Syster group and systematics of Cedrela
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Thu Sep 2 19:42:26 CDT 2004
>From a historical perspective it is interesting to note (if indeed Swietenia
and Khaya are among the more close relatives to Cedrela and Toona) that the
first described species of Swietenia was initially described as a Cedrela
species (Cedrela mahagoni). The epithet "mahagoni" was derived from a
vernacular name for a Khaya species.
From: <alexandra.muellner at UNIVIE.AC.AT>
> Dear Ronaldo,
> we are currently working on an extension of the Meliaceae phylogeny
including more taxa and DNA regions. Cedrela and Toona are probably a
monophyletic group, and Swietenia and Khaya seem to be among the closest
relatives to this clade.
> Concerning our current work on the fine-scale relationships in the tribe
Cedreleae (= Cedrela and Toona sensu Pennington & Styles 1975), our sampling
covers the whole distribution range of Cedrela and all its species, and
results will be available by next year.
> Kind regards,
> Alexandra Muellner
> Dr. Alexandra Nora Muellner
> Molecular Systematist (Meliaceae)
> Royal Botanic Gardens Kew
> Jodrell Laboratory
> Molecular Systematics Section
> Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS
> United Kingdom, Europe
> Tel. 0044-20-8332-5371
> Fax 0044-20-8332-5310
> Email: a.muellner at rbgkew.org.uk
> Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at FREELER.NL> wrote:
> > For a very long time Cedrela (sensu lato) has been recognised as
> > especially in its wood. The abstract of the Article in AJoB says that
> > tribe Cedreleae is monophyletic, which suggests this is confirmed.
> > I doubt any useful replacement by existing trees is possible. It is a
> > of replanting and there should be experience of that with just about all
> > species in Cedrela (sensu lato).
> > PvR
> > From: Ken Kinman <kinman2 at YAHOO.COM>
> > > Ronaldo,
> > > A good place to start would be Muellner et al., 2003.
> > phylogenetics of Meliaceae (Sapindales) based on nuclear and plastid DNA
> > sequences." American Journal of Botany, 90(3):471-480. However, there
> > apparently about 15 genera in Subfamily Swietenioideae, and I would
> > would probably be best to look at all of them (not just the ones
> > Muellner et al).
> > > ----- Ken
> > >
More information about the Taxacom