Seringia J.Gay and Keraudrenia J.Gay are widely spread in Australia, and one species occurs in Madagascar. Revision of these closely related genera suggested that neither genus is monophyletic on the basis of morphological or preliminary molecular data. As a result, Keraudrenia is subsumed into Seringia. There are now 20 species of Seringia, including the currently accepted type species Seringia platyphylla J.Gay (=Seringia arborescens (W.T.Aiton) Druce). Five new species S. adenogyna C.F.Wilkins, S. cacaobrunnea C.F.Wilkins, S. elliptica C.F.Wilkins, S. undulata C.F.Wilkins and S. saxatilis C.F.Wilkins are described. Four species of Keraudrenia initially described as Seringia and recognised as the latter by F. J. H. von Mueller are reinstated (S. adenolasia F.Muell., S. corollata Steetz, S. lanceolata Steetz, S. nephrosperma F.Muell.). Five previous combinations of Keraudrenia and Seringia as Seringia are recognised (S. hermanniifolia (J.Gay) F.Muell., S. hillii (Benth.) F.Muell., S. hookeriana (Walp.) F.Muell., S. integrifolia (Steud.) F.Muell., S. velutina (Steetz) F.Muell.) and five new combinations are made (S. collina (Domin) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock, S. denticulata (C.T.White) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock, S. exastia (C.F.Wilkins) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock, S. katatona (C.F.Wilkins) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock, S. macrantha (Baill.) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock. Keraudrenia collina var. multiflora Domin is placed in synonymy under S. nephrosperma F.Muell. Keraudrenia corollata var. denticulata C.T.White is recognised as a distinct species, S. denticulata (C.T.White) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock. Anatomical studies, taxonomic descriptions, distribution maps, illustrations and identification keys are presented for Seringia, and an identification key to genera of the tribe Lasiopetaleae is provided.

Eucalyptus is a genus that occurs in a range of habitats in Australia, Papua New Guinea, Timor, Sulawesi and the Philippines, with several species being used as sources of timber and fibre. However, despite its ecological and commercial significance, understanding its evolutionary history remains a challenge. The focus of the present study is the green ashes (subgenus Eucalyptus section Eucalyptus). Although previous studies, based primarily on morphology, suggest that the green ashes form a monophyletic group, there has been disagreement concerning the divergence of taxa. The present study aims to estimate the phylogeny of the green ashes and closely related eucalypts (37 taxa from over 50 locations in south-eastern Australia), using genome-wide analyses based on Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT). Results of analyses were similar in topology and consistent with previous phylogenies based on sequence data. Many of the relationships supported those proposed by earlier workers. However, other relationships, particularly of taxa within the Sydney region and Blue Mountains, were not consistent with previous classifications. These findings raise important questions concerning how we define species and discern relationships in Eucalyptus and may have implications for other plant species, particularly those with a complex evolutionary history where hybridisation and recombination have occurred.

Phalaris L. (Poaceae, canary grasses) is a genus of 20 species found throughout the world with endemic, cosmopolitan, invasive and forage species. A variety of features in the genus underscore its importance for the study of polyploid evolution in relation to biodiversity, ecological niche expansion or contraction, endemism, and invasiveness. A formal and comprehensive infrageneric classification for Phalaris is lacking. This study utilises molecular phylogenetics (nuclear ITS and plastid trnT–F regions), morphological features (primarily floret structure) and chromosome cytology to present the first comprehensive taxonomic classification for the genus. Two subgenera (Phalaris and Phalaroides) and five sections (Phalaris, Phalaroides, Caroliniana, Bulbophalaris, Heterachne) are established here to accommodate the 20 Phalaris species. Keys to the subgenera and sections, morphological descriptions, and a list of synonymy are provided.

The Styphelieae is the largest of the seven tribes within the subfamily Epacridoideae Arn. (Ericaceae Juss.). Recent molecular phylogenetic work has resulted in the recircumscription of some genera and the erection of new ones, but several non-monophyletic genera remain. Most of them are concentrated in the well-supported Styphelia–Astroloma clade, which contains species currently assigned to Leucopogon R.Br., Styphelia Sm., Astroloma R.Br., Croninia J.M. Powell and Coleanthera Stschegl. Parsimony and Bayesian analyses of sequence data from four plastid markers (rbcL, matK, trnH–psbA, and atpB–rbcL), and the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) for 207 taxa corroborate the polyphyly of the genera Astroloma, Leucopogon and Styphelia and resolve 12 well supported groups. Of these groups, two can be distinguished by unique morphological features and another six by different character combinations. The remaining groups are morphologically heterogeneous and inconsistent, and not readily distinguishable. A number of species remain ungrouped either because their phylogenetic relationships are not clear or because they do not show strong morphological affinities with the group to which they have a close phylogenetic relationship. Translating the results into a phylogenetic classification is a choice between accepting a single, large genus or at least 12 smaller genera. The first option would result in a heterogeneous assemblage conveying limited morphological information. The multi-generic option would be a better reflection of the morphological diversity of the clade, but would result in many genera lacking readily observable, diagnostic morphological characters. We prioritise the nomenclatural stability inherent in the former approach and advocate expanding Styphelia to include all taxa in the Styphelia–Astroloma clade.

In two recent papers in this journal a leading proponent of panbiogeography, Michael Heads, has continued his critique of long-distance dispersal and molecular clocks, and promotion of alternative geological and evolutionary ideas. An axiomatic rejection of long-distance dispersal, on the grounds that it has no explanatory power, informs these critiques. However, fundamental issues with panbiogeographic theory remain unaddressed. In particular, insurmountable problems for most biologists are created by the requirement for a widespread, often ancient ancestor from which vicariant taxa arose through orthogenesis, and rejection of a role for natural selection or environmental change in species formation. Heads also discusses events in New Zealand in the late 1980s and early 1990s and claims the reaction of the scientific establishment to panbiogeography resulted in two panbiogeographers losing tenured positions, and excluded, silenced or drove the rest into exile. This is a dramatic but misleading interpretation of what happened. The losses of positions were unconnected to science issues. That it is difficult to get panbiogeographic work funded or published in New Zealand is undoubtedly true, but this fate is shared by any work that seeks to overturn established evolutionary theory but provides no convincing evidence for doing so.