Hyoseridinae Less.
- Dataset
- Cichorieae Systematics Portal
- Rank
- SUBTRIBE
- Published in
- Lessing, C.F. 1832: Syn. Gen. Compos.
Classification
Systematics
Extensive molecular phylogenetic analyses of the Sonchus alliance by Kim & al. (1996, 1997, 1999a,b, 2004, 2007) revealed that the genus Dendroseris, and, by morphology, also the monospecific genus Thamnoseris, both formerly included in a separate subtribe Dendroseridinae, are part of the Sonchinae and the Sonchus alliance in particular.\r\rRecent molecular phylogenetic analyses by Gemeinholzer & al. (in Kilian & al. 2009) revealed that also Aposeris (lacking a pappus) and Hyoseris (with an inner pappus of basally strongly widened bristles) have to be included in the Sonchinae. Blackmore (1981) stated that the palynological evidence is inconclusive for the placement of Hyoseris, reflecting a possible relationship to the Hypochaeris alliance as likely as to the Launaea-Reichardia-Sonchus alliance. Molecular analyses by Samuel & al. (2003) revealed that neither species is a member of the Hypochaeridinae. Aposeris is sister to all other genera of this subtribe, which are rather closely related to each other, while Hyoseris is sister to the clade including Launaea, Reichardia and the Sonchus alliance. Inclusion of Hyoseris required a change of name of the subtribe from Sonchinae to Hyoseridinae because of the priority rule.\r\rThe various species-poor genera, established within the Sonchus alliance for species of the Canary Islands (Chrysoprenanthes, Babcockia, Lactucosonchus, Sventenia, Taeckholmia, Wildpretia) and of Australia/New Zealand (Actites, Embergia, Kirkianella), were nested within Sonchus in all recent molecular phylogenetic analyses (Kim & al. 1996 [a, b], 1999 [a, b], 2004, 2007). The same has been confirmed for the monospecific Mediterranean Aetheorhiza as well as for Dendroseris and Thamnoseris, endemic to the Pacific Juan Fernandez and Desventuradas Islands, respectively (Kim & al. 2007). The Canarian, Mediterranean and Australian/New Zealandean genera are morphologically questionably distinct from Sonchus and their inclusion in Sonchus seems therefore a justified consequence. The case may appear different with respect to Dendroseris (Carlquist 1966; Crawford & al. 1992; Sang & al. 1994) and Thamnoseris, which apparently have evolved from within Sonchus after long-distant dispersal to these Pacific island groups. They may be exemplary for the need to accept, whenever appropriate, also paraphyletic genera as long as we want taxonomy to reflect evolution (Hörandl 2007, Brummitt 2008). Mejías & Kim (2012), however, came, also after an extensive review of the literature on these genera, to the conclusion that Dendroseris and Thamnoseris should best be included in Sonchus and provided the corresponding nomenclatural combinations. The treatment here follows these authors.
Name
- Synonyms
- Dendroseridinae Benth. & Hook. f.
- Sonchinae K. Bremer
- Homonyms
- Hyoseridinae Less.