z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Karyomorphology, heterochromatin patterns and evolution in the genus Ophrys (Orchidaceae)
Author(s) -
D’EMERICO SAVERIO,
PIG DOMENICO,
BARTOLO GIUSEPPINA,
PULVIRENTI SANTE,
TERRASI CARMEN,
STUTO SALVATORE,
SCRUGLI ANTONIO
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
botanical journal of the linnean society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.872
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1095-8339
pISSN - 0024-4074
DOI - 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2005.00393.x
Subject(s) - biology , karyotype , heterochromatin , botany , genus , orchidaceae , chromosome , evolutionary biology , zoology , genetics , gene
Karyotype structures and heterochromatin distribution in representative taxa of the genus Ophrys are compared, based on Feulgen‐stained and banded somatic metaphase chromosomes. The karyotypes of Ophrys iricolor , O. lupercalis , O. caesiella , O. lutea , O. lunulata , O. x. tardans , O. apifera , O. praecox , O. lacaitae and O. insectifera are described for the first time. The karyological analyses indicate the relationships among the species with respect to asymmetry indices and heterochromatin content. Chromosomal differences have been helpful in clarifying the taxonomic position of Ophrys species that do not have clear affinities. The representative species of Araniferae , Fuciflorae and Ophrys sections exhibited the most asymmetrical karyotypes, while chromosome complements of the O. fusca–O. lutea group, of O. tenthredinifera and of O. bombyliflora proved to be less asymmetrical. Weakly heterochromatic chromosomes, with heterochromatin present mostly in thin centromeric bands, characterize Ophrys C‐banded karyotypes. Chromomycin A 3 (CMA) staining revealed that the analysed species exhibit a weak pattern of CMA + bands at centromeric, intercalary or telomeric regions. No DAPI bright blocks were observed. The significance  of  the  karyological  data  is  discussed  with  regard  to  the  relationships  between  the  analysed  species. © 2005 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society , 2005, 148 , 87–99.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here