|
plz ID this plant
Hi sbb!
We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? http://bksys.at/bernhard/img/x14/-gallery.html?sbb Thanks, Bernhard, Elke |
Your plant is not a cactus. Its a Euphorbia.
The weed is some sort of Acacia. The bipinnate foliage is the juvenille form. http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/acacia.html "Bernhard Kuemel" wrote in message ... Hi sbb! We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? http://bksys.at/bernhard/img/x14/-gallery.html?sbb Thanks, Bernhard, Elke |
In article , Bernhard Kuemel wrote:
We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? Looks like a Mimosa (mimosa pudica). Do the leaves curl up when you touch them? Roger |
Roger Whitehead wrote:
In article , Bernhard Kuemel wrote: We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? Looks like a Mimosa (mimosa pudica). Do the leaves curl up when you touch them? Nope. Bernhard |
You lack imagination, Roger.
Its already too big to be Mimosa pudica and the bipinnate foliage is too large. Like I already said, the weed is some sort of Acacia. The bipinnate foliage is the juvenille form. http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/acacia.html Also the other plant is not a cactus. Its a Euphorbia. "Roger Whitehead" wrote in message ... In article , Bernhard Kuemel wrote: We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? Looks like a Mimosa (mimosa pudica). Do the leaves curl up when you touch them? Roger |
Can't help, then.
Roger |
We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it?
It looks like some kind of Acacia. Give it more light to get less stringy growth. You won't be able to tell the species until it blooms. Look up Acacia to see if it matches. Does it have any thorns? Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
"Cereus-validus." wrote in
om: "Roger Whitehead" wrote in message ... In article , Bernhard Kuemel wrote: We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? Looks like a Mimosa (mimosa pudica). Do the leaves curl up when you touch them? Roger You lack imagination, Roger. Its already too big to be Mimosa pudica and the bipinnate foliage is too large. Like I already said, the weed is some sort of Acacia. The bipinnate foliage is the juvenille form. http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/acacia.html Also the other plant is not a cactus. Its a Euphorbia. Doesn't look like any of the acacias I have seen around here. They tend to be rather spiny. Of course, there are many Acacias that aren't. The poster is in Austria, so I wouldn't expect any of the Australian Wattles, but if the plant was obtained from a nursery (prolly, it is grafted), who knows what may have been growing there to drop seeds into their stock. To me it looks like Silk Tree, Albizzia julibrissin. http://www.vialattea.net/esperti/bio/mimosa/ But it may be a Caesalpinia as well. Sean |
It could any one of a number of Acacia or Acacia relatives. The seedling is
a bit etiolated and with atypical juvenile foliage. He never said where he got his "cactus" which is actually a Euphorbia. BTW, you can't graft Fabaceae onto Euphorbia. "Sean Houtman" wrote in message news:1100155506.1hyoTYNEF7+4EfeNcQJk0g@teranews... "Cereus-validus." wrote in om: "Roger Whitehead" wrote in message ... In article , Bernhard Kuemel wrote: We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? Looks like a Mimosa (mimosa pudica). Do the leaves curl up when you touch them? Roger You lack imagination, Roger. Its already too big to be Mimosa pudica and the bipinnate foliage is too large. Like I already said, the weed is some sort of Acacia. The bipinnate foliage is the juvenille form. http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/acacia.html Also the other plant is not a cactus. Its a Euphorbia. Doesn't look like any of the acacias I have seen around here. They tend to be rather spiny. Of course, there are many Acacias that aren't. The poster is in Austria, so I wouldn't expect any of the Australian Wattles, but if the plant was obtained from a nursery (prolly, it is grafted), who knows what may have been growing there to drop seeds into their stock. To me it looks like Silk Tree, Albizzia julibrissin. http://www.vialattea.net/esperti/bio/mimosa/ But it may be a Caesalpinia as well. Sean |
The weed is some sort of Acacia. The bipinnate foliage is the juvenile form.
Huh? I thought some acacias were always bipinnate. I have a bonsai grove of sweet acacia, A. farnesiana. Some of the trees are about 5 years old. They have never been anything but bipinnate. I looked at some pictures on the Web. Photos of A. farnesiana, and some USDA drawings of several acacias, all show bipinnate foliage. Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
Did you actually use the link and see for yourself or are you just letting
your fingers do the wondering? Here we go again, just in case you missed it the first time. http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/acacia.html "Iris Cohen" wrote in message ... The weed is some sort of Acacia. The bipinnate foliage is the juvenile form. Huh? I thought some acacias were always bipinnate. I have a bonsai grove of sweet acacia, A. farnesiana. Some of the trees are about 5 years old. They have never been anything but bipinnate. I looked at some pictures on the Web. Photos of A. farnesiana, and some USDA drawings of several acacias, all show bipinnate foliage. Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
Cereus-validus... schreef
Did you actually use the link and see for yourself or are you just letting your fingers do the wondering? ****** You mean where it says: "A few species, such as the well-known "Cootamundra wattle" (A.baileyana) and "Mudgee wattle" (A.spectabilis), retain the compound, fern-like leaves throughout their lives." Question: did you read it? Or for that matter know anything about Acacia? PvR |
Oh sure Rinkytink, we all know that YOU are intimately familiar with all the
tree Acacias that are found in that dry veld of the Netherlands. That is when you are not busy wrestling with lions, tigers and rogue elephants in your underwear!!! The point was that the website does mention Acacia species that retain bipinnate foliage in their adult state. When do you think you will attain an adult state, if ever? "P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ... Cereus-validus... schreef Did you actually use the link and see for yourself or are you just letting your fingers do the wondering? ****** You mean where it says: "A few species, such as the well-known "Cootamundra wattle" (A.baileyana) and "Mudgee wattle" (A.spectabilis), retain the compound, fern-like leaves throughout their lives." Question: did you read it? Or for that matter know anything about Acacia? PvR |
ts already too big to be Mimosa pudica and the bipinnate foliage is too
large. I agree. Sir, where did you get your Euphorbia? That may give us a clue as which acacia you have. Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
Dear Lady Iris!
Iris Cohen wrote: ts already too big to be Mimosa pudica and the bipinnate foliage is too large. I agree. Sir, Umm, I'm not sure, if I am a Sir :) where did you get your Euphorbia? The daughter of my girlfriend brougt it home. I'll ask her. Ok, it is from a "Holland Blumenmarkt" (a brand name for a plant supermarket, literally "Holland Flowermarket"). That may give us a clue as which acacia you have. I'm fine with knowing it's an acacia. But we can explore this further if you like. It looks like some kind of Acacia. Give it more light to get less stringy growth. You won't be able to tell the species until it blooms. Look up Acacia to see if it matches. That was nice, suggesting more light rather than calling it a weed. If we keep the plants together, would the acacia kill the euphorbia? Since we won't probably move the pot to a brighter spot, we thought of separating the plants. The acacia roots have come long out of the inner pot hole and are now in the water in the outer pot. We'd probably have to break the inner pot and drop the soil of both plants roots to separate them. Does that sound risky? Does it have any thorns? Actually, yes. There are some at some forks. They are soft yet. On top of some forks there are nectar drops. One had a honey like consistency and another one dried out. On http://bksys.at/bernhard/img/x14/-gallery.html there are closeups. Thanks everyone for your help. Bernhard |
Did you actually use the link and see for yourself
Yes. It says: A few species, such as the well-known "Cootamundra wattle" (A.baileyana) and "Mudgee wattle" (A.spectabilis), retain the compound, fern-like leaves throughout their lives. Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
Iris Cohen schreef
A few species, such as the well-known "Cootamundra wattle" (A.baileyana) and "Mudgee wattle" (A.spectabilis), retain the compound, fern-like leaves throughout their lives. ****** Note that the site does not apply to farnesiana or to OP's plant. PvR |
Quote:
Possibly Caesalpinia |
Bernhard Kuemel Wrote: Hi sbb! We have an unknown plant growing with our cactus. Can you id it? http://tinyurl.com/3kdcm Thanks, Bernhard, Elke --------------------------------------------- Possibly Caesalpinia -- Plantsman |
"Cereus-validus..." wrote in
. com: It could any one of a number of Acacia or Acacia relatives. The seedling is a bit etiolated and with atypical juvenile foliage. He never said where he got his "cactus" which is actually a Euphorbia. BTW, you can't graft Fabaceae onto Euphorbia. Duh. I can look at pictures though, and see when there is obviously two plants in a pot, one a seedling of one family, and another a horticultural graft of another family. And I never thought the one item was a cactus. Sean |
"Cereus-validus..." wrote in
om: Oh sure Rinkytink, we all know that YOU are intimately familiar with all the tree Acacias that are found in that dry veld of the Netherlands. That is when you are not busy wrestling with lions, tigers and rogue elephants in your underwear!!! The point was that the website does mention Acacia species that retain bipinnate foliage in their adult state. It does mention that. In fact most of the non-Australian species never develop the phyllodes that you seem to equate with leaves. I have not seen anything but pinnate or bipinnate leaves on the Acacias native to New Mexico. When do you think you will attain an adult state, if ever? It is a race. I am sure he is far ahead of you though. Sean |
Bernhard Kuemel wrote in
: Iris Cohen wrote: Does it have any thorns? Actually, yes. There are some at some forks. They are soft yet. On top of some forks there are nectar drops. One had a honey like consistency and another one dried out. On http://bksys.at/bernhard/img/x14/-gallery.html there are closeups. Thanks everyone for your help. Those aren't actually thorns, just soft stipules. If they were going to be thorns, you wouldn't be thinking about how soft they are. Acacia thorns are stout (even while young), often curved like a cat's claw, and very sharp. The nectar drops and the origin tell me that the plant is almost certainly Honey Locust, or Gleditsia triacanthos. It is a popular street tree in many parts of the world, native to the eastern US. Many photos you may find on the web show the stout branching thorns that are nearly the hallmark of the plant, however, there are a great number of varieties (ok, several actually) that do not grow the thorns. Even the thorned varieties only grow the thorns on the woody trunks and branches, not on twigs. http://www.thejump.net/hunting/plant...ney-locust.htm http://www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/tree...st-honey.shtml http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/images/...locust_Wyalusi ng_VK.php?highres=true If you do a web search for other images, make sure you do not include the true Locust or Robinia, as the plants are different. Sean |
Sean Houtman schreef
It does mention that. In fact most of the non-Australian species never develop the phyllodes that you seem to equate with leaves. I have not seen anything but pinnate or bipinnate leaves on the Acacias native to New Mexico. Part of the reason for splitting up Acacia. I guess there is a fair chance the New Mexico species will be part of Acaciella PvR |
the New Mexico species will be part of
Acaciella Oh no! When & how did this happen? Does that include A. farnesiana? Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
I see A. farnesiana is still an Acacia. I never heard of it having phyllodes,
so where is it going to live? It comes from Florida, Texas, Mexico, and I think the Caribbean. Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
FWIW, I'd suggest the mystery plant is probably a sapling
of either Albizia julibissin or Gleditsia triacanthos. Both are commonly cultivated as ornamentals in temperate areas, and both can freely volunteer in other plants' pots. [More likely it's Albizia; IIRC young Gleditsia usually also have some long once-pinnate leaves not shown in these photos] "Iris Cohen" wrote in message ... the New Mexico species will be part of Acaciella Oh no! When & how did this happen? It's required by various recent molecular phylogenetic studies that clearly show that the main groups of traditional "Acacia" include large groups that are actually closer kin [in terms of recency of common ancestry] to species classified in other genera than they are to the other "Acacia". [I.e., "Acacia" is paraphyletic or polyphyletic] As I recall it, the "genus" turned out to include lines closer to other genera of mimosoid legumes like Albizzia, Inga, Pithecellobium, Prosopis, etc. than to one another. Does that include A. farnesiana? According to below, that particular species apparently belongs to the traditional "_Acacia_ subgenus _Acacia_", so it should remain in the genus Acacia even after the genus is redefined and split into smaller genera. So it stays in, but the phyllode-bearing Australian species are out. Some relevant citations and abstracts from a quick search: TITLE: Overview of the generic status of Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Maslin,-B-R [Author,-Reprint-Author]; Miller, -J-T [Author]; Seigler,-D-S [Author] SOURCE: Australian-Systematic-Botany. 2003; 16(1): 1-18 ABSTRACT: The systematic treatment and circumscription of the group of plants presently recognised as the genus Acacia has a complex history. The genus was first described by Philip Miller in 1754 and until 1842, when George Bentham clearly defined it's generic limits (by restricting the name Acacia to mimosoid plants having numerous free stamens), a number of species which are now referable to genera within tribes Ingeae and Mimoseae had been referred to it. As presently defined, Acacia is a cosmopolitan genus containing in excess of 1350 species and together with the monotypic genus Faidherbia Chev. (which occurs in Africa and the Middle East), comprises tribe Acacieae within subfamily Mimosoideae. The current classification of Acacia views the genus as comprising three large subgenera, namely subg. Acacia (c. 161 species, pantropical), subg. Aculeiferum Vassal (235 species; pantropical) and subg. Phyllodineae (DC.) Seringe (syn. subg. Heterophyllum Vassal) (960 species, largely confined to Australia). In 1986, Pedley proposed that these three subgenera be attributed generic rank, namely Acacia, Senegalia Rafinesque and Racosperma C.Martius, respectively, but this proposal was not widely adopted. Subsequently, the results of monographic and floristic works have greatly expanded knowledge, not only of Acacia, but also of its presumed relatives in tribes Ingeae and Mimoseae. Cladistic analyses of chloroplast genes have been especially informative in developing a better understanding of phylogenetic relationships of the group. The new data clearly show that the genus as presently defined (i.e. Acacia sens. lat.) is not monophyletic. Furthermore, five separate monophyletic groups can be recognised within Acacia sens. lat. and it is recommended that these each be recognised as a distinct genus. The five genera correspond to those recognised by Pedley, except that Senegalia sens. lat. is now regarded as comprising three genera, namely Senegalia sens. str., Acaciella Britton & Rose (based on Acacia subg. Aculeiferum sect. Filicinae (Benth.) Pedley) and an undescribed genus based on a group of species related to Acacia coulteri Benth. Acacia subg. Acacia appears to be located in tribe Mimoseae. The relationships of subg. Phyllodineae, subg. Aculeiferum sens. str., sect. Filicinae, the 'Acacia coulteri' group and Faidherbia are not fully resolved, although in all studies these groups are shown to be monophyletic. Although it is appropriate that each be recognised as a distinct genus, the application of the names Acacia and Racosperma is currently under consideration and it is therefore not appropriate to use these names until this matter is resolved. Here's the 1986 Pedley paper mentioned above: TITLE: DERIVATION AND DISPERSAL OF ACACIA LEGUMINOSAE WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO AUSTRALIA AND THE RECOGNITION OF SENEGALIA AND RACOSPERMA AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: PEDLEY-L [Reprint-author] SOURCE: Botanical-Journal-of-the-Linnean-Society. 1986; 92(3): 219-254 ABSTRACT: The morphology of seedlings, leaves, flowers and inflorescences, anatomy of the pod, the occurrence of extra-floral nectaries, free amino acids of the seeds, flavonoid compounds in heartwoods, cyanogenic compounds and porate, colporate and extraporate pollen, and susceptibility to rusts, all indicate that three genera, Acacia Miller, Senegalia Raf. and Racosperma Martius, should be recognized. These correspond to currently accepted subgenera of Acacia. The size of these more narrowly circumscribed genera is in keeping with the size of genera of other tribes of low diversity in Leguminosae. Acacia and Senegalia arose independently from the Ingeae, with Racosperma being derived from Senegalia. Section Filicinae is more advanced than section Senegalia of Senegalia, and sections Racosperma and Pulchella, both with at least some species with bipinnate foliage, are the most advanced of Racosperma, while the other sections Pleurinervia and Lycopodiifolia have only phyllodinous species. Long-range dispersal of Racosperma from the Australian region has occurred, but the broad pattern of distribution is interpreted in terms of plate tectonics. Racosperma was present in Australia in the late Cretaceous but did not become widespread until the general drying of the continent in the Miocene. The flora of SW Australia has been isolated from the rest of the continent by climatic barriers since the late Tertiary and has a high proportion of endemic species. Barriers to plant migration in the east have operated only intermittently and there is no area comparable in endemism to the southwest. TITLE: A phylogenetic analysis of the Acacieae and Ingeae (Mimosoideae: Fabaceae) based on trnK, matK, psbA-trnH, and trnL/trnF sequence data. AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Miller,-Joseph-T [Author,-Reprint-Author]; Grimes,-James-W [Author]; Murphy,-Daniel-J [Author]; Bayer,-Randall-J [Author]; Ladiges,-Pauline-Y [Author] SOURCE: Systematic-Botany. 2003; 28(3): 558-566 ABSTRACT: A phylogenetic analysis of exemplars of Acacieae, Ingeae, and some Mimoseae, based on trnK, matK, psbA-trnH, and trnL/trnF sequence data, is presented. The results support other recent studies in showing that neither the Ingeae nor Acacieae is monophyletic. Some subgenera of Acacia, specifically subgenera Acacia and Phyllodineae, are monophyletic, but subg. Acacia is in a basal polychotomy with various members of Mimoseae and a large clade with the other members of Ingeae and Acacieae. Acacia subg. Phyllodineae is sister group to members of the Ingeae. Both the Ingeae and Acacia subg. Aculeiferum are paraphyletic. TITLE: Molecular phylogenetics of Acacia subgenera Acacia and Aculeiferum (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae), based on the chloroplast matK coding sequence and flanking trnK intron spacer regions. AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Miller,-Joseph-T [Author,-Reprint-Author]; Bayer,-Randall-J [Author,-Reprint-Author] SOURCE: Australian-Systematic-Botany. 2003; 16(1): 27-33 ABSTRACT: The genus Acacia is subdivided into the following three subgenera: subg. Acacia, subg. Aculeiferum and the predominantly Australian subg. Phyllodineae. Morphological and molecular studies have suggested that the tribe Acacieae and genus Acacia are artificial and have a close affinity to the tribe Ingeae. Sequence analysis of the chloroplast trnK intron, including the matK coding region and flanking non-coding regions, were undertaken to examine taxon relationships within Acacia subgenera Acacia and Aculeiferum. Subgenus Acacia is monophyletic while subgenus Aculeiferum is paraphyletic. Within the subgenera, major divisions are found based on biogeography, New World versus African-Asian taxa. These data suggest that characters such as inflorescence and prickle and/or stipule type are polymorphic and homoplasious in cladistic analyses within the subgenera. TITLE: Molecular phylogenetics of Acacia (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) based on the chloroplast matK coding sequence and flanking trnK intron spacer regions AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Miller,-Joseph-T [Reprint-author]; Bayer,- Randall-J [Author]SOURCE: American-Journal-of-Botany. 2001; 88(4): 697-705 ABSTRACT: The tribe Acacieae (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) contains two genera, the monotypic African Faidherbia and the pantropical Acacia, which comprise about 1200 species with over 950 confined to Australia. As currently recognized, the genus Acacia is subdivided into three subgenera: subg. Acacia, subg. Aculeiferum, and the predominantly Australian subg. Phyllodineae. Morphological studies have suggested the tribe Acacieae and genus Acacia are artificial and have a close affinity to the tribe Ingeae. Based on available data there is no consensus on whether Acacia should be subdivided. Sequence analysis of the chloroplast trnK intron, including the matK coding region and flanking noncoding regions, indicate that neither the tribe Acacieae nor the genus Acacia are monophyletic. Two subgenera are monophyletic; section Filicinae of subgenus Aculeiferum does not group with taxa of the subgenus. Section Filicinae, eight Ingeae genera, and Faidherbia form a weakly supported paraphyletic grade with respect to subg. Phyllodineae. Acacia subg. Aculeiferum (s. s.) is sister to the grade. These data suggest that characters currently used to differentiate taxa at the tribal, generic, and subgeneric levels are polymorphic and homoplasious in cladistic analyses. TITLE: Implications of chloroplast DNA restriction site variation for systematics of Acacia (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Clarke,-H-David [Reprint-author]; Downie,- Stephen-R [Author]; Seigler,-David-S [Author] SOURCE: Systematic-Botany. 2000; 25(4): 618-632 ABSTRACT: Comparative restriction site mapping of the chloroplast genome of 26 accessions of Acacia plus outgroups (Caesalpinia, Albizia, and Ebenopsis) was carried out to analyze phylogenetic relationships among the subgenera of Acacia and, in particular, within Acacia subgenus Acacia. One or more taxa from each of seven New World species- groups plus two African species of Acacia subgenus Acacia were included in the analysis to generate hypotheses of the evolution and radiation of this group. Restriction maps constructed from data from 11 restriction enzymes yielded 212 informative restriction sites out of a total of 900. Parsimony analysis resulted in a total of 12 most parsimonious trees of 663 steps each. The strict consensus tree and bootstrap and decay indices indicate strong support for monophyly of Acacia subgenus Acacia and provisional support for the paraphyly of Acacia overall. Moderately to strongly supported clades within Acacia subgenus Acacia indicate that the mesically adapted A. macracantha species-group is polyphyletic and may represent lineages with sister group relationships with both the ant-acacias and the more xerically adapted A. farnesiana species-group. A group of Caribbean species was found to be ancestral in Acacia subgenus Acacia and African and South American species were found to be relatively derived with respect to North American species, lending support to a Boreotropical, rather than a Gondwanan, hypothesis of the historical biogeography of Acacia subgenus Acacia. TITLE: Phylogenetic analysis of Australian Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae) by using sequence variations of an intron and two intergenic spacers of chloroplast DNA AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Murphy,-Daniel-J [Author]; Udovicic,-Frank [Author]; Ladiges,-Pauline-Y [Reprint-author] SOURCE: Australian-Systematic-Botany. 2000; 13(5): 745-754 ABSTRACT: Three regions of chloroplast DNA are assessed for their utility for phylogenetic analysis of Acacia subgenus Phyllodineae: psbA-trnH intergenic spacer, the trnL intron and the trnL-trnF intergenic spacer. There are large differences in the lengths of the psbA-trnH spacer (155-440 bp) and trnL-trnF intergenic spacer (101-422 bp) regions, and large multi-residue indels were coded as multistate characters. Overall information content in these regions is relatively low, but the total evidence tree has 12 nodes resolved, five with jackknife support. By using Parkia timoriana as the outgroup, Acacia subgenus Acacia (A. farnesiana) is basal and Acacia subgenus Aculeiferum (A. senegal) is the sister taxon to subgenus Phyllodineae. Although based on a small sample size, within subgenus Phyllodineae, the results of this study have shown that section Alatae is not monophyletic, section Lycopodiifoliae is monophyletic and Botrycephalae is related to members of section Phyllodineae with racemose inflorescences. TITLE: A plastid DNA phylogeny of the genus Acacia Miller (Acacieae, Leguminoseae) AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Robinson,-Julian [Reprint-author]; Harris, -Stephen-A [Author] SOURCE: Botanical-Journal-of-the-Linnean-Society. 2000; 132(3): 195-222 ABSTRACT: Past classifications of the tribe Acacieae Rchb. are outlined and the confusion concerning the relationships of the three subgenera of Acacia Mill. are highlighted. A plastid DNA analysis of Acacieae shows that the genus Acacia is not monophyletic. Furthermore subgenera Acacia Vassal and Aculeiferum Vassal are sister taxa and neither appear closely related to subgenus Phyllodineae (DC.) Ser. Subgenera Acacia and Aculeiferum form a clade that is basal to a well-supported clade consisting of tribe Ingeae Benth. taxa, Faidherbia albida (Del.) A. Chev. and subgenus Phyllodineae. The series of relationships suggested by the cpDNA data contradicts previous investigations of the tribe. Possible explanations of this conflict are explored, and the taxonomic implications of the plastid DNA data set are considered. TITLE: Phylogenetic analysis of Acacia (Mimosaceae) as revealed from chloroplast RFLP data AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Bukhari,-Y-M [Reprint-author]; Koivu,-K [Author]; Tigerstedt,-P-M-A [Author] SOURCE: Theoretical-and-Applied-Genetics. 1999; 98(2): 291-298 ABSTRACT: Chloroplast DNA of 22 species of Acacia (Tourn.) Miller was digested with ten restriction endonucleases, Southern-blotted and probed with cloned fragments covering the chloroplast genome of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.). Phyletic and phenetic analyses of the resulting 176 polymorphic bands recorded among the 22 species were performed. The phylogram was reconstructed using heuristic search and Wagner parsimony. The resulting most parsimonious consensus phylogram displayed three major phyletic lineages, consistent with the previously established three subgenera of Acacia. The 10 species of subgenus Acacia and the 6 species of subgenus Heterophyllum formed two monophyletic sister clades. The 5 species of subgenus Aculeiferum studied and Acacia albida (Syn. Faidherbia albida) grouped together and were basal to the clades of subgenera Acacia and Heterophyllum. The phylogram indicated that subgenus Heterophyllum diverged earlier from subgenus Aculeiferum than did subgenus Acacia; however, the phenogram indicated the reverse. The study indicated that A. nilotica and A. farnesiana are sister species, though A. nilotica is Afro-Asiatic and A. farnesiana is American. The phenogram separated the three subgenera in agreement with the phylogram, but the two dendrograms differed regarding the topologies of the species and the distance of evolution between subgenera Acacia and Heterophyllum. cheers |
Iris Cohen schreef
Oh no! When & how did this happen? *** Such things are long drawn-out processes. It has been happening for fifteen years and will likely continue for the next fifteen. * * * Does that include A. farnesiana? *** It will. * * * |
"Iris Cohen" wrote in message ... I see A. farnesiana is still an Acacia. As so it will probably stay [being traditionally a member of Acacia subgenus Acacia, it's thus part of a group that will remain "true Acacias" by definition, i.e., the group containing the type species of the genus]. If anything is to stay a member of the genus Acacia, it will be they. I never heard of it having phyllodes, Nor should it have them. Phyllodes are characteristic of just one particular major group of "no-longer-Acacias". Interestingly, DNA phylogenies reportedly show that some Australian species with only bipinnate leaves, not phyllodes, do belong within the phyllode-bearing group. Of course, the phyllode-bearing species also still have bipinnate leaves as seedlings and juveniles, so this apparent reversal to the ancestral condition may be less surprising than it might seem at first. so where is it going to live? It comes from Florida, Texas, Mexico, and I think the Caribbean. And it reportedly has its closest relative in A. nilotica of Africa. cheers |
mel turner schreef
As so it will probably stay [being traditionally a member of Acacia subgenus Acacia, it's thus part of a group that will remain "true Acacias" by definition, i.e., the group containing the type species of the genus]. If anything is to stay a member of the genus Acacia, it will be they. *** No * * * I never heard of it having phyllodes, Nor should it have them. Phyllodes are characteristic of just one particular major group of "no-longer-Acacias". Interestingly, DNA phylogenies reportedly show that some Australian species with only bipinnate leaves, not phyllodes, do belong within the phyllode-bearing group. Of course, the phyllode-bearing species also still have bipinnate leaves as seedlings and juveniles, so this apparent reversal to the ancestral condition may be less surprising than it might seem at first. *** Yes * * * so where is it going to live? It comes from Florida, Texas, Mexico, and I think the Caribbean. And it reportedly has its closest relative in A. nilotica of Africa. cheers |
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
... mel turner schreef As so it will probably stay [being traditionally a member of Acacia subgenus Acacia, it's thus part of a group that will remain "true Acacias" by definition, i.e., the group containing the type species of the genus]. If anything is to stay a member of the genus Acacia, it will be they. *** No * * * "No"? Care to elaborate and clarify? No, _Acacia farnesiana_ wasn't classified as a member of _Acacia_ subgenus _Acacia_, or no, the group containing the type species of _Acacia_ won't be the group that must be considered _Acacia, s.s._ in any revised classifications? With regard to your earlier suggestion that the bipinnate New Mexico species may belong to the genus Acaciella, well, yes and no. Maslin, et al. [2003] indicate that the genus_Acaciella_ is based on _Acacia_ subg. _Aculeiferum_ sect. _Filicinae_. This is reportedly a largely Mexican group, but other Acacia s.l. groups do occur in the New World, including the SW USA: TITLE: Geographical patterns in neotropical Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Rico-Arce,-Lourdes [Author,-Reprint-Author] SOURCE: Australian-Systematic-Botany. 2003; 16(1): 41-48 ABSTRACT: Native neotropical species of Acacia, totalling 230 species, are represented by two subgenera, Acacia and Aculeiferum. The number of taxa per country and their distribution are presented. For subgenus Aculeiferum, the species of section Filicinae are the richest in Mexico, while species of section Monacanthea are the most diverse in Brazil, Bolivia and Mexico. The species of subgenus Acacia have three main areas of diversity, with Mesoamerica being the most important region for the myrmecophyllous species and Mexico, the United States and Cuba for the non-myrmecophyllous species. So, the famous tropical American "ant-acacias" are in _Acacia_ subg. _Acacia_. Other papers [cited in an earlier post] indicated that _A. farnesiana_ was in subgenus _Acacia_, and not in subg. _Aculeiferum_ sect. _Filicinae_ [= Acaciella]. In fact, Bukhari, et al. [1999] said that their DNA study showed that _A. farnesiana_ is the sister species to _Acacia nilotica_ [the type species of the genus _Acacia_]. [snip] cheers |
mel turner schreef
"No"? Care to elaborate and clarify? *** Well, I can try. * * * No, _Acacia farnesiana_ wasn't classified as a member of _Acacia_ subgenus _Acacia_, *** No, that is not it. That is correct, as far as it goes. * * * or no, the group containing the type species of _Acacia_ won't be the group that must be considered _Acacia, s.s._ in any revised classifications? *** This too is eminently correct, but you are missing something * * * With regard to your earlier suggestion that the bipinnate New Mexico species may belong to the genus Acaciella, well, yes and no. *** I checked, and indeed Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in Acaciella, although other American species will. Sorry to be so mysterious. I am just curious to see how fast the word spreads PvR |
"P van Rijckevorsel"
wrote in message ... mel turner schreef "No"? Care to elaborate and clarify? *** Well, I can try. * * * Thanks. No, _Acacia farnesiana_ wasn't classified as a member of _Acacia_ subgenus _Acacia_, *** No, that is not it. That is correct, as far as it goes. * * * or no, the group containing the type species of _Acacia_ won't be the group that must be considered _Acacia, s.s._ in any revised classifications? *** This too is eminently correct, but you are missing something * * * Okay, now I get it [way to be coy!], having looked further, e.g.: http://treesociety.mweb.co.zw/news.htm and http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/APOL35/sep04-7.html & esp. http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infogallery/taxonomy/ So, Orchard and Maslin [2003] have proposed conserving the generic name _Acacia_ with a new type species [A. penninervis], one of the phyllode-bearing species, in place of the earlier-accepted type species A. nilotica. [This asking for an special exemption from the usual rules of nomenclatural may rankle a bit, I suppose, but their proposal has the advantage of requiring many fewer name changes. There are far fewer species in Acacia subgenus Acacia than there are in the phyllode-bearing group]. If their proposal is ratified and adopted [which seems likely, although there are a few steps remaining] then apparently the genus name _Vachellia_ will be used for the former "Acacia subgenus Acacia", and the name _Acacia_ will become restricted to the phyllode-bearing clade [again, which includes some species without phyllodes]. With regard to your earlier suggestion that the bipinnate New Mexico species may belong to the genus Acaciella, well, yes and no. *** I checked, and indeed Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in Acaciella, although other American species will. Sorry to be so mysterious. I am just curious to see how fast the word spreads Word of Orchard & Maslin's proposal, and its progress through the botanical legal system? Orchard, A.E. and Maslin, B.R. (2003). Proposal to conserve the name Acacia Mill. (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae) with a new type. Taxon 52: 362 - 363. http://taddeo.ingentaselect.com/vl=2...v52n2/s31/p362 http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infogallery/taxonomy/ http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infog...chronology.php cheers |
If their proposal is ratified and adopted [which seems likely, although
there are a few steps remaining] then apparently the genus name _Vachellia_ will be used for the former "Acacia subgenus Acacia", and the name _Acacia_ will become restricted to the phyllode-bearing clade [again, which includes some species without phyllodes]. Word of Orchard & Maslin's proposal, and its progress through the botanical legal system? *** This one is indeed pretty comprehensive http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/APOL35/sep04-7.html The report in Taxon was published about a month - six weeks back. (Taxon 53: 826-829. 2004) Also http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/taxonomy...rved-2004.html pvR |
Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in
Acaciella, although other American species will. That's good. Mine are beginning to take on the classic Old World Acacia style, and I wouldn't want to upset them. Thank goodness they don't attract ants. ;-) Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
Acacia farnesiana is quite unlikely to end up in
Acaciella, although other American species will. Iris Cohen schreef in That's good. Mine are beginning to take on the classic Old World Acacia style, and I wouldn't want to upset them. Thank goodness they don't attract ants. ;-) *** As pointed out A. farnesiana may end up in Vachellia, like some of its Old World relatives PvR |
A. farnesiana may end up in Vachellia, like some of its Old World relatives
Oy Va............ Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra |
A. farnesiana may end up in Vachellia, like some of its Old World
relatives Iris Cohen schreef Oy Va............ *** Likely it will be years before you have to deal with it. Don't panic. PvR |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter