Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Synopsis of a New Taxonomic Synthesis of Montiaceae (Portulacineae) Based on Rational Metadata Analysis, with Critical New Insights on Historically Poorly Understood Taxa and a Reevaluation of Historical Biogeography

Version 1 : Received: 29 August 2018 / Approved: 29 August 2018 / Online: 29 August 2018 (12:23:13 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 8 October 2018 / Approved: 8 October 2018 / Online: 8 October 2018 (14:02:59 CEST)

How to cite: Hershkovitz, M. Synopsis of a New Taxonomic Synthesis of Montiaceae (Portulacineae) Based on Rational Metadata Analysis, with Critical New Insights on Historically Poorly Understood Taxa and a Reevaluation of Historical Biogeography. Preprints 2018, 2018080496 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201808.0496.v1). Hershkovitz, M. Synopsis of a New Taxonomic Synthesis of Montiaceae (Portulacineae) Based on Rational Metadata Analysis, with Critical New Insights on Historically Poorly Understood Taxa and a Reevaluation of Historical Biogeography. Preprints 2018, 2018080496 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201808.0496.v1).

Abstract

Montiaceae (Portulacineae) comprise a clade of at least 270 species primarily of western America and Australia. This work uses existing phylogenetic metadata to elaborate a new cladistic taxonomic synthesis, and clarifies morphological circumscriptions of several poorly known species. A total of 21 taxa are validated, seven new and 14 necessary nomenclatural recombinations). Hypotheses of Montiaceae historical biogeography and phenotypic evolution are evaluated in light of recent metadata.

Subject Areas

Montiaceae, taxonomy, phylogeny, biogeography, evolution, Calandrinia, Cistanthe, Lewisiopsis, Philippiamra, Rumicastrum

Comments (11)

Comment 1
Received: 30 August 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Minor corrections wlll be included in version 2.
Also, final version will note that Wagstaff & Hennion's 2007 age estimate for the Hectorella/Lyallia split seems to be an error by a factor of plus ten million years, etc.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 2
Received: 30 August 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: It is in my interest to correct my errors. Therefore I have a conflict of interest with myself.
Comment: The current version 1 was reposted on 30 August. It contains corrections of a few errors in the version posted 29 August.


+ Respond to this comment
Comment 3
Received: 30 August 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am terribly conflicted. Am not! Am too! Am not! Am too!......
Comment: Wagstaff & Hennion 2007 estimated the age of the split "between" Hectorella and Lyallia at 18-25 mybp. I suppose this is a decimal point misplacement. The estimated ages of the whole Hectorelleae split are 20-30 mybp, and the two genera diverge very little. The overestimate rendered feasible greater Antarctic involvement in dispersal between NZ and Kerguelen. Heads 2014 and 2016 likewise used this estimate to defend his vicariance scenario. Heads supported his view noting that arctic/alpine habitats of NZ and Kerguelen are younger than 20 my, thus he supposed that Antarctica harbored Hectorelleae. However, the Hectorelleae ancestor like was not arctic/alpine, this ecomorphology likely evolving in situ as the environment evolved in NZ. Such scenario was inferred for alpine Oriastrum (nee Chaetanthera) by Hershkovitz & al 2006.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 4
Received: 31 August 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Tbe final version will incorporatw Stoughton et al. 2017, Claytonia
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 5
Received: 2 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I will add a sectional raxonomy of Calyptridium. My next manuscript discusses evolution in this group, and it is unwieldy to repeat the names of all of the species. So we correct this with taxonomy. That is what taxonomy is for. To serve. That is why God ordained Adam as a Taxonomist. Look it up. Genesis 2: 19-20. So the nomenclatural codes should be changed to give Adam and not Linnaeus priority of all organisms named in the Bible.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 6
Received: 5 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: The following article validates a sectional taxonomy for Calyptridium and addresses phylogeography and other issues.

http://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201809.0096/v1
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 7
Received: 9 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Some phylogeographic discussion in this text will be compacted given its elaboration in:

doi:10.20944/preprints201809.0096.v1

Below is a summary of Montiaceae disjunctions of 1000+ km, including overland, excluding anthropogenic disjunctions.

1. SAm Schreiteria – NAm Phemeranthus

2. NAm Phemeranthus – SAm Phemeranthus punae

3. SAm Cistanthe – NAm Cistanthe guadalupensis & C. maritima

4. SAm Philippiamra – NAm Calyptridium

5. SAm Montioideae – Aus Rumicastrum

6. SAm Calandrinia acaulis – NAm Calandrinia acaulis

7. SAm Calandrinia ciliata – NAm Calandrinia ciliata

8. SAm/NAm Calandrinia sect. Calandrinia – NAm Calandrinia menziesii

9. SAm Montioideae – Antarc Hectorelleae

10. NZ Hectorella - Kerg Lyallia

11. SAm Montioideae – NAm Montieae

12. NAm Montia – NZ/Aus Montia sect. Australiensis

13. NZ Montia sect. Australiensis – Aus Montia sect. Australiensis

14. NZ/Aus Montia sect. Australiensis – NAm Montia howellii (not anthro, contra O’Quinn)

15. NAm Montia sect. Montia – SAm Montia meridiensis (? = M. fontana subsp.)

16. NAm Montia fontana – Cosmo Montia fontana (pre-anthro)

17. US/SCan Lewisia pygmaea s. l. – NCan/AK Lewisia pygmaea s. l. (inadequate collecting?)
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 7
Received: 13 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Montia chamissoi also disjunt central Mexico to S US
Response 2 to Comment 7
Received: 8 February 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Mark, regarding item 14, discussion and analysis of Herbert Mason's fossilized seeds of calandrinias, claytonias, and montias is critical in calibrating your molecular phylogenies: Daniel Axelrod did just that more than 40 years ago.

Axelrod, D. I. 1983. New Pleistocene Conifer Records, Coastal California. University of California Publications Geological Sciences Volume 127. Berkeley: University of California Press, 31 pp ISBN 0-520-09707-6
Comment 8
Received: 9 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Revision will add:

1. O'Quinn sectional taxonomy of Montiinae.

2. Additional and more consistent references to growth forms.

3. Reference to Calandrinia menziesii in Louisiana fide Urbatsch 2013

4. Better editing of discussion of Cistanthe chamissoi.


+ Respond to this comment
Comment 9
Received: 8 February 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: The author should soundly reject sophomorphic ideas published by the O'Quinn team, which resulted from a serious error of omission. Omitting discussion of two key studies by Daniel Axelrod and Herbert Mason of fossilized seeds of montias in the Pleistocene Lancaster Flora of the Tomales Formation creates future problems in calibrating molecular phlogenies. Students of the group, sensu "not anthro, contra O’Quinn," would benefit from a rigorous search of the literature.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 11
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.