Misleading fruits: The non-monophyly of Pseudopiptadenia and Pityrocarpa supports generic re-circumscriptions and a new genus within mimosoid legumes

By

Borges, Leonardo
Inglis, Peter W.
Simon, Marcelo F.
Ribeiro, Pétala
Queiroz, Luciano Paganucci de

Type

Article

Date of Publication

2022

Original Publication

PhytoKeys

Volume

205

Pages

239--259

Subjects

Caesalpinioideae , Fabaceae , Leguminosae , Parapiptadenia , Stryphnodendron clade , tropical America

Contributed by

Pensoft Publishers

Language

English

Published by

Sofia, Bulgaria Pensoft Publishers [2010]-

Identifiers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.205.82275

 

Abstract

Generic delimitation in Piptadenia and allies (mimosoid legumes) has been in a state of flux, particularly caused by over-reliance on fruit and seed morphology to segregate species out of Piptadenia into the genera Parapiptadenia, Pityrocarpa and Pseudopiptadenia. Although supporting their segregation from Piptadenia, previous phylogenetic analyses suggested that some of these segregated genera are not monophyletic. Here, we test the monophyly of Parapiptadenia, Pityrocarpa and Pseudopiptadenia with dense taxon sampling across these genera, including the type species of each genus. Our analysis recovers Parapitadenia as monophyletic, but places Pseudopiptadenia species in two distinct lineages, one of which includes all three species of Pityrocarpa. Given that the type species of both Pseudopiptadenia and Pityrocarpa are nested in the same clade, we subsume Pseudopiptadenia under the older name Pityrocarpa. The remaining Pseudopiptadenia species are assigned to the new genus Marlimorimia. Alongside high molecular phylogenetic support, recognition of Parapiptadenia, Pityrocarpa and Marlimorimia as distinct genera is also supported by combinations of morphological traits, several of which were previously overlooked.