English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background    Iris  L. s.l. is one of the most diverse and well-known genera in the Asparagales, with approximately 250–300 circumscribed species and significant economic impact. The taxonomy of the genus has suffered dramatic changes in the last century, particularly in the last decades after the application of molecular techniques. As a result several contrasting systematic arrangements are currently available to taxonomists. Many genera that were split from  Iris  s.str. in the past, on the basis of morphology (e.g.,  Hermodactylus ,  Iridodictyum ,  Juno ,  Pardanthopsis , and  Xiphion , among others), are now  a priori  re-included in a very widely circumscribed  Iris  s.l. (incl.  Belamcanda ). This resulted in a more heterogeneous genus that is more difficult to define on morphological grounds. Testing congruence between taxonomic treatments and the results of recent molecular studies of  Iris  has never been performed, mostly due to the lack of proper taxonomic context.    Results  We generated several conventional phylogenies for  Iris  & outgroups using extensive sampling of taxa (187) and characters (10 plastid loci). We demonstrate that the natural history of  Iris , written either as conventional molecular phylogenies or, if viewing in the context of the comparative approach, as a nested most parsimonious hierarchy of patterns, appear to be fully congruent with the narrow taxonomical treatment of the genus, restricted to the rhizomatous “bearded” taxa. The resulting topologies place  Belamcanda ,  Pardanthopsis , and  Gattenhofia  as sisters to  Iris  s.str. and genus  Siphonostylis  as sister to  Iris  s.l.    Conclusion  The present study clearly justifies the splitting of  Iris  s.l. into at least 23 genera, 18 of which have already been accepted in the past by numerous authorities. These genera are characterized by unique combinations of partly overlapping morphological characters and biogeography. Moreover, nearly the same entities, which we here recognize at a generic rank, were for centuries frequently referred to by horticulturists as “working-name” groups.

At Least 23 Genera Instead of One: The Case of Iris L. s.l. (Iridaceae)