Eriostemon

Orel, Harvey K., McLay, Todd G. B., Neal, Will C., Forster, Paul I. & Bayly, Michael J., 2023, Plastid phylogenomics of the Eriostemon group (Rutaceae; Zanthoxyloideae): support for major clades and investigation of a backbone polytomy, Australian Systematic Botany 36 (5), pp. 355-385 : 373-374

Generic relationships in the Eriostemon group

The current study was conducted concurrently with a similar study by Duretto et al. (2023), who also investigated relationships in the Eriostemon group. Duretto et al. (2023) focussed primarily on relationships in the Phebalium group (Clade 4 B in our analyses) and Leionema , sampling comprehensively across those genera by using five markers (5145 bp in total; plastid markers psb A –trn H, trn L –trn F, rbc L; nrDNA markers ITS, ETS). With their smaller genetic dataset but more thorough taxon sampling of the group, they confirmed the monophyly of Asterolasia , Diplolaena , Leionema , Nematolepis and Phebalium ( Duretto et al. 2023) . This is congruent with our results, although our sampling of these genera is not appropriate for commenting on their monophyly. The results of our analyses are mostly congruent with those of Duretto et al. (2023) and support the taxonomic changes made by those authors, namely, the transfer of Rhadinothamnus (= C. anceps and C. euphemiae in our analyses) to Chorilaena , and Microcybe (= P. multiflorum in our analyses) to Phebalium . Our larger genetic

(a)

Clade 1

(b)

Clade 2 Clade 3 Clade 4

Most Likely

Topology

Hard Polytomy

Topology

dataset has further clarified relationships among some genera by providing maximal support for branches previously unresolved (<0.95 PP in the ptDNA phylogeny of Duretto et al. 2023; indicated on Fig. 3). The following sections discuss some relationships, supported here, that are noteworthy; relationships in the Phebalium group are not discussed here because they have already been thoroughly discussed by Duretto et al. (2023).