Translator Disclaimer
27 February 2006 A synopsis of Chenopodiaceae subfam. Betoideae and notes on the taxonomy of Beta
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

http://dx.doi.org/)

A synopsis of the phylogeny and systematics of subfamily Betoideae of the Chenopodiaceae is provided and a modified subfamilial classification proposed. Betoideae contain five or six genera, i.e. Beta, Patellifolia, Aphanisma, Oreobliton and Hablitzia. The inclusion of Acroglochin in Betoideae is not clearly resolved by molecular evidence. The five genera (excl. Acroglochin) fall into two clades. These are Beteae with Beta only, and Hablitzieae with the remaining four genera. Of these four genera, Patellifolia formerly has been regarded as a section of Beta (B. sect. Procumbentes). The closer relationship of Patellifolia to Hablitzieae rather than to Beta is supported not only by molecular but also by flower morphological characters. Molecular evidence, in part newly generated, suggests that Beta can be divided into two well-supported groups. These are B. sect. Corollinae and B. sect. Beta. The often recognized unispecific B. sect. Nanae should be included in B. sect. Corollinae. In B. sect. Beta, probably only two species, B. macrocarpa and B. vulgaris, should be recognized.

See the PDF.

References

1.

P. Aellen 1960: Beta L. — Pp. 550–569 in: K. H. Rechinger (ed.), Hegi, Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, ed. 2, 3(2). — München. Google Scholar

2.

P. W. Ball 1964: Beta L. — Pp. 91–92 in: T. G. Tutin , V. H. Heywood , N. A. Burges , D. H. Valentine , S. M. Walters & D. A. Webb (ed.), Flora europaea, ed. 1, 1. — Cambridge, etc. Google Scholar

3.

P. W. Ball & J. R. Akeroyd 1993: Beta L. — Pp. 110–111 in: T. G. Tutin , N. A. Burges , A. O. Chater , J. R. Edmondson , V. H. Heywood , D. M. Moore , D. H. Valentine , S. M. Walters & D. A. Webb (ed.), Flora europaea, ed. 2, 1. — Cambridge, etc. Google Scholar

4.

P. Boudry , M. Mörchen , P. Saumitou-Laparade , P. Vernet & H. Van Dijk 1993: The origin and evolution of weed beet: consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide resistent transgenic sugar beets. —  Theor. Appl. Genet. 87: 471–478. [  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5.

K. P. Buttler 1977a: Revision von Beta section Corollinae (Chenopodiaceae) I. Selbststerile Basisarten. — Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 13: 255–336. Google Scholar

6.

K. P. Buttler 1977b: Variation in wild populations of annual beet (Beta, Chenopodiaceae). —  Pl. Syst. Evol. 128: 123–136. [  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7.

G. H. Coons 1954: The wild species of Beta. — Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 8: 142–147. Google Scholar

8.

G. J. Curtis 1968: Observations on fruit shape and other characters in the species of the section Patellares, genus Beta. — Euphytica 17: 485–491.[  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9.

B. V. Ford-Lloyd & J. T. Williams 1975: A revision of Beta section Vulgares (Chenopodiaceae), with new light on the origin of cultivated beets. — Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 71: 89–102. Google Scholar

10.

W. Greuter , H. M. Burdet & G. Long 1984: Med-Checklist 1. — Genève & Berlin. Google Scholar

11.

A. A. Grossgeim 1945: Flora kavkaza 3. — Baku. Google Scholar

12.

A. M. Gutiérrez Bustillo 1990: Beta L. — Pp. 478–484 in: S. Castroviejo , M. Lainz , G. López González , P. Montserrat , F. Muñoz Garmendia , J. Paiva & L. Villar (ed.), Flora iberica 2. — Madrid. Google Scholar

13.

S. Hohmann , J. W. Kadereit & G. Kadereit (in press): Understanding Mediterranean-Californian disjunctions: evidence from Chenopodiaceae-Betoideae. — Taxon. Google Scholar

14.

P. K. Holmgren & N. H. Holmgren 1998- (continuously updated): Index herbariorum. —  http://sciweb.nybg.org/science2/IndexHerbariorum.asp  Google Scholar

15.

J. Jalas & J. Suominen 1980: Atlas Florae Europaeae 5. — Helsinki. Google Scholar

16.

B. Jassem 1976: Embryology and genetics of apomixis in the section Corollinae of the genus Beta. — Acta Biol. Cracov., Bot. 19: 149–172. Google Scholar

17.

B. Jassem 1980: Origin and reproduction of higher polyploids within the Corollinae section of the genus Beta. — Genet. Polon. 21: 18–27. Google Scholar

18.

C. Jung , K. Pillen , L. Frese , S. Fähr & A. E. Melchinger 1993: Phylogenetic relationships between cultivated and wild species of the genus Beta revealed by DNA “fingerprinting”. —  Theor. Appl. Genet. 86: 449–457.[  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19.

G. Kadereit , T. Borsch , K. Weising & H. Freitag 2003: Phylogeny of Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. —  Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 959–986.[  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20.

U. Kühn , V. Bittrich , R. Carolin , H. Freitag , I. C. Hedge , P. Uotila & P. G. Wilson 1993: Chenopodiaceae. — Pp. 253–281 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, etc. Google Scholar

21.

W. Lange , W. A. Brandenburg & T. S. M. de Bock 1999: Taxonomy and cultonomy of beet (Beta vulgaris L.). —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 130: 81–96.[  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22.

J. P. W. Letschert 1993: Beta section Beta: biogeographical patterns of variation, and taxonomy. — Wageningen. Google Scholar

23.

J. P. W. Letschert , W. Lange , L. Frese & R. G. van den Berg 1994: Taxonomy of Beta Section Beta. — J. Sugar Beet Res. 31: 69–85. Google Scholar

24.

D. R. Maire 1961: Flore de l'Afrique du Nord 8. — Paris. Google Scholar

25.

H. Meusel , E. Jäger & E. Weinert 1965: Vergleichende Chorologie der zentraleuropäischen Flora 2. — Jena. Google Scholar

26.

G. Mita , M. Dani , P. Casciari , A. Pasquali , E. Selva , C. Minganti & P. Piccardi 1991: Assessment of the degree of genetic variation in beet based on RFLP analysis and the taxonomy of Beta. — Euphytica 55: 1–6.[  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27.

K. Müller & T. Borsch 2005: Phylogenetics of Amaranthaceae based on matK/trnK sequence data — evidence from parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 92: 66–102. Google Scholar

28.

P. A. Munz 1974: A Flora of southern California. — Berkeley, etc. Google Scholar

29.

D. Posada & K. A. Crandall 1998: Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. — Bioinformatics 14: 817–818. Google Scholar

30.

D. Pratt 2003: Phylogeny and morphological evolution of Chenopodiaceae-Amaranthaceae alliance. — Ph. D. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames. Google Scholar

31.

A. J. Scott , B. V. Ford-Lloyd & J. T. Williams 1977: Patellifolia, nomen novum (Chenopodiaceae). — Taxon 26: 284.[  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32.

L. M. Shultz 2004: Chenopodiaceae Ventenat: 3. Aphanisma. — P. 264 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), The flora of North America 4. — New York & Oxford. Google Scholar

33.

Y. Shen , B. V. Ford-Lloyd & H. J. Newbury 1998: Genetic relationships within the genus Beta determined using both PCR-based marker and DNA sequencing techniques. — Heredity 80: 624–632.[  CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34.

D. L. Swofford 2002: PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), Version 4.0.beta 10. — Sunderland, MA. Google Scholar

35.

K. Tan 1997: Beta L. — Pp. 110–112 in: A. Strid & K. Tan (ed.). Flora hellenica 1. — Königstein. Google Scholar

36.

V. A. Transhel“ 1927: Obzor vida roda Beta. — Trudy Prikl. Bot. Genet. Selek. 17: 203–223. Google Scholar

37.

E. Ulbrich 1934: Chenopodiaceae. — Pp. 379–584 in: A. Engler & K. Prantl (ed.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, ed. 2, 16c. — Leipzig. Google Scholar

38.

G. Volkens 1892: Chenopodiaceae. — Pp. 36–91 in: A. Engler & K. Prantl (ed.). Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, ed. 1, 1a. — Leipzig. Google Scholar

39.

H. Wagner , E. M. Gimbel & G. Wricke 1989: Are Beta procumbens Chr. Sm. and Beta webbiana Moq. different species? — Pl. Breed. (New York) 102: 17–21. Google Scholar

40.

V. P. Zosimovich 1940: Dikie vidy i proishozhdenie kul'turnoj svekly. — Sveklovodstvo 1: 17–85. Google Scholar
Gudrun Kadereit, Sandra Hohmann, and Joachim W. Kadereit "A synopsis of Chenopodiaceae subfam. Betoideae and notes on the taxonomy of Beta," Willdenowia 36(1), 9-19, (27 February 2006). https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.36.36101
Published: 27 February 2006
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top