Ficus auriculata (Berg & Corner, 2005)

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

Combination of Ficus auriculata , F. oligodon , F. hainanensis , and F. beipeiensis

A previous study reported that Ficus auriculata and F. oligodon (shown as auriculata - form and oligodon -form of F. auriculata ) presented synchronous fruiting period and the hybrid seeds could germinate ( Yang et al. 2012). These fig trees also shared the pollinator Ceratosolen emarginatus Mayr ( Yang et al. 2012). Further, the pollinators of F. auriculata could reproduce in the syconia of F. hainanensis and pollinators of F. hainanensis ( Ceratosolen sp. ) can breed their next generation in the syconia of F. auriculata ( Yang et al. 2012) . According to Deng et al. (2015), wasps from F. oligodon (misidentified as F. beipeiensis ) can pollinate female flowers of F. beipeiensis and resulting hybrid seeds. The phylogenetic trees based on Cytb and EF1α confirmed that it was common to see mutual pollination in the sympatric F. auriculata , F. oligodon , and F. hainanensis ( Wei et al. 2014) . It is clear that the non-strict specific pollinators in the co-evolution system limited the differentiation of F. auriculata complex and blurred the interspecific boundaries.

Within these four species, a few sub-branches with high support ( Fig. 2 , C and D, Fig. 3 , B and C) and regional haplotypes were detected ( Fig. 4 ); however, they were not monophyletic and without specialized morphological characters. The samples collected from Motuo in Xizang appeared clustered. However, this might be attributed to intensive sampling from this area. The population sampling strategy of Wei et al. (2014) confirmed the existence of four genetic groups (excluding F. beipeiensis ), which is beneficial for detailed co-evolutionary and infraspecific researches. Considering the existence of morphological and genetic continuity, and the influence of diverse speciation modes ( Baker, 2005), it is wise to regard these four traditional species as parts of a biological species. Before obtaining comprehensive evidences for identifiable subgroups, subspecies/varieties taxonomic treatments will not be carried out.

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.