Ficus variegata

Zhang, Li-Fang, Zhang, Zhen, Wang, Xiao-Mei, Gao, Hai-Yan, Tian, Huai-Zhen & Li, Hong-Qing, 2018, Molecular Phylogeny of the Ficus auriculata Complex (Moraceae), Phytotaxa 362 (1), pp. 39-54 : 50

Relationship between Ficus variegata and other species in F. auriculata complex

A study on phylogenetic and biogeographic history of the genus Ficus ( Xu et al. 2011) presented a chronogram, which showed that F. variegata might not be a member of F. subsect. Neomorphe . This observation was partly supported by Harrison et al. (2012) and Cruaud et al. (2012). However, including just one or two samples of the related species in such studies might not provide sufficient representation of the phylogeny of F. subsect. Neomorphe . In the present study, the combined analysis of ITS and G3pdh sequences showed that F. variegata is close to other species of the F. auriculata complex. They formed a monophyletic group ( Fig. 2 , clade A) with moderate to high support (PP = 0.98, MP = 64), which is sister to the clade including the southmost species F. robusta , F. semivestita , and F. nodosa . The results also showed that all the F. variegata samples were clustered together ( Fig. 2 , clade B) with moderate to high support (PP = 1, MP = 65). The combined chloroplast analysis showed a paraphyletic clade ( Fig. 3 , clade A) containing samples of F. variegata , F. auriculata , and F. oligodon , which implies that they shared common ancestral chloroplast gene fragments, and showed low genetic differentiation. The haplotype network analysis also showed that F. variegata has unique differentiation routes ( Fig. 4 , haplotypes 29–33 belong to F. variegata ). The SSR analysis indicated that the genetic independence of F. variegata is significant when compared with that of other species ( Fig. 5 , 6 ). This, to some extent, is in agreement with the treatment of Corner (1965) and Berg et al. (2005). These studies agreed that F. variegata should belong to F. subsect. Neomorphe and it should be regarded as an independent species sharing common origin with other species of the F. auriculata complex. However, this deduction needs further validation considering the limited representativeness of F. variegata samples, especially the lack of samples from Malesia region and the type location (Java Island).

Figures

FIGURE 2. Bayesian majority consensus tree based on ITS+G3pdh combined datasets. The posterior probability (PP) values listed above the branches; the maximum likelihood bootstrap support (MLBS) below the branches; –, branches not support, PP <0.50 or MLBS <50. Localities showed following the collection numbers.

FIGURE 3. Bayesian majority consensus tree based on trnH-psbA+trnL-trnF+trnS-trnG+psbK-psbI combined datasets. The posterior probability (PP) values listed above the branches; the maximum likelihood bootstrap support (MLBS) below the branches; –, branches not support, PP <0.50 or MLBS <50. Localities showed following the collection numbers.

FIGURE 4. Sampling locations and chloroplast DNA haplotype distributions of Ficus auriculata complex. Haplotypes 1–33 are distinguished by serial number and closely related haplotypes are marked with same color. Small white circles represent missing or unsampled haplotypes.

FIGURE 5. Genetic distances shown by UPGMA clustering tree based on codom-genotypic SSR data. Scale at the bottom is genetic distance generated by GenALEx software.Two clades were uncovered: cladeA comprises all the samples of Ficus auriculata, F. oligodon, F. hainanensis and F. beipeiensis, and clade B comprises all the samples of F. variegata.

FIGURE 6. Genetic distances shown by principal coordinate analysis based on codom-genotypic SSR data. Two clusters were detected, of which the upper right one corresponds to Ficus variegata, and the other one corresponds to Ficus auriculata, F. oligodon, F. hainanensis and F. beipeiensis.