01296nas a2200217   4500008004100000245009500041210006900136260000800205300001400213490000700227520059700234653001900831653000800850653001400858653001400872653001400886100001700900700001700917700001600934856012800950       1995                        eng d00aParsimony Analysis of cpDNA Restriction Site Variation in Subfamily Nepetoideae (Labiatae)0 aParsimony Analysis of cpDNA Restriction Site Variation in Subfam  cJan  a886–8920 v823 aParsimony analysis of cpDNA restriction site variation supports monophyly of subfamily Nepetoideae, However, a close relationship among Nepetoideae and other gynobasic-styled Labiatae is not supported, indicating that a gynobasic style has evolved independently in at least two clades of Labiatae. The inferred relationships are congruent with the classification of Cantino, Harley, and Wagstaff (1992, Advances in labiate sciences, 27-37, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) but conflict to varying degrees with traditional classifications. Monophyly of four tribes of Nepetoideae also is supported.10aClassification10aDna10aEvolution10aLamiaceae10aPhylogeny1 aWAGSTAFF, SJ1 aOLMSTEAD, RG1 aCANTINO, PD  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/parsimony-analysis-cpdna-restriction-site-variation-subfamily-nepetoideae-labiatae01510nas a2200133   4500008004100000245007100041210006900112300001400181490000700195520103600202100001701238700001701255856010401272       1997                        eng d00aPhylogeny of Labiatae and Verbenaceae Inferred from rbcL Sequences0 aPhylogeny of Labiatae and Verbenaceae Inferred from rbcL Sequenc  a165–1790 v223 aParsimony analysis of rbcL sequences supports monophyly of the Labiatae s.l., which includes the Labiatae, subfamilies Caryopteridoideae, Chloanthoideae, and Viticoideae of the Verbenaceae, and Symphoremataceae. Representatives of subfamily Verbenoideae (Verbenaceae s. str.) do not form a monophyletic group with the Labiatae s.l. Avicennia (Avicenniaceae), Cyclocheilon (Nesogenaceae), and Euthystachys and Retzia (Stilbaceae), included in the Verbenaceae by many authors, are distinct from the Labiatae s.l. and Verbenaceae s. str. The inferred phylogeny also provides a framework to interpret character evolution. Results suggest that uniovulate locules have evolved in at least two lineages of Lamiales s.l. and that a gynoecium with four locules by the development of false partitions apparently has evolved independently in the Labiatae s.l. and the Verbenaceae s. str. Whereas a dry fruit is pleisiomorphic in the Lamiales s.l., a fleshy fruit is pleisiomorphic in the Labiatae s.l. with possible reversal in four lineages.1 aWAGSTAFF, SJ1 aOLMSTEAD, RG  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/phylogeny-labiatae-and-verbenaceae-inferred-rbcl-sequences02366nas a2200145   4500008004100000245009400041210006900135300000800204490000700212520183300219100001602052700001702068700001702085856011802102       1997                        eng d00aA comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study0 acomparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system   a3130 v463 aThe family Lamiaceae was used as a case study to compare our current system of nomenclature with a phylogenetic alternative proposed by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480), with emphasis on nomenclatural stability and efficiency. Comparison of published cladistic analyses revealed 19 suprageneric clades within Lamiaceae that are supported well enough to merit naming, but many genera could not be placed with confidence in any infrafamilial taxon. Two phylogenetic classifications were prepared, one following current nomenclatural rules and conventions and the other following the phylogenetic system of nomenclature. A comparison of the classificationsrevealed examples of unstable and ambiguous names that resulted from employing current rules and conventions to name clades. Old names based on nomenclatural types of uncertain phylogenetic relationship and infrafamilial taxon names based on the type of the family are particularly prone to instability. The phylogenetic system appears to have fewer problems but may also lead to nomenclatural confusion if taxon names are defined carelessly. The current system produces less efficient classifications because the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa leads to inclusion of redundant names (monotypic taxa) when the classification is based on an asymmetrical cladogram. In contrast, the phylogenetic system contains no redundant names. We endorse the recommendation that the principle of exhaustive subsidiary taxa be abandoned. Phylogenetic definitions should be provided for taxon names whenever phylogenies are translated into classifications. The definitions should be accompanied by a list of synapomorphiesand a statementof clade membership to facilitate subsequent provisional referral of newly studied species to supraspecific taxa.1 aCANTINO, PD1 aOLMSTEAD, RG1 aWAGSTAFF, SJ  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/comparison-phylogenetic-nomenclature-current-system-botanical-case-study01680nas a2200301   4500008004100000245006000041210005900101260000800160300001400168490000800182520070600190653001400896653001500910653001900925653001000944653001300954653001400967653000900981653002300990653001401013653000901027100001701036700001701053700001601070700001501086700001701101856026001118       1998                        eng d00aPhylogeny in Labiatae sl, inferred from cpDNA sequences0 aPhylogeny in Labiatae sl inferred from cpDNA sequences  cJan  a265–2740 v2093 aSequences of rbcL and ndhF were analysed independently and in combination to resolve phylogenetic relationships in Labiatae s. 1. Monophyly of Labiatae s. 1 was supported by all three analyses. Congea tomentosa (Symphoremataceae) is nested within Labiatae s. 1. in the rbcL analysis, but emerges as the sister group of Labiatae s. 1. in the ndhF and combined analyses. Four noteworthy clades of Labiate s. 1. also are supported by all analyses corresponding to subfamilies Nepetoideae, Lamioideae, Pogostemonoideae and Scutellarioideae. Monophyly of subfamilies Chloanthoideae and Viticoideae is not supported. A clade comprising Teucrioideae plus Ajuga is supported by ndhF and the combined analysis.10aAsteridae10aCladistics10aClassification10aCpdna10aLabiatae10aLamiaceae10aNdhf10aParsimony Analysis10aPhylogeny10aRbcl1 aWAGSTAFF, SJ1 aHickerson, L1 aSpangler, R1 aReeves, PA1 aOLMSTEAD, RG  uhttp://apps.isiknowledge.com/InboundService.do?product=WOS&action=retrieve&SrcApp=Papers&UT=000072628900007&SID=2AFL5dnj5MCc8JPedL5&SrcAuth=mekentosj&mode=FullRecord&customersID=mekentosj&DestFail=http%253A%252F%252Faccess.isiproducts.com%252Fcustom_image