为独立的单系类群。羊踯躅亚属subgen.Pentanthera的羊踯躅R.molle果皮特征明显,可与其他亚属区分,但种子类型更接近常绿杜鹃亚属。本研究结合分子系统发育资料和叶表皮微形态特征讨论了一些近缘类群的系统发育关系;研究结果支持将腺萼马银花处理为独立的种。     

真正柑桔果树群植物的分支学研究

本文用相容性分析方法(Compatability snalysis)分析了真正柑桔果树群(芸香科Rutaceae-柑桔亚科Aurantioideae-柑桔族(Citreae)-柑桔亚族(Citrinae)植物内各属间的分支学关系。给出了建立在7个相容性性状组成的最大族所决定的分支图。性状极性的确定使用了外群法。结果表明,柑桔属(Citrus L.)和多蕊桔属(Clymenia Swing)构成一个单系类群,他们的姐妹群是金柑属(Fortunella Swing.)。被认为起源于中国的3个属,柑桔属(Citrus)、金柑属(Fortunella)和积属(Poncirus Raf.)并未构成一个单系类群。本文还利用分支关系分析和讨论了真正柑桔果树群的种系发生关系。     

栽培沉香遗传多样性的ISSR和AFLP分析比较

探讨2种分子标记技术在沉香属药用植物遗传多样性研究中的应用。用ISSR和AFLP分子标记分析了海南、云南、广东、广西等地17份沉香属植物的遗传多样性。14个ISSR引物、8对AFLP引物分别检测到119、919个位点,多态位点百分率分别为73.95%、86.94%。由于AFLP标记具有较高的多态性位点检测效率,AFLP标记分析的遗传多样性参数高于ISSR。虽然基于Nei’s遗传距离的聚类分析结果存在着一定的差异,但用Mantel检测对两种方法检测的遗传一致度进行相关性分析表明,它们之间存在着明显的相关性（r=0.7705,P=0.0003）。ISSR标记与AFLP标记均能应用于沉香属植物的遗传多样性研究。两种标记的研究结果均揭示出沉香属植物具有较高的遗传多样水平。     

红花玉兰与玉兰亚属几个种亲缘关系的AFLP分析

应用AFLP分子标记技术对红花玉兰与玉兰亚属几个种之间的亲缘关系,以及红花玉兰的分类地位进行了分析。9对引物对7个玉兰种的36个代表样株进行选择性扩增,共得到扩增谱带874条,其中多态性谱带635条。分析结果表明：各玉兰种间,红花玉兰与白玉兰、武当木兰的遗传相似度较高;玉兰亚属种间基于AFLP分析的聚类结果与形态学对种的划分基本吻合。红花玉兰不仅形态上与其它玉兰种有明显区别,AFLP分子标记也支持红花玉兰为一个独立的新种,多瓣红花玉兰变种与红花玉兰原变种为一个种。     

国产12种乌头属和18种翠雀属植物的细胞学研究

研究了12种乌头属Aconitum L．和18种翠雀属Delphinium L．植物的染色体。在12种乌头属植物中,除粗花乌头A．crassiflorum为四倍体(2n=4x=32)外,其他种类都为二倍体(2n=2x＝16),中甸乌头 A.piepunense中有B染色体存在,牛扁亚属Aconitum subgen．Lycoctonum的二倍体植物与乌头亚属Aconitum subgen．Aconitum 植物的染色体在大小和形态上有明显区别;所有18种翠雀属植物都为二倍体(2n＝2x=16),其染色体在大小和形态上极为相似,但与乌头亚属的染色体易于区别。翠雀属植物的核型不对称性程度明显高于乌头属植物,因此从染色体证据来看,翠雀属要比乌头属进化。     

10种冬青属植物遗传多样性RAPD和AFLPs分析

采用RAPD和AFLP技术,对10种冬青属植物基因组进行DNA片段扩增,以研究该属种间遗传多样性.结果表明:在RAPD分析中,通过对100种10个碱基随机引物的筛选,发现11种引物能得到多态性较高扩增产物,11种引物共扩增出301条多态性条带,多态率为98.63%.在AFLP分析中,3对选择性引物组合均扩增出了丰富的多态性片段.利用RAPD和AFLP技术分析,结果按UPGMA类平均法进行聚类,聚类结果显示冬青和代茶冬青,木姜冬青和浙江冬青以及光枝刺缘冬青与毛枝三花冬青之间的亲缘关系最近.     

高粱属植物的地理分布

为探讨高粱属(Sorghum Moench)的系统发育关系,通过野外调查及查阅标本和文献资料,对高粱属植物的地理分布进行了整理和研究。高粱属植物约有29种,分布于全世界热带到温带地区,其中澳大利亚22种,亚洲15种,非洲9种,欧洲3种,地中海2种,美洲6种。中国有5种,分布在东北、西南到华南各省(区)。高粱属有5亚属,仅高粱亚属(subgen.Sorghum)延伸至新世界,其他亚属均分布在旧世界,高粱亚属覆盖非洲并扩散到全世界热带到温带地区;拟高粱亚属(subgen.Parasorghum)分布在非洲、亚洲、澳大利亚;有柄高粱亚属(subgen.Stiposorghum)主要分布在澳大利亚,个别种分布到亚洲;多毛高粱亚属(subgen.Chaetosorghum)分布在澳大利亚;异高粱亚属(subgen.Heterosorghum)分布在澳大利亚和亚洲。这表明澳大利亚东北部是高粱属的现代分布中心和多样化中心,非洲东北部和热带亚洲是否是高粱属的起源地尚需确证。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor