Upload
phungnhan
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Molecular phylogeny of Cypripedium (Orchidaceae: Cypripedioideae) inferredfrom multiple nuclear and chloroplast regions
Ji-hong Li a,h, Zhong-jian Liu b, Gerardo A. Salazar c, Peter Bernhardt d, Holger Perner e, Yukawa Tomohisa f,Xiao-hua Jin a, Shih-wen Chung g, Yi-bo Luo a,b,⇑a State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, Chinab The National Orchid Conservation Center, Shenzhen 518114, Chinac Departamento de Botánica, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70-367, 04510 Mexico, D.F., Mexicod Department of Biology, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63103, USAe Huanglong Administration of National Scenic Spot, Huanglong Sichuan, Chinaf Tsukuba Botanical Garden, National Museum of Nature and Science, 1-1, Amakubo 4, Tsukuba 305-0005, Japang Department of Life Science, National Taiwan University, 1, Roosevelt Road, Sec. 4, Taipei 106, Taiwanh Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 25 November 2010Revised 3 June 2011Accepted 8 June 2011Available online 22 June 2011
Keywords:CypripediumcpDNAnrDNA ITSPhylogenyMonophyleticParaphyletic
a b s t r a c t
A molecular analysis was performed on 56 taxa in the orchid genus Cypripedium using nrDNA ITS and fivechloroplast regions (trnH-psbA, atpI-atpH, trnS-trnfM, trnL-F spacer, and the trnL intron). The genus Cyp-ripedium was confirmed as monophyletic. Our data provided strong support for monophyletic groupingof eight infrageneric sections (Subtropica, Obtusipetala, Trigonopedia, Sinopedilum, Bifolia, Flabelinervia,Arietinum, and Cypripedium) defined in earlier taxonomic treatments, and paraphyletic grouping of twosections (Irapeana and Retinervi). Within the genus Cypripedium, the first divergent lineage consisted oftwo Mesomaerican species, and subsequently the Cypripedium debile lineage from eastern Asia was split.Our study did not support the notion that two Asian species (Cypripedium subtropicum and Cypripediumsingchii) were closely related to either Mesoamerican Cypripedium irapeanum or North American Cypripe-dium californicum, as indicated by previous interpretations based on morphological evidences. In addi-tion, one pair of vicariant species, Cypripedium plectrochilum (eastern Asia) and Cypripedium arietinum(North America), unique to section Arietinum, was confirmed. Furthermore, within the monophyleticsection Cypripedium two previously recognized subsections, Cypripedium and Macrantha, were shownto be paraphyletic. Our results suggested that this section split into two groups based on distribution(North America vs. Eurasia) instead of such previously used, morphological traits as flower color, andthe shape of the lips (labellum) and lateral petals.
� 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The genus Cypripedium has a far wider distribution and morevegetative and floral variations than the four remaining genera inthe subfamily Cypripediodeae, Orchidaceae (van der Pijl andDodson, 1966; sensu Cribb, 1997). Cypripedium consists of approx-imately 50 species of terrestrial herbs found in woodland and mea-dow habitats, from sea level to middle-montane elevations. Thesespecies are distributed through subtropical to temperate latitudesof the Northern Hemisphere excluding northern Africa (Cribb,1997; Averyanov, 2000; Chen and Cribb, 2005; Perner, 2008). East-ern Asia and North America represent two centers of diversity for
this genus. At least 38 species occur in Eastern Asian region, andabout 30 species in southwestern China (Cribb, 1997; Chen andCribb, 2005). North America (including Mexico) with about 16 spe-cies, is the second and smaller center of diversity (Cribb, 1997).
Historically, the morphological boundaries of this genus arebased on only two diagnostic characters. Cypripedium spp. arethe only ‘‘slipper’’ orchids in the subfamily bearing both plicateleaves and unilocular ovaries with parietal placentation (Coxet al., 1997; Cribb, 1997). While the genus Cypripedium is regardedas monophyletic based on the morphological data (above) and DNAsequences (Cox et al., 1997; Cribb, 1997; Eccarius, 2009), the pre-vious molecular phylogenies of this genus have left a number ofunresolved questions due to incomplete samples. As fresh speci-men material of pivotal species were unavailable for previous phy-logenetic analyses such studies were based on unbalancedsamplings from eastern Asia compared to more comprehensivecollections derived from the Western Hemisphere and Western
1055-7903/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.06.006
⇑ Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Systematic and EvolutionaryBotany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China.Fax: +86 010 82590843.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y.-b. Luo).
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /ympev
Author's personal copy
Europe (Cox et al., 1997). In particular, earlier studies lacked infor-mation on the DNA sequence analysis of a key species, Cypripediumsubtropicum (Cox et al., 1997; Eccarius, 2009). This enigmatic and,until recently, unavailable species, was known from a single collec-tion in Tibet, China. Habit, inflorescence and column structure in C.subtropicum resembled three Mesoamerican-South American taxa,Mexipedium xerophyticum, Cypripedium irapeanum and Selenipedi-um spp. (Rosso, 1996; Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997). Conse-quently, the uncertain position of C. subtropicum within thephylogeny blurred borders between genera within the subfamilyCypripedioideae (Chen, 1983; Chen and Lang, 1986; Cox et al.,1997; Cribb, 1997). Indeed, the taxonomic borders of nearly everygenus described within this subfamily have been debated since thesecond half of the 19th century (Atwood, 1984). The positions ofeastern Asian Cypripedium debile and North American Cypripediumcalifornicum within the genus Cypripedium also varied betweenstudies (Cox et al., 1997; Eccarius, 2009).
We argue that this uncertainty regarding the precise relation-ship between C. subtropicum and C. irapeanum in previous studieslikely inhibited accurate reconstruction of phylogenetic relation-ships within the genus Cypripedium, and between Cypripediumand other genera within the subfamily, Cypripedioideae. We alsoargue that incomplete sampling of species from eastern Asia raisesquestions about earlier interpretations by taxonomists that someEurasian species are sister species of some North American specieswith parallel morphologies (Chen, 1983; Chen and Lang, 1986; Coxet al., 1997; Cribb, 1997).
For this study, we have focused on improved sampling of Cypri-pedium to facilitate a more accurate reconstruction of phylogeneticrelationships. We have included the first published sequences ofthe key species, C. subtropicum and its close ally Cypripedium sing-chii (Liu and Chen, 2009), and also collected specimens from 46 ofthe 50 described Cypripedium spp. (excluding known recurrent hy-brids), with an emphasis on expanded representation of easternAsian taxa. Based on sequences of five cpDNA regions (trnH-psbA,atpI-atpH, trnS-trnfM, trnL-F spacer, and the trnL intron) and theinternal transcribed spacer region of nuclear ribosomal DNA(nrDNA ITS), we provide a well-supported phylogenetic resolutionfor the intra-generic placement of C. subtropicum and C. singchii,and a robust generic phylogeny for Cypripedium within theCypripedioideae.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Ingroup sampling and outgroup selection
The specimens analyzed in this study were selected to maxi-mize all infrageneric groups following the classification by Cribb(1997) and Perner (2008), and to represent the full distributionalrange of the genus Cypripedium in the Northern Hemisphere. Spec-imens were obtained from either cultivated or wild-collectedplants. Taxonomy and nomenclature followed Cribb (1997) andPerner (2008). We obtained 67 samples representing 46 of the cur-rently recognized 50 species excluding the rare Cypripedium dickin-sonianum, Cypripedium ludlowii, Cypripedium elegans andCypripedium cordigerum. Based on previous molecular analyses onorchid taxa (see Cox et al., 1997; Cameron et al., 1999; Chaseet al., 2003; Górniak et al., 2010), five species assigned to theremaining four genera in the subfamily Cypripedioideae (Mexipedi-um, Paphiopedium, Phragmipedium and Selenipedium) were also in-cluded in this study, and additionally six species now classified asmembers of the subfamilies Apostasioideae (Apostasia, Neuwiedia)and Vanilloideae (Vanilla s.s.) were used to represent outgroups. Alist of the taxa analyzed, including information on voucher speci-mens and GenBank accessions, is given in Table 1.
2.2. DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and sequencing
Total DNA was extracted from silica-gel dried leaves with theTIANamp plant DNA Kit (Tiangen, China) according to the instruc-tions of the manufacturer. The primers used for amplification andsequencing of each individual region were ITS5/ITS4 (Baldwin,1992) for ITS, c/d for the trnL intron and e/f for the trnL-F interge-neric spacer (Taberlet et al., 1991), trnH (Tate and Simpson, 2003)/psbA (Sang et al., 1997) for the trnH-psbA intergenic spacer, trnS/trnfM for the trnS-trnfM intergenic spacer (Demesure et al.,1995), and atpI/atpH for the atpI-atpH intergenic spacer (Shawet al., 2007). PCRs were performed in a total reaction (50 ll) con-taining 10 ng of template DNA, 5 ll of 10� reaction buffer withMgCl2, 50 mM of each dNTP, 0.5 U of Ex Taq DNA polymerase(Takara Biotechnology, Japan) and 0.2 mM of each primer (SangonBiotechnology, China). The thermal cycler programme consisted ofan initial denaturation step at 94 �C for 2 min, followed by 30 cy-cles of 30 s at 94 �C, 30 s at 52–55 �C (depending on the annealingtemperature of specific primers), 1 min at 72 �C and a final exten-sion at 72 �C for 10 min. The PCR products were purified by usingthe DNA Fragment Quick Purification/Recover Kit (Dingguo, China),following the manufacturer’s protocol prior to sequencing.Sequencing reactions were performed using the dye-terminatorcycle-sequencing ready-reaction kit following the manufacturer’sprotocol, and analyzed on an ABI 3730 DNA Sequencer (AppliedBiosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Each fragment was sequencedfor both strands. For DNA sequences added newly in this study,their 50 and 30 ends were identified using Cypripediodeae orOrchidaceae sequences already available in Genebank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). New sequences have been deposited inGenBank under the Accession Numbers JF796853—JF797170,JF825972—JF825978, FR720327—FR720330, and FR851209—FR851227.
2.3. Phylogenetic analyses
All sequences were aligned using ClustalX v.1.83 (Thompsonet al., 1997). With the use of BioEdit (Hall, 1999) manual adjust-ments were made by inserting gaps to improve the alignments.The analyses excluded two difficult-to-align regions in ITS, repre-senting 51 sites, one poly T region and one difficult-to-align regionin trnL [UAA] 30 exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer, encompassing84 positions, two difficult-to-align regions in trnH-psbA intergenicspacer, involving 168 sites, one poly A region in atpI-tpH intergenicspacer, including 33 sites, one difficult-to-align region in trnS-trnfMintergenic spacer, containing 20 positions. Some unavailable se-quences in combined data analyses were treated as missing. Se-quence alignments and Nexus formatted files are available uponrequest from the corresponding author.
The homogeneities across the five cpDNA fragments, andbetween nrDNA ITS data and the combined cpDNA dataset (trnL in-tron, trnL [UAA] 30 exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer, and trnH-psbA, atpI-atpH, trnS-trnfM intergenic spacers) were tested usingthe incongruence length difference (ILD) test (Farris et al., 1995),as implemented in PAUP� v4.0b10 (Swofford, 2003). The ILD testwas conducted with 1000 replicates, each with 10 random additionsequence replicates, TBR branch swapping, and keeping no morethan 100 trees per random addition replicate. Following Cunning-ham (1997), a significance level of P = 0.01 was adopted for thistest. Also in the present study, congruence between datasets wasassessed by comparison of topology and support values of strictconsensus trees of data partitions. This ‘‘hard incongruence’’ testwas performed by directly comparing visually the support andresolution of each of the clades in the separate analyses with ahigher bootstrap percentage (BP) and posterior probability (PP)than BP > 75 and PP > 90 (Wiens, 1998; Norup et al., 2006).
J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 309
Author's personal copyTa
ble
1Li
stof
taxa
and
plan
tm
ater
ials
(cla
ssiS
ecti
onCy
prip
ediu
mfi
cati
onfo
llow
sCr
ibb,
1997
and
Pern
er,2
008)
.
Taxa
Vou
cher
sG
enB
ank
acce
ssio
nn
um
bers
ITS
trnH
-psb
Atr
nS-t
rnfM
atpI
-atp
Htr
nLin
tron
trnL
–Fsp
acer
Ingr
oup
Cypr
iped
ium
Sect
ion
subt
ropi
caC.
subt
ropi
cum
Jin
XH
N80
03(P
E),C
hin
aJF
7968
96JF
7969
34JF
7970
53JF
7971
17–c
JF79
6994
C.si
ngch
iiLi
uZJ
E880
0(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6897
JF79
6935
JF79
7054
JF79
7118
–cJF
7969
95C.
war
dii
LiJH
S610
1(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6924
–cJF
7970
98JF
7971
16JF
7968
53JF
7969
96
Sect
ion
Irap
eana
C.ca
lifor
nicu
mG
un
nla
ugs
onD
S114
4a ,USA
(Cu
lt.)
Z785
32b
JF79
6941
JF79
7060
JF79
7151
–cA
B05
6264
b
C.ir
apea
num
Sala
zar
GA
7234
(MEX
U),
Mex
ico
FR72
0328
FR85
1212
FR85
1227
FR85
1222
FR85
1217
C.m
olle
Sala
zar
GA
6883
(MEX
U),
Mex
ico
FR72
0327
FR85
1211
FR85
1226
FR85
1221
FR85
1216
Sect
ion
Cypr
iped
ium
Sect
ion
Cypr
iped
ium
subs
ecti
onCy
prip
ediu
mC.
calc
eolu
sZh
ang
YE8
044a ,C
hin
a(C
ult
.)Z7
8521
bJF
7969
82JF
7971
02JF
7971
40JF
7968
69A
Y55
7224
b
C.he
nryi
LiJH
S615
7(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6910
JF79
6956
JF79
7074
JF79
7150
JF79
6861
JF79
7011
C.se
gaw
iiG
un
nla
ugs
onD
S114
5a ,Tai
wan
(Cu
lt.)
Z785
20b
JF79
6974
JF79
7092
JF79
7135
JF79
6862
JF79
7012
C.sh
anxi
ense
Lin
gC
YS0
609
(PE)
,Ch
ina
JF79
6919
JF79
6975
JF79
7093
JF79
7136
JF79
6868
JF79
7018
C.pa
rvifl
orum
var.
parv
iflor
umTa
ylor
SLS0
516
(PE)
,USA
EF37
0089
bJF
7969
68JF
7970
86JF
7971
33JF
7968
63JF
7970
13C.
parv
iflor
umva
r.pu
besc
ens
Eden
sR
S013
3(P
E),U
SAZ7
8519
bJF
7969
40JF
7970
59JF
7971
31JF
7968
66JF
7970
16C.
cand
idum
Stee
leB
S129
9a ,USA
(Cu
lt.)
EF37
0092
bJF
7969
42JF
7970
61JF
7971
32JF
7968
64JF
7970
14C.
kent
ucki
ense
Gu
nn
lau
gson
DS1
146a ,U
SA(C
ult
.)JF
7969
11JF
7969
58JF
7970
76JF
7971
30JF
7968
70JF
7970
19C.
mon
tanu
mFr
ysta
kM
S061
3(P
E),U
SAEF
3700
91b
JF79
6965
JF79
7083
JF79
7129
JF79
6867
JF79
7017
C.fa
scio
latu
mLi
JHS6
156
(NO
CC
),C
hin
aZ7
8530
bJF
7969
47JF
7970
65JF
7971
45JF
7968
74JF
7970
23C.
farr
eri
LiJH
S618
1(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6904
JF79
6946
JF79
7064
JF79
7144
JF79
6873
JF79
7022
Sect
ion
Cypr
iped
ium
subs
ecti
onM
acra
ntha
C.m
acra
ntho
sLi
ng
CY
S903
2a(P
E),C
hin
aZ7
8522
bJF
7969
62JF
7970
80JF
7971
48JF
7968
77JF
7970
26C.
mac
rant
hos
aff.
Gu
nn
lau
gson
DS1
148a ,C
hin
a(C
ult
.)JF
7969
15JF
7969
66JF
7970
84JF
7971
49JF
7968
78JF
7970
27C.
fros
chii
Gu
nn
lau
gson
DS1
150a ,C
hin
a(C
ult
.)JF
7969
09JF
7969
54JF
7970
72JF
7971
47JF
7968
76JF
7970
25C.
tibe
ticu
mva
r.ti
beti
cum
LiJH
S613
2(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6922
JF79
6978
JF79
7096
JF79
7138
JF79
6881
JF79
7030
C.ti
beti
cum
var.
tibe
ticu
maf
f.G
un
nla
ugs
onD
S115
1a ,Ch
ina
(Cu
lt.)
JF79
6902
JF79
6944
JF79
7063
JF79
7143
JF79
6872
JF79
7021
C.ti
beti
cum
var.
corr
ugat
umG
un
nla
ugs
onD
S114
9a ,Ch
ina
(Cu
lt.)
JF79
6901
JF79
6943
JF79
7062
JF79
7142
JF79
6871
JF79
7020
C.ru
biti
nctu
mG
un
nla
ugs
onD
S115
2a ,Ch
ina
(Cu
lt.)
JF79
6918
JF79
6973
JF79
7091
JF79
7134
JF79
6879
JF79
7028
C.ca
lcic
ola
LiJH
S615
3(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6921
JF79
6977
JF79
7095
JF79
7137
JF79
6880
JF79
7029
C.yu
nnan
ense
LiJH
S660
1(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6925
–cJF
7970
99JF
7971
41JF
7968
83JF
7970
32C.
fran
chet
iiLi
JHS6
261
(NO
CC
),C
hin
aJF
7969
08JF
7969
53JF
7970
71JF
7971
46JF
7968
75JF
7970
24C.
him
alai
cum
Z785
23b
–c–c
–c–c
–c
Sect
ion
Enan
tiop
edilu
mC.
fasc
icul
atum
Kou
zes
RN
6160
(PE)
,USA
JF79
6927
JF79
6984
JF79
7104
JF79
7166
–cJF
7970
44
Sect
ion
Obt
usip
etal
aC.
flavu
mva
r.fla
vum
LiJH
S616
1(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
Z785
17b
JF79
6948
JF79
7066
JF79
7160
JF79
6857
JF79
7005
C.fla
vum
var.
sem
ialb
aG
un
nla
ugs
onD
S115
4a ,Ch
ina
(Cu
lt.)
JF79
6906
JF79
6950
JF79
7068
JF79
7162
–cJF
7970
07C.
flavu
mva
r.lu
teum
Gu
nn
lau
gson
DS1
055a ,C
hin
a(C
ult
.)JF
7969
05JF
7969
49JF
7970
67JF
7971
61–c
JF79
7006
C.pa
sser
inum
Kev
anP
S062
2(P
E),C
anad
aZ7
8516
bJF
7969
69JF
7970
87JF
7971
63JF
7968
58JF
7970
08C.
regi
nae
form
are
gina
eSt
eele
BS1
158a ,U
SA(C
ult
.)Z7
8518
bJF
7969
70JF
7970
88JF
7971
64JF
7968
59JF
7970
09C.
regi
nae
form
aal
bola
bium
Stee
leB
S115
9a ,USA
(Cu
lt.)
JF79
6917
JF79
6971
JF79
7089
JF79
7165
JF79
6860
JF79
7010
Sect
ion
Aca
ulia
C.ac
aule
Gil
lD
ES0
810
(PE)
,USA
Z785
25b
JF79
6936
JF79
7055
JF79
7167
–cA
B05
6262
b
Sect
ion
Ret
iner
via
C.pa
lang
shan
ense
LiJH
S615
2(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6916
JF79
6967
JF79
7085
JF79
7152
JF79
6893
JF79
7045
C.de
bile
Zhon
gSW
S652
7(P
E),T
aiw
anJF
7969
29JF
7969
87JF
7971
07JF
7971
68–c
JF79
7048
310 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320
Author's personal copy
C.de
bile
LiJH
N61
60(P
E),C
hin
aJF
7969
26JF
7969
83JF
7971
03JF
7971
69–c
JF79
7046
C.de
bile
Tom
ohis
Y06
-6(T
NS)
,Jap
anJF
7969
28JF
7969
86JF
7971
06–c
–cJF
7970
47
Sect
ion
Bifo
liaC.
gutt
atum
LiJH
S662
0(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
Z785
26b
JF79
6955
JF79
7073
JF79
7115
JF79
6894
JF79
7049
C.ya
tabe
anum
Tom
ohis
Ys.
n.(
TNS)
,Jap
anZ7
8527
bJF
7969
85JF
7971
05JF
7971
14–c
JF79
7050
Sect
ion
Flab
ellin
ervi
aC.
japo
nicu
mLi
JHE6
701
(NO
CC
),C
hin
aEF
3700
93b
JF79
6957
JF79
7075
JF79
7156
–cJF
7970
51C.
form
osan
umG
un
nla
ugs
onD
S101
0a ,Tai
wan
(Cu
lt.)
Z785
24b
JF79
6951
JF79
7069
JF79
7155
JF79
6890
JF79
7041
Sect
ion
Ari
etin
umC.
arie
tinu
mK
evan
PS6
611
(PE)
,Can
ada
JF79
6899
JF79
6938
JF79
7057
JF79
7153
JF79
6892
JF79
7043
C.pl
ectr
ochi
lum
LiJH
S630
1(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
Z785
28b
JF79
6972
JF79
7090
JF79
7154
JF79
6891
JF79
7042
Sect
ion
Sino
pedi
lum
C.ba
rdol
phia
num
LiJH
S616
3(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6900
JF79
6939
JF79
7058
JF79
7119
–cJF
7970
02C.
bard
olph
ianu
mva
r.zh
ongd
iane
nse
LiJH
S610
7(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6933
JF79
6993
JF79
7113
JF79
7170
JF79
6895
JF79
7052
C.m
icra
nthu
mLi
JHS6
155
(NO
CC
),C
hin
aJF
7969
14JF
7969
64JF
7970
82JF
7971
20JF
7968
56JF
7970
04C.
forr
esti
iLi
JHS6
306
(NO
CC
),C
hin
aJF
7969
07JF
7969
52JF
7970
70JF
7971
21–c
JF79
7003
Sect
ion
Trig
onop
edia
C.m
arga
rita
ceum
LiJH
S630
2(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
Z785
30b
JF79
6963
JF79
7081
JF79
7127
–cJF
7969
98C.
lichi
ange
nse
LiJH
S630
3(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
Z785
29b
JF79
6960
JF79
7078
JF79
7124
–cJF
7970
01C.
wum
enge
nse
LiJH
S610
2(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6913
JF79
6961
JF79
7079
JF79
7125
–cJF
7970
33C.
sich
uane
nse
LiJH
S615
4(N
OC
C),
Ch
ina
JF79
6920
JF79
6976
JF79
7094
JF79
7122
JF79
6854
JF79
6999
C.fa
rges
iiPe
rner
HE8
160
(PE)
,Ch
ina
JF79
6903
JF79
6945
–cJF
7971
26–c
JF79
6997
C.le
ntig
inos
umLi
JHS7
704
(NO
CC
),C
hin
aJF
7969
12JF
7969
59JF
7970
77JF
7971
23JF
7968
55JF
7970
00
Ou
tgro
up
Sele
nipe
dium
aequ
inoc
tial
eG
órn
iak
M.A
405
(PE)
,s.n
.JF
8259
77JF
8259
74JF
8259
76JF
8259
72JF
8259
73JF
8259
75Pa
phio
pedi
lum
mal
ipoe
nse
Liu
ZJE7
030a ,C
hin
a(C
ult
.)Z7
8498
bJF
7969
81JF
7971
01JF
7971
58JF
7968
85JF
7970
35Ph
ragm
iped
ium
schl
imii
Pern
erH
S703
2a ,Sou
thA
mer
ica
(Cu
lt.)
Z785
14b
JF79
6980
JF79
7100
JF79
7157
JF79
6884
JF79
7034
Ph.e
xsta
min
odiu
mSa
laza
rG
A74
99(M
EXU
),M
exic
oFR
7203
29FR
8512
09FR
8512
24FR
8512
19FR
8512
14M
exip
ediu
mxe
roph
ytic
umSa
laza
rG
A56
27(M
EXU
),M
exic
oFR
7203
30FR
8512
10FR
8512
25FR
8512
20FR
8512
15V
.pom
pona
Sala
zar
GA
7053
(AM
O),
Mex
ico
GQ
8672
37b
–cFR
8512
23FR
8512
18FR
8512
13V
anill
asi
amen
sis
Luo
YB
E107
0(P
E),C
hin
aJF
8259
78JF
7969
92JF
7971
12–c
–cJF
7970
40V
.she
nzhe
nens
eLi
uZJ
E108
0a ,Ch
ina
(Cu
lt.)
JF79
6930
JF79
6988
JF79
7108
–cJF
7968
86JF
7970
36A
post
asia
shen
zhen
ense
Liu
ZJE1
090a ,C
hin
a(C
ult
.)–c
JF79
6991
JF79
7111
–cJF
7968
89JF
7970
39N
euw
iedi
am
alip
oens
eLi
uZJ
E110
0a ,Ch
ina
(Cu
lt.)
JF79
6931
JF79
6989
JF79
7109
JF79
7159
JF79
6887
JF79
7037
N.s
inga
pure
ana
Liu
ZJE1
060a ,C
hin
a(C
ult
.)JF
7969
32JF
7969
90JF
7971
10–c
JF79
6888
JF79
7038
Not
es:
All
spec
imen
sw
ere
coll
ecte
din
the
fiel
dw
ith
the
foll
owin
gex
cept
ion
s.a
Priv
ate
gard
enof
gree
nh
ouse
coll
ecti
on.
bM
ater
ial
obta
ined
from
Gen
ban
k.c
Un
avai
labl
ese
quen
ces.
J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 311
Author's personal copy
Phylogenetic analyses for each matrix were carried out usingmaximum parsimony (MP) and Bayesian inference (BI) methodsin PAUP� v.4.0b10 (Swofford, 2003) and MrBayes v.3.0b4 (Ronquistand Huelsenbeck, 2003), respectively. For MP analyses, heuristicsearches were conducted with 1000 random addition replicatesfollowed by tree bisection-reconnection branch swapping. Allcharacters were unordered and equally weighted with gaps treatedas missing data. Topological robustness was assessed by 1000bootstrap replicates. For BI analyses, each DNA region was assignedits own model of nucleotide substitution, as determined by theAkaike information criterion (AIC) in Modeltest v.3.06 (Posadaand Crandall, 1998). Four chains of the Markov chain Monte Carlowere run, sampling one tree every 1000 generations for 3000,000,starting with a random tree. Majority rule (>50%) consensus treeswere constructed after removing the burn-in period samples (thefirst 25% of sampled trees).
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of nuclear ITS sequence data
For the nrDNA ITS dataset, the numbers of variable and parsi-mony informative sites, tree statistics for the MP analysis and thebest-fit model determined by Modeltest are given in Table 2. TheBayesian phylogram is shown in Fig. 1 with BP and PP. The treetopologies generated by BI were approximately congruent withthose of MP analysis.
Monophyletic Cypripedium was strongly recognized with BP98/PP100. The Cypripedium spp. from eastern Asia and North Americaformed one clade with strong support (BP85/PP100). This cladewas sister to a much smaller clade comprised of only the two Mes-oamerican species, C. irapeanum and Cypripedium molle, with a sup-port of BP100/PP100. Among the 12 sections recognized by Cribb(1997) and Perner (2008), Subtropica, Obtusipetala, Trigonopedia,Sinopedilum, Bifolia, Flabelinervia, Arietinum, and Cypripedium weremonophyletic with well support values. In contrast, Irapeana, Ret-inervia, and two subsections in section Cypripedium (Cypripediumand Macrantha) were paraphyletic.
3.2. Analysis of chloroplast sequence data
For the homogeneity test, the trnH-psbA, trnS-trnfM, atpI-atpH,trnL [UAA] 30 exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer, and trnL intron,contained 138, 97, 103, 75, and 55 parsimony informative sites,respectively. The P values resulting from the partition homogeneitytest are listed in Table 3. There was no significant incongruenceacross these five cpDNA fragments at P < 0.01. The trnL [UAA] 30
exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer was shown to be highly congru-ent with trnS-trnfM, trnL intron, and trnH-psbA. Moreover, the vi-sual node-by-node comparisons, revealed no major incongruencefor all the nodes of topology of each cpDNA fragment (data not
shown) with bootstrap support and a posterior probability higherthan BP > 75 and PP > 90, respectively (Wiens, 1998; Norup et al.,2006). According to this congruence for these regions evolved asa single locus we combined the five cpDNA regions into the wholeanalysis.
For the combined cpDNA dataset, the numbers of variable andparsimony informative sites, tree statistics for the MP analysisand the best-fit model determined by Modeltest are presented inTable 2. The Bayesian phylogram is shown in Fig. 2 with BP andPP. The tree topologies generated by BI were consistent with thoseof MP analysis. Monophyletic Cypripedium was strongly supportedwith BP99/PP100. This topologies generated by chloroplast se-quences mostly accords to the cladograms on the basis of nrDNAITS.
3.3. Combined analysis
As maternally inherited cpDNA and bi-parentally inherited nu-clear DNA may have different evolutionary histories we analyzeddata partitions to examine the potential difference among gen-omes. The partition homogeneity test for the nrDNA ITS and cpDNAdatasets resulted in P = 0.01 (Table 3) implying incongruencebetween the two datasets. Moreover, the visual node-by-nodecomparisons revealed that the placements of Cypripedium margari-taceum, Cypripedium passerinum, Cypripedium calcicola, Cypripe-dium farreri, and Cypripedium fasiolatum, were incongruentbetween ITS and cpDNA topologies with bootstrap support and aposterior probability higher than BP > 75 and PP > 90 (Wiens,1998; Norup et al., 2006), respectively. Conflict among topologies,derived from analyzing different character sets, may be the resultof recurrent hybridization, incomplete lineage sorting and/or intro-gression. When these five conflict species were excluded, the par-tition homogeneity test for the nrDNA ITS and cpDNA datasetsshowed that P = 0.06 (Table 3). This indicated no significant incon-gruence between the two datasets. Therefore, we chose to combinethe two datasets excluding the five conflict species.
For this combined nrDNA ITS and cpDNA dataset, the numbersof variable and parsimony informative sites, tree statistics for theMP analysis and the best-fit model determined by Modeltest aregiven in Table 2. The Bayesian phylogram is shown in Fig. 3 withBP and PP. The tree topologies produced by BI were nearly thesame as those of MP analysis. The combined analysis resulted ingreater resolution as compared to the separate analyses. Moreover,when specimens representing the Apostasioideae and/or the Vanil-loideae were excluded as outgroups from the combined analyses,the results remained the same (data not shown), which indicatedthat the phylogeny of Cypripedium was stable and reliable in thisstudy.
The monophyletic status of the genus Cypripedium was con-firmed again and supported with BP98/PP100. All sections withinthe genus, except for paraphyletic Irapeana and Retinervia,
Table 2Analyses of datasets.
Information ITS trnH-psbA trnS-trnfM atpI-atpH trnL intron trnL–F spacer cpDNA Combined ITS and cpDNA(conflict taxa excluded)
No. ingroups 56 53 54 54 37 55 55 51No. outgroups 10 10 11 7 10 11 11 11Aligned length 806 1574 1212 1047 879 638 5350 6156No. variable characters 365 232 138 169 106 83 627 1017No. parsimony-informative characters 268 138 97 103 75 55 360 665Tree length (steps) 950 319 340 460 310 159 811 1907Consistency index (CI) 0.567 0.892 0.858 0.813 0.884 0.866 0.845 0.783Retention index (RI) 0.834 0.854 0.896 0.867 0.821 0.856 0.886 0.818Rescaled consistency index (RC) 0.473 0.703 0.777 0.705 0.733 0.656 0.749 0.571Model GTR + I + G GTR + I + G TIM + G TVM + G TVM + G K81uf + G TVM + I + G TIM + I + G
312 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320
Author's personal copy
Fig. 1. Phylogram obtained from Bayesian inference analysis of the nrDNA ITS data. Numbers at the nodes are bootstrap percentages and Bayesian posterior probabilities(>50%), respectively. ‘‘–’’ indicates that the node was not supported in MP analysis. The section names in bold are indicated as monophyletic while two section names in grayare implied as paraphyletic. Within section Cypripedium, the taxa with an asterisk (�) represent subsection Cypripedium while the rest of the taxa remained members ofsubsection Macrantha. EA, NA, and MA represent eastern Asia, North America and Mesoamerica separately.
J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 313
Author's personal copy
appeared monophyletic with strong support values. Within thegenus Cypripedium, the first divergent lineage consisted of C. ira-peanum and C. molle (endemic to Mesoamerica) with strong sup-port (BP100/PP100), and subsequently the C. debile lineage fromeastern Asia (BP100/PP100) was split. The remaining taxa whichwere distributed in eastern Asia and North America formed oneclade with a support of BP73/PP100. Cypripedium arietinum (NorthAmerica) and Cypripedium pletrochilum (eastern Asia) in the sectionArietinum (BP100/PP100) were sister species. Within monophyleticsection Subtropica from eastern Asia (BP100/PP100), C. subtropicumand its sister species, C. singchii, were the collective sister of Cypri-pedium wardii. Obviously, section Subtropica (eastern Asia) was notallied to the first divergent lineage composing of two Mesoameri-can species. Within monophyletic section Obtusipetala (BP100/PP100), all three variants of Cypripedium flavum (eastern Asia) weresister to the two color forms of the North American species, Cypri-pedium reginae. Two species found through Asia into the Alaskanpanhandle (Cypripedium guttatum and Cypripedium yatabeanum)comprised the monophyletic section Bifolia (BP100/PP100). Theeastern Asian Cypripedium palangshanense and North AmericanCypripedium fasciculatum (section Enantiopedilum) formed a cladewith weak support (BP50/PP77). Two eastern Asian monophyleticsections, consisting of Trigonopedia (BP97/PP100) with five taxaand Sinopedilum (BP100/PP100) with four taxa, were sister cladeswith strong support (BP100/PP100). Within section Trigonopedia,Cypripdium fargesii and Cypripedium sichuanense formed one clade(BP100/PP100). The second clade (BP100/PP100) was comprisedof Cypripdium lichiangense and Cypripdium wumengense as sisters(BP100/PP100) and Cypripdium lentiginosum. Within section Sino-pedilum, both variants of Cypripdium bardolphianum were includedin the same clade (BP100/PP100). The second clade (BP62/PP77)consisted of Cypripdium forrestii and Cypripdium micranthum. Twoeastern Asian species, Cypripdium formosanum and Cypripdiumjaponicum, formed the monophyletic section Bifolia (BP100/PP100).
Section Cypripedium including five North American taxa and 14Eurasian taxa was the most species rich section and representedthe most diversification in the genus. This lineage split into a dis-tinct North American vs. Eurasian group with a support of BP100/PP100 and BP68/PP97, respectively. Within North American taxa,Cypripedium kentuckiense and two variants of Cypripedium parviflo-rum were in the same clade with a support of BP94/PP100. Withinthe Eurasian species, Cypripedium segawai was sister to Cypripediumhenryi with a support of BP100/PP100, and C. shanxiense (easternAsian) was the sister species of Cypripedium calceolus (broadly Eur-asian) with a support of BP100/PP100. Cypripedium himalaicum wassister to the rest of the taxa with a support of BP85/PP99. Among therest of taxa, Cypripedium franchetii was sister to Cypripediumyunnanense with a support of BP96/PP100; Cypripedium froschii,Cypripedium rubintinctum and the three variants of Cypripediumtibeticum, formed a clade with a support of BP96/PP100.
4. Discussion
4.1. An updated phylogeny of the genus Cypripedium
In this study an updated phylogeny of Cypripedium was pro-posed with a more comprehensive sampling of taxa and a largerdataset of nrDNA ITS and five cpDNA fragments combined. As inprevious molecular and morphological phylogenies (Cox et al.,1997; Cribb, 1997; Eccarius, 2009), we reconfirmed that the genusCypripedium is monophyletic. Moreover, our results suggested thatthe sections within this genus require some reinterpretation andreorganization.
4.1.1. Section Irapeana CribbThe clade comprising two Mesoamerican species, C. irapeanum
and C. molle, is sister to the rest taxa of the genus Cypripedium(Fig. 1–3). The two taxa share the same vegetative habit, flowerlip morphology, purple spots on the involute lip margin andmultiple-flower inflorescences found in the slipper orchid genus,Selenipedium (Rosso, 1966; Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997). At-wood (1984) suggested that Selenipedium graded into Cypripediumvia C. irapeanum, and postulated that reduction in the sheer sizeand number of vegetative organs and flower number was a recur-rent trend in the evolution of the subfamily Cypripediodeae due,most probably, to differences in latitude, elevation and climateover time. However, section Irapeana sensu Atwood (1984) is para-phyletic in this study, which is in accordance with two previousmolecular treatments based on nrDNA ITS sequences (Cox et al.,1997; Eccarius, 2009). C. californicum did not share the same cladewith C. irapeanum and C. molle as previous morphological studiesimplied (Cribb, 1997; Eccarius, 2009).
C. californicum is one of the most restricted species in its distri-bution, confined to the mountains of southwestern Oregon andnorthern California (Cribb, 1997). This species is far closer to sec-tion Cypripedium in our BI analysis (Fig. 3) and shares some recur-rent morphological features with many Eurasian and NorthAmerican species in section Cypripedium. This includes pubescenceon the outer surfaces of its sepals, tapering petals, and a convexand broad staminode (Perner, unpubl. data). Compared to thetwo, large, Mesoamerican species, C. californicum (North America)remains readily distinguishable by its multi-flowered raceme,much smaller flowers, complete absence of any yellow pigmenta-tion on any floral organ and synchronous flowering (Cribb, 1997)(see Plate 1).
C. dickinsonianum, a member of section Irapeana (Cribb, 1997),was not available for this study. This species is known from fiveor six small populations and is distinguished from both C. irapea-num and C. molle by its much smaller, mechanically self-pollinating(autogamous) flowers. The fact that C. dickinsonianum is found onlyin two disjunctive areas at the northern and southern limits of thedistribution of C. irapeanum (with which it is marginally sympatric)strongly suggests it may represent an autogamous form or variantof C. irapeanum (Soto and Solano, 2007). Once again, specimenmaterial must be obtained to elucidate relationships.
4.1.2. Sections Retinervia S.C. Chen and Enantiopedilum Pfitzer vs.section Irapeana Cribb
Three samples representing C. debile formed a clade (withBP100/PP100), which was a sister to all the other taxa from easternAsia and North America with strong support in this study (Fig. 3).In contrast, the topology provided by Eccarius (2009) found thatthe lineage including only species C. debile was firstly split fromthe genus Cypripedium with a support of BP74. C. debile is a locallycommon species in mainland China, Taiwan, and Japan (Cribb,1997). It occurs in shaded, montane sites under conifers but in
Table 3P values from partition-homogeneity tests.
Data set P value
trnH-psbA vs. trnS-trnfM 0.090trnH-psbA vs. atpI-atpH 0.100trnH-psbA vs. trnL intron 0.020trnH-psbA vs. trnL-F spacer 0.570trnS-trnfM vs. atpI-atpH 0.120trnS-trnfM vs. trnL intron 0.170trnS-trnfM vs. trnL-F spacer 0.690atpI-atpH vs. rnL intron 0.100atpI-atpH vs. trnL-F spacer 0.080trnL intron vs. trnL-F spacer 0.610ITS vs. cpDNA 0.01ITS vs. cpDNA (conflict taxa excluded) 0.06
314 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320
Author's personal copy
Fig. 2. Phylogram obtained from Bayesian inference analysis of the cpDNA data. Numbers at the nodes are bootstrap percentages and Bayesian posterior probabilities (>50%),respectively. ‘‘–’’ indicates that the node was not supported in MP analysis. The section names in bold are indicated as monophyletic while two section names in gray areimplied as paraphyletic. Within section Cypripedium, the taxa with an asterisk (�) represent subsection Cypripedium while the remaining taxa are members of subsectionMacrantha. EA, NA, and MA represent eastern Asia, North America and Mesoamerica separately.
J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 315
Author's personal copy
Fig. 3. Phylogram obtained from Bayesian inference analysis of the combined nrDNA ITS and cpDNA data excluded the conflict taxa. Numbers at the nodes are bootstrappercentages and Bayesian posterior probabilities (>50%), respectively. ‘‘–’’ indicates that the node was not supported in MP analysis. The section names in bolds are indicatedas monophyletic while two section names in gray are implied as paraphyletic. Within section Cypripedium, the taxa with an asterisk (�) represent subsection Cypripediumwhile the remaining taxa are members of subsection Macrantha. EA, NA, and MA represent eastern Asia, North America and Mesoamerica separately.
316 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320
Author's personal copy
mainland China it may also be found in deciduous forests (Li, un-publ. data). Considering the highly disjunctive distribution of C. de-bile, Dressler (1993) would have classified it as a ‘‘Middle AgedHopper’’ indicative of long-distance dispersal in the mid-Tertiaryas this species is shared by three entirely, land-locked provinces(Gansu, Hubei and Sichuan) in China but is also relatively commonon the island of Taiwan, and the Japanese archipelago (Chen et al.,1999; Cribb, 1997). This species may be pivotal to understandingthe origin and colonization of the genus Cypripedium as C. debile(eastern Asia) split off from the rest of the North American (non-Mesoamerican) and eastern Asian Cypripedium species. As an earlydivergent lineage, C. debile failed to fit the evolutionary trendwithin the genus Cypripedium as stated by Atwood (1984) and
confirmed by Cox et al. (1997). These authors argued that evolutionin the genus Cypripedium proceeded from multi-flowered andmulti-leafed plants with tall stems to reduced stems with much re-duced leaf and flower numbers. C. debile lacks all of these ancestralcharacters, which still expressed in the two Mesoamerican species,C. irapeanum and C. molle, assigned to section Irapeana. Instead, C.debile has the derived short-stem, two-leaved condition with asmall, solitary flower terminating each scape. Based on morpholog-ical characters, C. debile more closely resembles taxa with reducedvegetative and reproductive characters as in sections Enantiopedi-lum, Trigonopedia, Sinopedilum and Arietinum.
In fact, while the lineage consisted of two Mesoamerican spe-cies (C. irapeanum and C. molle) and the C. debile lineage were both
Plate 1. The pictures of Cypripedium.
J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 317
Author's personal copy
recovered as ‘‘primitive’’ lineages in this study neither lineage con-formed to earlier interpretations of the systematics of the genusCypripedium based solely on morphological/morphometric traits(see Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997). We suspect that, part ofthe problem with interpretations based on morphological traits isthat many familiar floral traits, in particular, may be unsuitablein phylogenetic reconstructions because they may reflect littlemore than recent, short-term, shifts driven by pollinator-mediatedselection (Bateman et al., 1997; Cozzolino et al., 2001). Previousontogenetic studies (Tucker, 1997; Tucker and Bernhardt, 2000;Luo and Chen, 2000) showed repeatedly that floral traits associatedwith floral attractants (pigmentation patterns), rewards (nectarglands), anther dehiscence and stigmatic receptivity were the lastto develop in floral buds in large lineages. That is the most proba-ble reason why, as usual, some of the most frequently adoptedmorphological characters used in orchid taxonomy failed to paral-lel our molecular analyses throughout this study.
Note also that C. palangshanense (eastern Asia) and C. fascicula-tum (North America) formed a clade. Although this clade had weaksupport, the two species distributed on separate continents sharedsimilarities in the shapes of their labella, sepals, petals and stami-nodia (Cribb, 1997). Both C. fasciculatum and C. palangshanense lifttheir paired leaves above the ground. Their floral colors are similar,even though those of C. palangshanense are usually darker andmore reddish. In addition, C. palangshanense has a smaller habitwith a shorter, pubescent stem fewer flowers perinflorescence. C.elegans (eastern Asia), another tiny species placed previously with-in section Retinervia, shares similar traits in ovary, bract and leafwith C. palangshanense (Perner, unpubl. data). It was unfortunatethat live specimens of C. elegans were unavailable for this molecu-lar analysis as its position needs further exploration.
4.1.3. Section Arietinum C. MorrenThe monophyletic section Arietinum is nested within the Cypri-
pedium genus in this study. Therefore, we disagree with the earliertreatment by Atwood (1984) who promoted the two species totheir own genus based, in part, on pollen characters. The ratherthick imperforate lectum and granulate infratectal layer found inthe exine wall of C. arietinum is not unique and is also found inother Cypripedium species (Xi and Chen, 1991). Our molecular datasupport the section classification of Arietinum within Cypripediumas suggested by previous morphological analysis of Chen (1983).Despite their highly isolated distributions, C. arietinum (NorthAmerica) and Cypripedium plectrochilum (eastern Asia) sharedmany important traits. These include keeled labella. In addition,the lateral sepals of both species fail to fuse together, as in themajority of Cypripedium species. This lack of floral connation wasinterpreted as an ancestral character by Atwood (1984). Further-more, comparative photos or illustrations of these two vicariantspecies (Chen, 1983; Cribb, 1997) show only minor differences infloral characters such as pigmentation pattern and staminodeshape. Finally, it is interesting to note that both species appear tobe pollinated exclusively by bees in the same huge (c. 1100 spe-cies) and pandemic genus, Lasioglossum (Li et al., 2008).
4.1.4. Section Subtropica S.C. Chen and K.Y. LangThe so-called enigmatic C. subtropicum was not a sister taxon to
section Obtusipetala in this study. Neither was it closely allied tothe two Mesoamerican species in section Irapeana despite sharedmorphological traits (Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997; Eccarius,2009). C. subtropicum also resembles in habit, inflorescence andcolumn structures such ‘‘primitive’’ slipper orchid genera as Mexip-edium and Selenipedium (Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997), butthese plesiomorphic characters did not support its basal positionin the genus Cypripedium in our molecular analysis. Unlike thesetwo Neotropical genera, C. subtropicum has a unilocular ovary,
fruits that lack a vanilla-like scent and produces seeds that arefusiform and have a ‘‘tin’’ testa (Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb,1997). C. subtropicum and its close relative C. singchii, were sisterto C. wardii in our analysis. In fact, all three exclusively easternAsian species in our section Subtropica share the most unusualcharacter of a vestigial and hooked staminode that is smaller thanthe stigma in the same flower (Cribb, 1997; Chen and Cribb, 2005).
4.1.5. Section Obtusipetala CribbC. passerinum was sister to C. flavum with strong support based
on the nrDNA ITS data (Fig. 1). In turn, C. flavum was sister toC. reginae with well support values inferred from the cpDNA data(Fig. 2). Therefore, it is questionable whether we should continueto regard C. flavum (eastern Asia) and C. reginae (North America)as a second example of an eastern Asian/North American, vicariantspecies pair, as in section Arietinum (see above), despite sharedvegetative and reproductive traits (Chen, 1983; Cribb, 1997). Basedon our unpublished field observations, we found specimens ofC. flavum with short-stems and small, whitish flowers reminiscentof C. passerinum. Its only the large-stemmed and large floweredvariants of C. flavum that resemble C. reginae.
4.1.6. Section Trigonopedia FranchWithin the monophyletic section Trigonopedia the species have
dramatic hairy-dark spots on their leaves and larger flowers thanthose found in section Sinopedilum (below). C. fargesii has longwhite hairs on its petals, and C. sichuanense is distinguished fromC. fargesii by its entirely glabrous sepals and petals and its smallerlip. C. sichuanense is discriminated, in turn, from C. wumengense,C. lentiginosum and C. lichiangense by its elongated staminode, itsnarrower and acuminate petals and the darker color of its flowers(Perner, 2002). Similar, overlapping modes of foliage and floral pre-sentation in this section may be related to recent studies on sexualreproduction in C. fargesii. The species mentioned above in this sec-tion may employ the same mode of pollination-by-deceit in whichleaf and floral characters combine to lure flies that feed on the exu-dates of fungus infected foliage (Ren et al., 2011).
4.1.7. Section Sinopedilum Perner vs. section Trigonopedia FranchAs a monophyletic section, our results confirmed the establish-
ment of section Sinopedilum by Perner (2008). These three Asianspecies (C. micranthum, C. forrestii and Cypripedium bardophianum)were assigned previously to section Trigonopedia. While all mem-bers of sections Sinopedilum and Trigonopedia are endemic to wes-tern China, we must make important morphological distinctionsbetween species in these two sections and between species in Sin-opedilum and other sections in the genus Cypripedium. First, the an-thers of most Cypripedium spp. release amorphous pollen masses(massulae) that are collected or raked off insect bodies by stigmaswith hook-like papillae (Dressler, 1993). In contrast, the species insection Sinopedilum (sensu Perner, 2008) have anther sacs that re-lease entire club-shaped pollinia terminating in a viscid ‘‘plug’’composed of a rubbery material, probably pollenkitt (Perner,2008). The stigmas of species placed in section Sinopedilum alsohave a median stigma lobe that is partly detached from the othertwo lobes and forms a stigmatic cavity for whole pollinium depo-sition instead of the usual hooked surface. The pollinia and stigmalobe characters present in Sinopedilum are completely absent inspecies of the section Trigonopedia (Perner, 2008).
4.1.8. Section Bifolia C. Morren and section Flabelinervia CribbThe two monophyletic sections, Bifolia and Flabelinervia, are
reconfirmed here. The two species in section Bifolia have spottedlips and lateral petals. These lip petals are urn-shaped without anincurved apical margin (Cribb, 1997; Chen and Cribb, 2005).C. guttatum remains one of the most widespread species in the
318 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320
Author's personal copy
genus as it is distributed from the Urals across Asia to Siberia, Kor-ea and Manchuria, south through China to the Himalayas andacross the Pacific onto the Alaskan panhandle (Cribb, 1997; Chenand Cribb, 2005). C. yatabeanum is much more restricted in its dis-tribution than C. guttatum but C. yatabeanum is also found in theWestern Hemisphere on the Kodiak Islands off Alaska, as well asin Asia.
Section Flabelinervia from eastern Asia exclusively is distin-guished by opposite, fan-shaped leaves with radiating venation.The two, insular (Japan and Taiwan) species in this section alsoshare the distinctive ‘‘L-shaped’’ lip (in profile) which has narrowlypandurate dorsal entrance, crimped apex, and lacks side lobes(Cribb, 1997; Chen and Cribb, 2005).
4.1.9. Section Cypripedium LThis section contains most of the species in the genus Cypripe-
dium. Our study supported the monophyletic grouping of this sec-tion previously based on morphological traits and ITS sequences(Cribb, 1997; Cox et al., 1997; Eccarius, 2009). However, our resultssuggested that two subsections Cypripedium and Macrantha as pro-posed by Cribb (1997) were paraphyletic within this section. In thisstudy, segregation between two groups of species appears to bebased on distribution (North America vs. Eurasia) rather than ontraits of flower color and the shapes of lips and lateral petals asused by Cribb (1997). In addition, C. himalaicum is now linked toformer ‘‘subsection’’ Cypripedium (narrow, often twisted petals,usually yellow staminodes, narrower lips, yellow–brown-greenishcolor patterns) with the species in former ‘‘subsection’’ Macrantha(shorter and broader petals, globose to subglobose lips, whitestaminodes and flowers reddish).
Sister species C. henryi and C. segawai share the same pubescentovary, staminode structure, and linear, not twisted or scarcelytwisted petals and small lip. Most members of this section sharesuch morphological characters as a parallel-veined, ovoid or obo-void lip with marked side lobes, flat staminode (Cribb, 1997; Chenand Cribb, 2005), especially in the C. tibeticum complex. This com-plex consists currently of five taxa that remain notoriously difficultto distinguish by morphological characters; C. tibeticum var. tibeti-cum, C. tibeticum var. tibeticum aff., C. tibeticum var. corrugatum,Cypripedium rubitinctum, and C. froschii. Based on shared floral pre-sentation members of this complex may depend exclusively oninfrequent visits from large bumblebee (Bombus spp.) gynes and/or workers to effect pollination (see Bernhardt and Edens-Meier,2010). We also acknowledge parallel evolution within section Cyp-ripedium as several highly isolated species all reflected the sametrend towards pollination by a broad range of small-bodied, soli-tary bees (see Bernhardt and Edens-Meier, 2010). Unfortunately,this study lacked access to specimens of C. cordigerum and C. lud-lowii for clarification.
4.2. Conclusions and future work in phylogeny of the genusCypripedium
With a larger dataset of nrDNA ITS and five cpDNA regions andcomprehensive species sampling, this study was able to update thephylogeny of the genus Cypripedium. Within this present phylog-eny two early lineages, the first comprising two Mesoamericanspecies, and the second including three C. debile samples, havebeen clarified and resolved well, but evolutionary relationshipsamong sections representing Asian and North American species re-main unresolved or unclear. In particular, additional work remainswithin section Cypripedium at the upper part of our topology.Choosing additional gene regions with suitable evolutionary ratesis desirable for further work to better resolve phylogenetic rela-tionships. For the monotypic section Enantiopedilum we must findand include C. elegans in any future studies. We acknowledge that
rapid rates of extinction and/or rapid and comparatively recentperiods of diversification may help explain the unresolved phylo-genetic relationships among these clades. Nevertheless, additionof new datasets by sampling missing species unavailable for thisstudy should permit further progress clarifying sectional delimita-tion within the genus Cypripedium. The benefit of resolving theseproblems will permit us to map the evolution of such traits as pol-lination syndromes, pollinia structure, and flower and inflores-cence architecture with far greater confidence.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Drs. Retha Edens-Meier, Peter Kevan,Nan Vance, Yu Zhang, Douglas E. Gill, Sandra L. Taylor, and DarcyGunnlaugson, Bill Steele, Mark Frystak, Ross Kouzes, Jay Vannini,Toshiharu Mitsuhashi, Marcin Górniak, Chun-ying Ling, and mem-bers of the national orchid conservation center of China for theirhelp with sample collection and good suggestions. The first authorthanks particularly Darcy Gunnlaugson for his great help in provid-ing kindly leaf samples of more than 20 taxa and improving theEnglish of this manuscript. We are grateful to Drs. Xiao-guo Xiang,Qiang Zhang, and Yan-yan Guo for assistance in analyzing data. Weare particularly grateful to Dr. Phillip Cribb for providing the pho-tos of C. irapeanum and C. molle, and Drs. Jan Barber and Hong Liufor updating scientific terminology with grammatical usage withinthe manuscript. We are indebted to anonymous reviewers for theircomments and suggestions. The present study was supported bythe National Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 30970203,30770379).
References
Atwood, J.T., 1984. The relationship of the slipper orchids (SubfamilyCypripediodeae), Orchidaceae. Selbyana 7, 129–247.
Averyanov, L.V., 2000. The genus Cypripedium (Orchidaceae) in Russia. Lindleyana15, 197–221.
Baldwin, B.G., 1992. Phylogenetic utility of the internal transcribed spacers ofnuclear ribosomal DNA in plant: an example from the Compositae. Mol.Phylogenet. Evol. 1, 3–16.
Bateman, R.M., Pridgeon, A.M., Chase, M.W., 1997. Phylogenetics of subtribeOrchidinae (Orchidoideae, Orchideceae) based on nuclear ITS sequences II:infrageneric relationships and reclassification to achieve monophyly of Orchissensu stricto. Lindleyana 12, 113–141.
Bernhardt, P., Edens-Meier, R., 2010. What we think we know vs. what we need toknow about orchid pollination and conservation: Cypripedium L. as a modellineage. Bot. Rev. 76, 204–219.
Cameron, K.M., Chase, M.W., Whitten, W.M., Kores, P.J., Jarrell, D.C., Albert, V.A.,Yukawa, T., Hills, H.G., Goldman, D.H., 1999. A phylogenetic analysis of theOrchidaceae: evidence from rbcL nucleotide sequences. Am. J. Bot. 86, 208–224.
Chase, M.W., Freudenstein, J.V., Cameron, K.M., Barrett, R.L., 2003. DNA data andOrchidaceae systematics: a new phylogenetic classification. In: Dixon, K.W.,Kell, S.P., Barrett, R.L., Cribb, P.J. (Eds.), Orchid Conservation. Natural HistoryPublications, Kota Kinabalu, pp. 69–89.
Chen, S.C., 1983. Two pairs of vicariant species of Cypripedium (Orchidaceae) fromeastern Asian and eastern North America. Brittonia 35, 159–163.
Chen, S.C., Cribb, P.J., 2005. Cypripedium. In: Wu, Z.Y., Raven, P.H., Hong, D.Y. (Eds.),Flora of China, vol. 25. Science Press/Missouri Botanical Garden Press, Beijing/St.Louis., pp. 22–33.
Chen, S.C., Lang, K.Y., 1986. Cypripedium subtropicum sp. nov. — a new speciesrelated closely to Selenipedium. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 24, 317–322.
Chen, S.C., Tsi, Z.H., Luo, Y.B., 1999. Native Orchids of China in Colour. Science Press,Beijing, China.
Cox, A.V., Pridgeon, A.M., Albert, V.A., Chase, M.W., 1997. Phylogenetics of theslipper orchids (Cypripedioideae, Orchidaceae): nuclear rDNA ITS sequences.Plant Syst. Evol. 208, 197–223.
Cozzolino, S., Aceto, S., Caputo, P., Widmer, A., Dafni, A., 2001. Speciation processesin eastern Mediterranean Orchis s. l. species: molecular evidence and the role ofpollination biology. Israel J. Plant Sci. 49, 91–103.
Cribb, P.J., 1997. The Genus Cypripedium. Timber Press, Portland.Cunningham, C.W., 1997. Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be
combined? Mol. Biol. Evol. 14, 733–740.Demesure, B., Sodzi, N., Petit, R.J., 1995. A set of universal primers for amplification
of polymorphic non-coding regions of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA inplants. Mol. Ecol. 4, 129–131.
Dressler, R.L., 1993. Phylogeny and Classification of the Orchid Family. DioscoridesPress, Portland.
J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 319
Author's personal copy
Eccarius, W., 2009. Die Orchideengattung Cypripedium. Echinomedia publishers,Buergel, Germany.
Farris, J.S., Källersjö, M., Kluge, A., Bult, G.C., 1995. Constructing a significance testfor incongruence. Syst. Biol. 44, 570–572.
Górniak, M., Paun, O., Chase, M.W., 2010. Phylogenetic relationships withinOrchidaceae based on a low-copy nuclear coding gene, Xdh: congruence withorganellar and nuclear ribosomal DNA results. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 56, 784–795.
Hall, T.A., 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor andprogram for Window 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acid Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98.
Li, P., Luo, Y.B., Bernhardt, P., Kou, Y., Perner, H., 2008. Pollination of Cypripediumplectrochilum (Orchidaceae) by Lasioglossum spp. (Halictidae): the roles ofgeneralist attractants versus restrictive floral architecture. Plant Biol. 10, 220–230.
Liu, Z.J., Chen, L.J., 2009. Cypripedium singchii, a new species of Orchidaceae fromChina. J. Fariylake Bot. Gard. 8, 1–3.
Luo, Y.B., Chen, S.C., 2000. The floral morphology and ontogeny of some Chineserepresentatives of orchid subtribe Orchidinae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 134, 529–548.
Norup, M.V., Dransfield, J., Chase, M.W., Barfod, A.S., Fernando, E.S., Baker, W.J.,2006. Homoplasious character combinations and generic delimitation: a casestudy from the Indo-Pacific arecoid palms (Arecaceae: Areaceae). Am. J. Bot. 93,1065–1080.
Perner, H., 2002. Cypripedium sichuanense Perner. Die Orchidee 53, 89–94.Perner, H., 2008. Sinopedilum — a new section of the genus Cypripedium. Die
Orchidee 59, 35–51.Posada, D., Crandall, K.A., 1998. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution.
Bioinformatics 14, 817–818.Ren, Z.X., Li, D.Z., Bernhardt, P., Wang, H., 2011. Flowers of Cypripedium fargesii
(Orchidaceae) fool flat-footed flies (Platypezidae) by faking fungus-infectedfoliate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 478–7480.
Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J.P., 2003. MrBaye: Bayesian phylogenetic inferenceunder mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1972–1974.
Rosso, S.W., 1996. The vegetative anatomy of the Cypripedioideae (Orchidaceae). J.Linn. Soc. Bot. 59, 309–341.
Sang, T., Crawford, D.J., Stuessy, T.F., 1997. Chloroplast DNA phylogeny, reticulateevolution, and biogeography of Paeonia (Paeniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 84, 1120–1136.
Shaw, J., Lickey, E.B., Schillng, E.E., Small, R.L., 2007. Comparison of wholechloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogeneticstudies in Angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. Am. J. Bot. 94, 275–288.
Soto, M.A., Solano, R., 2007. Ficha técnica de Cypripedium dickinsonianum. Informaciónactualizada sobre las especies del PROY-NOM-059-ECOL-2000 <http://www.conabio.gob.mx/conocimiento/ise/fichasnom/Cypripediumdickinsonianu>.
Swofford, D.L., 2003. Paup� Phylogenetic Analysis using Parisimony (and othermehods). Version 4, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Taberlet, P., Gielly, L., Pautou, G., Bouvet, J., 1991. Universal primers foramplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol. Biol.17, 1105–1109.
Tate, J.A., Simpson, B.B., 2003. Paraphyly of Tarasa (Malvaceae) and diverse originsof polyploidy species. Syst. Bot. 28, 723–737.
Thompson, J.D., Gibson, T.J., Plewniak, F., Jeanmougin, F., Higgins, D.G., 1997. TheClustal X windows interface. Flexible strategies for multiple sequencealignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 4876–4882.
Tucker, S., 1997. Floral evolution, development and convergence: the hierarchical-significance hypothesis. Int. J. Plant Sci. 158, 143–161.
Tucker, S., Bernhardt, P., 2000. Floral ontogeny, pattern formation and evolution inHibbertia and Adrastaea (Dilleniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 87, 1915–1936.
Van der Pijl, L., Dodson, C.H., 1966. Orchid Flowers: Their Pollination and Evolution.University of Miami Press, Miami, FL.
Wiens, J.J., 1998. Combining data sets with different phylogenetic histories. Syst.Biol. 47, 568–581.
Xi, Y.Z., Chen, S.C., 1991. A palynological study of the genus Cypripedium(Orchidaceae). Cathaya 3, 73–91.
320 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320