helechos sistematica
DESCRIPTION
fernsTRANSCRIPT
-
1582
American Journal of Botany 91(10): 15821598. 2004.
PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNS(MONILOPHYTES) WITH A FOCUS ON THE EARLY
LEPTOSPORANGIATE DIVERGENCES1
KATHLEEN M. PRYER,2,6 ERIC SCHUETTPELZ,2 PAUL G. WOLF,3HARALD SCHNEIDER,2,4 ALAN R. SMITH,5 AND RAYMOND CRANFILL5
2Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 USA; 3Department of Biology, Utah State University,Logan, Utah 84322 USA; 4Albrecht-von-Haller-Institut fur Pflanzenwissenschaften, Abteilung Systematische Botanik,
Georg-August-Universitat, Untere Karspule 2, 37073 Gottingen, Germany; and 5University Herbarium, University of California,Berkeley, California 94720 USA
The phylogenetic structure of ferns (5 monilophytes) is explored here, with a special focus on the early divergences amongleptosporangiate lineages. Despite considerable progress in our understanding of fern relationships, a rigorous and comprehensiveanalysis of the early leptosporangiate divergences was lacking. Therefore, a data set was designed here to include critical taxa thatwere not included in earlier studies. More than 5000 bp from the plastid (rbcL, atpB, rps4) and the nuclear (18S rDNA) genomeswere sequenced for 62 taxa. Phylogenetic analyses of these data (1) confirm that Osmundaceae are sister to the rest of the leptospor-angiates, (2) resolve a diverse set of ferns formerly thought to be a subsequent grade as possibly monophyletic (((Dipteridaceae,Matoniaceae), Gleicheniaceae), Hymenophyllaceae), and (3) place schizaeoid ferns as sister to a large clade of core leptosporangiatesthat includes heterosporous ferns, tree ferns, and polypods. Divergence time estimates for ferns are reported from penalized likelihoodanalyses of our molecular data, with constraints from a reassessment of the fossil record.
Key words: Bayesian inference; divergence time estimates; ferns; fossil record; molecular systematics; monilophytes; penalizedlikelihood; vascular plant evolution.
Among green plant lineages, none are as species-rich asvascular plants (tracheophytes). The various members of thislineage, such as clubmosses, ferns, horsetails, gymnosperms,and angiosperms, are easy to recognize as monophyletic be-cause of their shared derived features. Vascular plants are char-acterized by the presence of tracheids and sieve elements (vas-cular tissue) for structural support and long-distance move-ment of water and nutrients throughout the plant body, a high-ly structured and dominant (or co-dominant) sporophyte phase,and branched (polysporangiate) sporophytes. This combinationof features has allowed vascular plants to become the mostconspicuous organisms on the planet and the dominant pri-mary producers in terrestrial ecosystems.
Traditionally, the vascular plant tree of life has been viewedas consisting of several grades of taxa. More explicitly, vas-cular plant evolution was seen as a successive series of incre-mental increases in complexity, from simple bryophytic an-
1 Manuscript received 29 February 2004; revision accepted 22 June 2004.The authors are especially grateful to Mark Chase, Jeffrey Palmer, and
Douglas Soltis for their invitation to provide a contribution on ferns to thisspecial issue and for their patience and encouragement throughout manuscriptpreparation. We thank Frank Axelrod, Julie Barcelona, David Barrington, Da-vid Conant, Jean-Yves Dubuisson, John Game, Jeffrey Hill, Barbara J. Hosh-izaki, Masahiro Kato, David Lorence, Tarek Milleron, Robbin Moran, TomRanker, Patricia Sanchez-Baracaldo, Laurens H. Smith Jr., Hanna Tuomisto,Dennis Wall, and Henk van der Werff for sending us plant material; JohannesVogel for sharing a previously unpublished rps4 sequence for Asplenium scol-opendrium; Jeffrey Hunt and Sedonia Sipes for assistance with DNA sequenc-ing; Mark Chase, Jeff Palmer, and two anonymous reviewers for useful com-ments on the manuscript; and curators and staff, especially Holly Forbes, atthe University of California Botanical Garden, and the University of GottingenBotanical Garden. This work was supported in part by NSF grants DEB-9615533 and DEB-0347840 to K. M. P., DEB-0408077 to K. M. P. and E. S.,DEB-0089909 to K. M. P. and H. S., DEB-9616260 to A. R. S., DEB-9707087to P. G. W., and DEB-0073036 to R. C.
6 E-mail: [email protected].
cestors through vascularized spore producers, more complexseed plants, and ultimately to angiosperms. In the past 20years, however, we have witnessed unprecedented interest andinsight into the phylogenetic relationships among major groupsof living (and extinct) vascular plants, and the former pictureof vascular plant evolution, one of predominant paraphyly, ischanging as the tracheophyte tree of life begins to come intofocus (Crane, 1985a, b; Mishler and Churchill, 1985; Doyleand Donoghue, 1986a, b, 1992; Loconte and Stevenson, 1990,1991; Raubeson and Jansen, 1992; Chase et al., 1993; Garbaryet al., 1993; Doyle et al., 1994; Manhart, 1994; Mishler et al.,1994; Nixon et al., 1994; Rothwell and Serbet, 1994; Hasebeet al., 1995; Pryer et al., 1995, 2001a, 2004; Kranz and Huss,1996; Kenrick and Crane, 1997; Doyle, 1998; Wolf et al.,1998; Mathews and Donoghue, 1999, 2000; Qiu et al., 1999,2000; P. S. Soltis et al., 1999, 2004; Barkman et al., 2000;Chaw et al., 2000; Kenrick, 2000; Nickrent et al., 2000; Ren-zaglia et al., 2000; D. E. Soltis et al., 2000, 2002; Gensel andBerry, 2001; Pigg, 2001; Rydin et al., 2002; Burleigh andMathews, 2004; Soltis and Soltis, 2004). These advances to-ward a more complete understanding of vascular plant rela-tionships have not been tied to the use of any one type ofevidence, but instead have attempted to make sense of allthe available data, molecular and morphological (includingboth fossil and extant organisms).
It is now commonly agreed that a deep phylogenetic di-chotomy occurred in the early-mid Devonian (ca. 400 millionyears ago [mya]), separating a group that includes the modernlycophytes (less than 1% of extant vascular plants) from agroup that contains all other living vascular plant lineages, theeuphyllophytes (Fig. 1; Raubeson and Jansen, 1992; Kenrickand Crane, 1997; Doyle, 1998; Nickrent et al., 2000; Pryer etal., 2001a, 2004). The extant lycophytes all possess lycophylls(leaves with an intercalary meristem) and comprise three main
-
October 2004] 1583PRYER ET AL.PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNS
Fig. 1. Consensus tree showing relationships among the major lineages of vascular plants (based on Pryer et al., 2001a). Key clades are indicated on thetree: T 5 tracheophytes, L 5 lycophytes, E 5 euphyllophytes, S 5 spermatophytes, M 5 monilophytes. A black band following a lineage name indicatesmembership of that lineage within a particular taxon listed across the top of the figure (taxa that are not monophyletic are in quotes).
clades: homosporous Lycopodiales (clubmosses), and hetero-sporous Isoetales (quillworts) and Selaginellales (spikemoss-es). Although living lycophytes are almost all relatively di-minutive plants, many fossil members of this lineage, includ-ing such well-known examples as Lepidodendron, were largearborescent forms that dominated the Carboniferous landscapeand that today are the major component of coal deposits(Stewart and Rothwell, 1993).
Euphyllophytesthe sister group to lycophytesare char-acterized by euphylls (leaves with marginal or apical meri-stems and an associated leaf gap in the vascular stele), lateralbranches that terminate in sporangia, and a distinctively lobedprimary xylem strand (Stein, 1993; Kenrick and Crane, 1997).Extant members also possess a 30-kilobase inversion in thelarge single-copy region of the plastid genome (Raubeson andJansen, 1992). Living euphyllophytes belong to two majorclades (Fig. 1): seed plants (spermatophytes) and monilophytes(Kenrick and Crane, 1997; Nickrent et al., 2000; Pryer et al.,2001). Spermatophytes are united by the presence of seeds(megasporangia surrounded by integument tissue), wood pro-duced through the activity of a secondary meristem (cambi-um), and axillary branching. Extant seed plants likely numberbetween 250 000 and 300 000 species (Thorne, 2002; but seeScotland and Wortley, 2003) distributed unequally among fivemajor clades: cycads, Ginkgo, conifers, gnetophytes, and an-giosperms. Several extinct fossil lineages also belong to thisgroup, including pteridosperms, Bennettitales, and glossopter-ids. Recent phylogenetic analyses, including those based on acombination of genes from all three genomes, have revealedconflicting signals regarding the relationships among extantspermatophyte lineages (Bowe et al., 2000; Chaw et al., 2000;Magallon and Sanderson, 2002; Rydin and Kallersjo, 2002;Rydin et al., 2002; D. E. Soltis et al., 2002). Other papers in
this special issue deal specifically with seed plant relationships(Burleigh and Mathews, 2004; Crane et al., 2004; Soltis andSoltis, 2004); the remainder of this paper will focus on thesister group to the spermatophytes, the monilophytes (Fig. 1).
The monilophytes (5 Infradivision Moniliformopses, sensuKenrick and Crane, 1997) share a distinctive vasculature, hav-ing protoxylem confined to lobes of the xylem strand (Stein,1993), therefore the Latin moniliformis appellation for neck-lace-like. The monophyly of this clade has been inferredfrom cladistic analyses of morphology including fossil taxa(Kenrick and Crane, 1997), studies of sperm ultrastructure(Renzaglia et al., 2000, 2001, 2002), and analyses of DNAsequence data (Nickrent et al., 2000; Renzaglia et al., 2000;Pryer et al., 2001a). Extant members, which number more than11 500 species, have a three-residue (nine-nucleotide) insertionin the plastid rps4 gene (Pryer et al., 2001a) and belong tofive major lineages: whisk ferns (Psilotales), ophioglossoidferns (Ophioglossales), horsetails (Equisetopsida), marattioidferns (Marattiales), and leptosporangiate ferns (Polypodiales)(Fig. 1). The Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous cladoxy-lopsids (e.g., Iridopteridales and Pseudosporochnales), whichhave characteristics of both ferns and horsetails, are almostcertainly among the stem groups (Fig. 2) of the monilophytes(Skog and Banks, 1973; Stein et al., 1984; Berry and Stein,2000; Hilton et al., 2003).
Monilophytes, like lycophytes, are all spore bearing andseed-free. Because of this, members of these two lineageswere traditionally lumped under various terms, such as pte-ridophytes or ferns and fern allies (Fig. 1). These termsserved the botanical community well while there was littleresolution or understanding of the relationships among thesetaxa. Now, however, we have considerable confidence in thebroad-scale phylogenetic relationships of vascular plants; we
-
1584 [Vol. 91AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Fig. 2. Crown group and total group age definitions, as utilized in thisstudy. Crown group age refers to the time of the deepest divergence amongthe extant taxa in the total group of interest. Total group age refers to thetime of divergence of the total group (crown group 1 stem group fossils)from its sister group.
therefore prefer to use the terms monilophytes (or quite sim-ply, a more inclusive, ferns) and lycophytes, which specifyclade membership, to the terms pteridophytes and fernsand fern allies that unite paraphyletic assemblages of plants(Fig. 1). Likewise, the term eusporangiate ferns circum-scribes a nonmonophyletic unit and should be avoided (al-though using the word eusporangiate in a descriptive sense,such as a eusporangiate lineage, may still be useful in de-scribing sporangial morphology and development). On the oth-er hand, leptosporangiate ferns is a long-standing and fa-miliar term that does define a monophyletic group and contin-ues to be informative.
Within ferns (monilophytes), the first dichotomy separatesa clade consisting of whisk ferns and ophioglossoid ferns froma clade comprising horsetails, marattioid ferns, and leptospor-angiate ferns (Fig. 1). Whisk ferns and ophioglossoids are bothrelatively small lineages (just over 100 species total in twofamilies and about four generamore if one recognizes thesegregates of Botrychium at generic rank; see Hauk et al.,2003) and both have a poor fossil record. The sister relation-ship between these two lineages has only been identified re-cently (Manhart, 1995; Pahnke et al., 1996; Wolf, 1997; Nick-rent et al., 2000; Pryer et al., 2001a; but see Rothwell, 1999),and unique synapomorphies are cryptic because of the extentof morphological simplification present in both families. Somewhisk ferns, in fact, have such strikingly simplified body plans(pseudodichotomously branched sporophytes, no roots, andhighly reduced leaves) that they were long thought to be re-lated to some of the earliest fossil lineages of vascular plants(Parenti, 1980; Bremer, 1985), such as Rhynia. Reduction ofthe root system, however, does appear to be a shared trait.Ophioglossoids have simple, unbranched roots that lack roothairs, and whisk ferns lack roots altogether (Schneider et al.,2002). In addition, both groups have axial (and subterranean)gametophytes, sporangia that are adaxially attached, and a eu-sporangiate pattern of sporangial development, although theseare not unique synapomorphies.
Relationships among the horsetail, marattioid, and leptospo-
rangiate fern lineages remain elusive (Pryer et al., 2001a) andare shown in Fig. 1 as a polytomy. Horsetails are an ancientgroup of plants with fossil relatives dating back to the LateDevonian. Members of this clade have whorled appendages, acharacteristic stele, highly reduced leaves, and sporangia borneon sporangiophores that are clustered into strobili in extantmembers (Kenrick and Crane, 1997). Fossil horsetails are di-verse and include some arborescent representatives, such asCalamites, with secondary xylem. These larger forms becameextinct in the Permian, but some herbaceous representativessurvived, including the Mesozoic Equisetites. There are 15species of living horsetails (Equisetum); all are relatively smallin stature compared to their woody ancestors and have aworldwide distribution, mostly in temperate regions. A recentmolecular phylogenetic analysis of horsetails (Des Marais etal., 2003) estimated that the Equisetum crown group (Fig. 2)diversified in the early Cenozoic, which is in agreement withdates estimated from fossils (Stewart and Rothwell, 1993). Thelong branch leading to the crown group (with no other livingtaxa to sample) is a complicating factor in determining theexact relationship of Equisetum to other monilophyte lineages(Wikstrom and Pryer, unpublished manuscript).
The marattioid ferns (Fig. 1) first appeared in the middleCarboniferous. In the Late Carboniferous and Permian severallarge marattioid representatives had evolved, including Psa-ronius, which reached heights of about 8 m. Many extantmembers are also treelike, but they do not possess secondarymeristematic tissues. They have distinctive polycyclic dictyo-steles and sporangia borne abaxially on the blades. This cladeis represented by more than 200 species in about four genera(including Marattia, Danaea, and Angiopteris) and is almostexclusively restricted to tropical regions (Hill and Camus,1986).
The most familiar of the monilophytes are the leptospor-angiate ferns (Fig. 1), a monophyletic group of more than11 000 species. These ferns are characterized by sporangia thatdevelop from a single cell and have mature sporangial wallsonly one cell thick; most possess a distinctive annulus thatserves to eject the spores (usually 64). Features of the sporan-giaincluding the shape and position of the annulus, thestructure and shape of sporangial groups (sori), and whetheror not a flap of tissue (indusium) protects the sorihave fig-ured prominently in the taxonomy and classification of theseferns. The earliest-known occurrence of leptosporangiate fernsis in the Early Carboniferous (Galtier and Scott, 1985; Galtierand Phillips, 1996); by the end of the Carboniferous six fam-ilies were present. In subsequent major filicalean radiations inthe Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic, several families (e.g., Os-mundaceae, Schizaeaceae, Matoniaceae, and Dipteridaceae)with extant representatives replaced these Carboniferous fam-ilies (Rothwell, 1987). The more-derived polypod ferns, whichcomprise more than 80% of living fern species, recently wereshown to have diversified in the Cretaceous (on the basis ofmolecular age estimates), suggesting an ecological opportu-nistic response to the diversification of angiosperms (Schnei-der et al., 2004b).
Increasingly robust phylogenetic hypotheses, broadly inclu-sive of ferns and utilizing data from single or multiple sources(e.g., morphology; plastid, nuclear, and/or mitochondrialgenes), have improved confidence in the composition of andthe relationships among many taxa historically treated at fa-milial and ordinal ranks (Hasebe et al., 1994, 1995; Manhart,1995; Pryer et al., 1995, 2001a; Kranz and Huss, 1996; Pahnke
-
October 2004] 1585PRYER ET AL.PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNS
et al., 1996; Rothwell, 1996, 1999; Schneider, 1996; Stevensonand Loconte, 1996; Wolf, 1997; Wolf et al., 1998; Vangerowet al., 1999; Schneider et al., 2004b). In this paper, we buildon our current, best estimate of monilophyte relationships(Renzaglia et al., 2000; Pryer et al., 2001a; Schneider et al.,2004b), with our primary aim to focus attention on the basalnodes of the leptosporangiate fern tree, for which we providenew DNA data and phylogenetic analyses. It should be notedthat for many of the more derived leptosporangiates (poly-pods), the overall phylogenetic picture is still equivocal (Wolfet al., 1994; Wolf, 1995; Murakami et al., 1999; Cranfill, 2001;Smith and Cranfill, 2002; Ranker et al., 2004; Schneider etal., 2004a, c) and in need of further sampling and study. Nev-ertheless, providing a robust overall framework for ferns, es-pecially at the base of the tree, will ultimately enable us toanswer some long-standing systematic questions and work to-ward understanding the patterns of character evolution thatgave rise to the Cretaceous radiation and diversification ofpolypod ferns (Schneider et al., 2004b).
MATERIALS AND METHODSTaxonomic samplingSixty-two taxa were selected to represent all major
vascular plant lineages (see Appendix 1 in Supplemental Data accompanyingthe online version of this article). Our sampling included three lycophytes(outgroup), each representing a different lineage, and six seed plants, includ-ing at least one representative from each of the five major lineages. Withinmonilophytes, the primary focus of this study, sampling was more extensiveand included at least two taxa from each of the eusporangiate lineages. Withinleptosporangiate ferns, 44 taxa were chosen to represent the major lineages,and we focused our sampling toward the basal nodes, with only a few ex-emplars from the hyperdiverse polypods.
DNA isolation, amplification, and sequencingGenomic DNA was ex-tracted from fresh, silica-dried, or herbarium leaf material using a modifiedDoyle and Doyle (1987) CTAB (cetyltrimethylammonium bromide) procedure(Dubuisson, 1997; Pryer et al., 2001b) or a DNeasy kit (Qiagen, Valencia,California, USA). For each taxon, four genes (plastid rbcL, atpB, rps4; nuclearsmall-subunit ribosomal DNA [18S]) were amplified separately using thepolymerase chain reaction (PCR), following established protocols (see Pryeret al., 2001b). PCR products were cleaned using QIAquick columns (Qiagen)according to the manufacturers protocol. Sequencing reactions were carriedout for both strands of the purified PCR products using Dye Terminator CycleSequencing or Big Dye Terminator Cycle Sequencing reagents (Applied Bio-systems, Foster City, California, USA). For information on amplification andsequencing primers see Appendix 2 in Supplemental Data accompanying theonline version of this article. All sequencing reactions were processed usingeither ABI 377 or ABI 3700 automated sequencers (Applied Biosystems), andeach sequencing read was evaluated for possible contamination using theNCBI nucleotide-nucleotide BLAST (blastn) tool (Altschul et al., 1997). Morethan one-third of the sequence data (97 new sequences) used in the analysesdescribed in this article were generated specifically for this study; all otherdata were obtained from GenBank (see Appendix 1 in Supplemental Dataaccompanying the online version of this article).
Sequence alignmentSequence fragments obtained as chromatogramswere edited and assembled into contiguous alignments using Sequencher(Gene Codes, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA). The resulting consensus sequencesfor each gene were aligned manually using MacClade version 4.05 (Maddisonand Maddison, 2000). The alignments for rbcL and atpB were straightforwardbecause no insertions or deletions (indels) were present. Indels, however, ex-isted in both the rps4 and 18S nrDNA alignments; translated amino acidsequences (rps4) and rRNA secondary structure (18S) were used as alignmentguides. Regions of ambiguous alignment (within rps4 and 18S nrDNA) wereexcluded from the subsequent analyses, as were portions of alignments at the59 and 39 ends that contained copious amounts of missing data.
Phylogenetic analysesTo assess the combinability of the four single-genedata sets, a procedure was invoked in which topological conflict among treesresulting from analyses of the individual data sets was examined. Each single-gene data set was analyzed independently with PAUP* version 4.0b10 (Swof-ford, 2002) using an equally weighted maximum parsimony bootstrap ap-proach to assess clade support (Felsenstein, 1985). For the plastid genes, thebootstrap analysis consisted of 1000 replicates, each with 10 random-addition-sequence replicates and tree bisection and reconnection (TBR) branch swap-ping. For 18S nrDNA, the bootstrap analysis consisted of 1000 replicates,each with one random-addition-sequence and TBR branch swapping, savinga maximum of 1000 trees per replicate (these modifications were necessaryhere to limit search time). The bootstrap consensus trees resulting from eachof the four analyses were compared visually for conflict (high support forincongruent relationships; see Appendix 3 in Supplemental Data accompa-nying the online version of this article). Using a significance threshold of70%, some topological conflict was detected with regard to the lycophyte andseed plant lineages. However, no significant conflict among the four geneswas detected within the study group (monilophytes), and for this reason, thesingle-gene molecular data sets were combined and analyzed in unison.
The combined data set was analyzed using a Bayesian Markov chain MonteCarlo (B/MCMC) approach, as implemented in MrBayes version 3.0b (Huel-senbeck and Ronquist, 2001). Each gene was assigned its own model of se-quence evolution (GTR 1 I 1 G for each), as determined using a hierarchicallikelihood ratio test in Modeltest (Posada and Crandall, 1998). Two indepen-dent B/MCMC analyses were conducted using these four models, flat priors,and four chains. Chains were run for 10 million generations, and trees weresampled every 1000 generations. Following completion, the sampled treesfrom each analysis were plotted against their likelihood to recognize the pointwhere the likelihoods converged on a maximum value. All trees prior to thisconvergence (500 trees; 500 000 generations, for each of the two analyses)were discarded as the burn-in phase. Because both analyses converged onthe same maximum, the post burn-in trees from each (19 000 total trees) werepooled, and a majority-rule consensus was calculated to obtain a topologywith average branch lengths, as well as posterior probabilities for all resolvednodes.
Phylogenetic analyses of the combined data set were also conducted usingmaximum likelihood and equally weighted maximum parsimony approaches,in PAUP* (Swofford, 2002). A heuristic search for the most likely tree wasconducted using a single model of sequence evolution (GTR 1 I 1 G; asidentified in Modeltest, using parameters as estimated in the program), 100random-addition-sequence replicates, and TBR branch swapping. A heuristicsearch for the most parsimonious tree was conducted using 1000 random-addition-sequence replicates and TBR branch swapping. Maximum likelihoodand maximum parsimony bootstrap analyses also were conducted. The max-imum parsimony bootstrap analysis consisted of 1000 replicates, each with10 random-addition-sequence replicates and TBR branch swapping. The max-imum likelihood bootstrap analysis utilized the same model of evolution se-lected for the original maximum likelihood search and consisted of 100 rep-licates, each with one random-addition-sequence and nearest neighbor inter-change (NNI) branch swapping (to limit the search time).
Divergence time estimationDivergence times were estimated using a pe-nalized likelihood approach (Sanderson, 2002) that does not require an as-sumption of rate constancy (i.e., a molecular clock). Instead, this methodcombines a parameter-rich model, allowing for a different rate of substitutionon every branch, with a roughness penalty that constrains rate fluctuationsfrom branch to branch. The relative contributions of these two componentsare controlled by a smoothing parameter that can be objectively selected usinga cross-validation procedure (Sanderson, 2002). We obtained divergence timeestimates for ferns through a penalized likelihood analysis (using the computerprogram r8s, version 1.60; Sanderson, 2003) of our Bayesian consensus tree,incorporating 21 fossil constraints from a reassessment of the fern fossil re-cord (see Table 1). In our analysis, the three lycophyte taxa were pruned fromthe tree, and the root of the resulting tree (i.e., the divergence of monilophytesfrom spermatophytes) was used as a calibration point based on the concurrentappearance of fossils belonging to each of these lineages in the Middle De-
-
1586 [Vol. 91AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
vonian (see Table 1). The appropriate smoothing value was determined usingcross validation; we considered values from 0.1 to 10 000, and the value 10received the best (i.e., lowest) cross validation score. Using this smoothingvalue, the Bayesian consensus tree, and the 21 fossil constraints, we searchedfor the solution that optimized the penalized likelihood function (10 randomstarts, each with 10 random perturbations; truncated Newton algorithm).
To evaluate the effects of phylogenetic uncertainty (Pagel and Lutzoni,2002), due to both topological and branch length estimation error, divergencetimes were also estimated for each of 100 Bayesian trees randomly sampledfrom among the 16 952 trees that contained all nodes with significant support(posterior probability $95%). For each tree, we identified the appropriatesmoothing value through cross validation and used penalized likelihood toestimate divergence times (as before). For these analyses, the fossil constraintswere applied only to well-supported nodes (posterior probability $95%); thethree fossil constraints that were applied to poorly supported nodes (posteriorprobability ,95%) in the consensus analysis were, for the 100 replicate anal-yses, applied to the next deeper well-supported node. The 100 molecular ageestimates for each well-supported node were averaged and their standard de-viation calculated.
RESULTS
AlignmentsThe mean sequence length, alignment length,number of characters included after pruning regions of ambig-uous alignment, numbers of variable and parsimony informa-tive characters, and percentage missing data are given forrbcL, atpB, rps4, and 18S nrDNA in Table 2. For some taxa,rps4 and/or atpB had premature stop codons within the gene,which are likely to be corrected with RNA editing (Wolf etal., in press).
Phylogenetic analysesThe Bayesian analysis of the four-gene combined data set yielded a well-resolved and well-sup-ported topology (Fig. 3). The maximum likelihood (ML) anal-ysis of the combined data set resulted in a single most-likelytree (2lnL 5 58 123.47526; tree not shown); and likewise, themaximum parsimony (MP) analysis of the combined data setresulted in a single most parsimonious tree (11 975 steps; CI5 0.273; RI 5 0.561; tree not shown). The ML tree is iden-tical in topology to the Bayesian tree (shown in Fig. 3), withone exception within polypod ferns. The MP tree is similar tothese two trees, but with some minor topological differenceswithin the polypod and tree fern clades, a conflicting place-ment of Gnetum, and a different relationship among the ly-cophyte outgroup taxa. In the tree resulting from the Bayesiananalysis, 43 of the 52 nodes in the monilophyte study group(Fig. 3) receive significant support from all three measuresBayesian posterior probabilities (PP $ 95), and maximumlikelihood and maximum parsimony bootstrap percentages(BPML $ 70 and BPMP $ 70, respectively).
Seed plants and monilophytes are strongly supported sistergroups (PP 5 100; BPML 5 100; BPMP 5 100). Within mon-ilophytes, each of the eusporangiate lineages (whisk ferns,ophioglossoid ferns, horsetails, and marattioid ferns), as wellas the leptosporangiate ferns, are strongly supported (PP 5100; BPML 5 100; BPMP 5 100). Likewise, whisk ferns to-gether with ophioglossoid ferns are well supported (PP 5 100;BPML 5 99; BPMP 5 100) and sister to the remaining moni-lophytes. Horsetails are resolved as sister to the marattioidferns regardless of the optimization criterion used, but thisrelationship is weakly supported by all three measures (PP 582; BPML , 50; BPMP 5 76). These two eusporangiate lineagesare always together with leptosporangiate ferns in a well-sup-ported clade (PP 5 100; BPML 5 88; BPMP 5 87).
All analyses provide exceptionally robust support (PP 5100; BPML 5 100; BPMP 5 100) for the following majorgroups of leptosporangiate ferns: osmundaceous ferns, filmyferns, schizaeoid ferns, core leptosporangiates, heterosporousferns, and polypod ferns (Fig. 3). Two remaining major groupsof leptosporangiate ferns were consistently resolved as mono-phyletic, but with somewhat reduced overall support: tree ferns(PP 5 100; BPML 5 84; BPMP 5 85) and gleichenioid ferns(sensu Jarrett, 1980) (PP 5 88; BPML 5 86; BPMP 5 88).Within leptosporangiates, the osmundaceous ferns are sister tothe rest (PP 5 100; BPML 5 100; BPMP 5 100).
As sister to all other leptosporangiates (minus Osmunda-ceae), our analyses identified a clade consisting of filmy fernstogether with gleichenioid ferns, and the Bayesian analysisprovided strong support (PP 5 96) for this relationship. Al-though this clade also was resolved consistently with maxi-mum parsimony and maximum likelihood, these two methodsprovided only weak support (BPML 5 55; BPMP 5 57). Withinthe gleichenioid ferns, there is robust support (PP 5 100; BPML5 100; BPMP 5 100) for the family Gleicheniaceae (Dicran-opteris, Gleichenella, Diplopterygium, Gleichenia, and Stich-erus) to include the often-separated genus Stromatopteris(Stromatopteridaceae of Bierhorst, 1977; Wagner, 1977). Thereis also strong support for a sister relationship between Chei-ropleuria 1 Dipteris and Matonia 1 Phanerosorus (PP 5100; BPML 5 97; BPMP 5 95), with that clade in turn sister toGleicheniaceae (PP 5 88; BPML 5 86; BPMP 5 88).
The schizaeoid ferns are sister to a robustly supported cladethat we here refer to as the core leptosporangiates (PP 5100; BPML 5 100; BPMP 5 100), which includes the hetero-sporous ferns, tree ferns, and polypods. Each of these lineagesis clearly monophyletic, but the relationships among them areequivocal. Within heterosporous ferns, two clades are wellsupported (PP 5 100; BPML 5 100; BPMP 5 100); within treeferns, some clades are also well supported, but the relation-ships among these remain ambiguous. Within polypods is agrade of enigmatic and species-poor genera (Saccoloma, Lon-chitis, Sphenomeris) leading to a well-supported (PP 5 100;BPML 5 100; BPMP 5 97), hyperdiverse clade that containsover 80% of all living fern species.
Divergence time estimatesThe results of our penalizedlikelihood analysis of the Bayesian consensus tree are pre-sented as a chronogram plotted against the geologic time scalein Fig. 4. Age estimates for all nodes, as well as mean agesand standard deviations (resulting from the 100 replicate anal-yses) for all well-supported nodes (nodes with black symbolsin Fig. 4), are presented in Table 1. Our divergence time es-timates are generally older than those implied by the fossilrecord, but they show relatively small standard deviations (Ta-ble 1).
According to our analyses, the initial divergence amongmonilophyte lineages (node 07, Fig. 4) occurred in the LateDevonian (;364 mya). All four eusporangiate lineages, aswell as the leptosporangiate fern lineage, were present by theend of the Carboniferous. We estimate that the whisk andophioglossoid fern lineages diverged from one another in theLate Carboniferous (;306 mya, node 08), with their crowngroup divergences in the Late Cretaceous (;88 mya, node 09)and Middle Jurassic (;162 mya, node 10), respectively (Fig.4; Table 1). As indicated by the fossil record, horsetails andmarattioid ferns had diverged from one another by the end ofthe Devonian (;354 mya, node 12, Fig. 4); however, the
-
October 2004] 1587PRYER ET AL.PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNS
crown group divergences within these groups appear to bemore recent phenomena. Extant horsetails are estimated tohave diversified in the Tertiary (;38 mya, node 13); extantmembers of the marattioid ferns (node 14) began to diversifyin the Middle Triassic (;237 mya, Fig. 4; Table 1).
Within leptosporangiate ferns, we estimate the earliest di-vergences to have occurred in the Carboniferous and Permian.These divergences gave rise to the osmundaceous, filmy, glei-chenioid, and schizaeoid ferns, as well as to the core leptospo-rangiates (Fig. 4). The initial divergence within the osmun-daceous ferns is estimated to have occurred by the end of theTriassic, and our analyses support an origin of the two majorfilmy fern lineages in the Jurassic (;163 mya, node 21, Fig.4). The earliest divergences within the gleichenioid ferns(nodes 22 and 23, Fig. 4), giving rise to the three extant glei-chenioid families (Gleicheniaceae, Dipteridaceae, and Maton-iaceae), occurred in the Permian (;263 mya) and Triassic (227mya), but we estimate divergences within each of these fam-ilies to be more recent (Cretaceous). The initial divergencewithin schizaeoid ferns (node 32, Fig. 4) is estimated to haveoccurred in the Triassic (;212 mya).
A Late Triassic diversification gave rise to the three majorlineages of core leptosporangiates (Fig. 4)heterosporousferns, tree ferns, and polypod ferns. The earliest divergenceswithin each of these lineages occurred in the Jurassic. Themost species-rich groups of polypod ferns, namely the eupo-lypods and pteridoids (nodes 55 and 57, respectively, Fig. 4),comprise more than 80% of extant fern species and are esti-mated to have diversified in the Cretaceous (consistent withthe findings of Schneider et al., 2004b).
DISCUSSION
Phylogenetic relationshipsThere has been a steady trendin recent years of increasing resolution at the base of the fernphylogeny. The results of our analyses of a four-gene (rbcL,atpB, rps4, 18S) combined data set provide the highest levelsof resolution and support to date across the backbone of theleptosporangiate tree (Fig. 3). This, combined with our exten-sive sampling within the early leptosporangiate divergences(including representatives from the majority of currently rec-ognized genera), allows us to draw several important conclu-sions.
MonilophytesOur sampling of the four major eusporan-giate lineages of monilophytes in this study was identical tothat of Pryer et al. (2001a). However, increased taxonomicsampling within the early leptosporangiate divergences, andthe addition of Bayesian analytical tools to the maximum par-simony and maximum likelihood methods used in Pryer et al.(2001a), allow for improved understanding of the relationshipsamong the eusporangiate lineages. In agreement with that ear-lier study, all measures used here provided the highest degreeof support for the monophyly of monilophytes, for each of thefour lineages of eusporangiate monilophytes (whisk ferns,ophioglossoid ferns, horsetails, and marattioid ferns), and forleptosporangiate ferns (Fig. 3). As was demonstrated previ-ously (Nickrent et al., 2000; Pryer et al., 2001a), whisk fernsare most closely related to ophioglossoids, which contradictspreviously accepted relationships (Wagner, 1977; Rothwell,1999), and together they form the sister group to the rest ofmonilophytes with robust support. Horsetails are resolved assister to marattioid ferns in both the current study and Pryer
et al. (2001a), as well as in Wikstrom and Pryer (unpublishedmanuscript), but usually with weak support. The precise re-lationship of horsetails does remain subject to further study.
Leptosporangiate fernsEstablishing a robust phylogenetichypothesis of monilophyte relationships, especially among thebasal leptosporangiate nodes, is critical to understanding char-acter evolution and early diversification in ferns. Recent stud-ies (Hasebe et al., 1995; Pryer et al., 1995; Schneider, 1996;Stevenson and Loconte, 1996) focused on leptosporangiateferns have provided a framework of higher-level relationships,replacing former intuitive estimates founded largely on con-cepts of overall similarity (see Smith, 1995 for a review). Inthose studies, however, only a few internal nodes received ro-bust support, and most nodes at the base of the fern topology(especially those along the backbone) were weakly supported,making it impossible to say with certainty how any of thesegroups are related to one another. Our current study improvesgreatly on this situation.
Osmundaceous fernsThese ferns were considered by near-ly all earlier workers to be an isolated and basal group, oreven a transitional form, between the eusporangiate andleptosporangiate condition because they possess a mixture ofsporangial features from both types (Smith, 1995). In all anal-yses that have included a reasonable sampling of leptospor-angiate ferns, the osmundaceous ferns have been shown to besister to the rest of the leptosporangiates (Fig. 3; Hasebe et al.,1994, 1995; Pryer et al., 1995; Wolf et al., 1998), althoughnot always with strong support. This phylogenetic position isconsistent with the fossil record for Osmundaceae (Fig. 4; Ta-ble 1) and is resolved here with clear support (PP 5 100; BPML5 100; BPMP 5 100).
Gleichenioid fernsThe phylogenetic affinities of the pe-culiar New Caledonian genus Stromatopteris have been hotlycontested (Bierhorst, 1977; Wagner, 1977). Most recently, thegenus was recognized as a member of Gleicheniaceae, but ina separate subfamily (Stromatopteridoideae) from the othergenera (subfamily Gleichenioideae: Dicranopteris, Gleiche-nella, Diplopterygium, Gleichenia, Sticherus) (Kramer andGreen in Kubitzki, 1990). Our sampling includes a represen-tative from each of these six genera, and our analyses clearlyestablish that Stromatopteris nests well within Gleicheniaceae,sister to Gleichenia. Several earlier studies, most importantlyJarrett (1980), suggested that Cheiropleuriaceae, Dipterida-ceae, and Matoniaceae might be allied to one another and toGleicheniaceae. Nonetheless, in previous single-gene studies(Hasebe et al., 1995; Pryer et al., 1995), representative taxafrom these groups were usually variously displayed as a gradeat the base of the leptosporangiate ferns. We show here (Fig.3) that Cheiropleuria 1 Dipteris and Matonia 1 Phaneroso-rus are strongly supported as sister taxa (PP 5 100; BPML 597; BPMP 5 95) and that there is substantial support for a sisterrelationship between this group and Gleicheniaceae (PP 5 88;BPML 5 86; BPMP 5 88). Thus, we see considerable merit inreferring to this entire clade as the gleichenioid ferns. Thisresolves the long-running controversy surrounding the rela-tionships of Matoniaceae, a family once thought to be taxo-nomically isolated from all other fern groups (Klavins et al.,2004), and Cheiropleuria and Dipterisonce incorrectly as-sumed to be more closely related to more-derived members ofPolypodiaceae (see Smith, 1995 for a review). Gleichenioid
-
1588 [Vol. 91AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANYT
AB
LE1.
Mol
ecul
arage
est
imat
esan
dfo
ssil
age
co
nst
rain
tsfo
rv
asc
ula
rpl
ant
no
des
show
nin
Fig.
4.L
inea
gen
am
es,
both
cro
wn
grou
p(C
G)and/
orto
tal
grou
p(T
G),a
repr
ovid
edw
here
app
licab
le(se
eFi
g.2
for
term
inol
ogy)
.Am
ole
cula
rage
est
imat
e,de
rived
from
the
pena
lized
likel
ihoo
dan
aly
sis
of
the
conse
nsu
str
ee,
as
well
as
am
ean
mole
cula
rage
6st
anda
rdde
viat
ion
(SD)
,der
ived
from
the
pena
lized
likel
ihoo
dan
aly
sis
of
100
repl
icat
eB
ayes
ian
tree
s,are
als
opr
ovid
edfo
reach
node
,as
app
licab
le.F
ossi
lage
const
rain
tsw
ere
app
lied
tonode
su
sing
an
apo
mor
phy-
base
dapp
roac
h.A
foss
ilco
nst
rain
twas
ass
igne
dto
an
ode
on
lyif
the
app
licab
lefo
ssil
shar
eda
deriv
edfe
atur
ew
itha
linea
gede
scen
ded
from
that
node
(crow
ngr
oup
age
);if
we
were
un
abl
eto
rejec
tthe
poss
ibili
tyth
ata
repo
rted
cha
ract
erst
ate
was
asy
napo
mor
phy
for
the
tota
lgr
oup
(crow
ngr
oup
1st
emgr
oup)
,the
foss
ilage
const
rain
twas
ass
igne
dto
the
nex
tde
eper
no
de(to
talgr
oup
age
).m
ya5
mill
ion
year
sago
,NA
5fo
ssil
co
nst
rain
tnot
app
lied.
Nod
eLi
neag
enam
e(s)
Mol
ecul
arage
est
imat
e(m
ya)
Mea
nm
ole
cula
rage
6SD
(mya
)Fo
ssil
age
const
rain
tC
omm
ents
01E
uphy
lloph
ytes
(CG)
Sper
mato
phyt
es(T
G)M
onilo
phyt
es(T
G)
380.
0038
0.00
60.
0038
0.00
The
app
eara
nce
of
Ibyk
aan
dC
ross
iam
ark
sth
edi
verg
ence
of
the
two
exta
ntlin
eage
sof
eu
phyl
loph
ytes
inth
eM
iddl
eD
evon
ian
(Eife
lian)
.We
accept
Ibyk
ato
beth
eold
estm
on-
iloph
yte
foss
il(b
utn
ot
ass
igna
ble
toth
eho
rset
aill
inea
ge)a
nd
Cro
ssia
tobe
the
old
est
sper
mato
phyt
efo
ssil,
base
do
nth
epr
otox
ylem
posi
tion
inth
em
atu
rest
ele
(mes
arch
inm
on
iloph
ytes
,en
darc
hin
sper
mato
phyt
es(K
enric
kand
Cra
ne,1
997)
.02
Sper
mato
phyt
es(C
G)32
1.66
321.
566
2.92
NA
03A
ngio
sper
ms
(CG)
121.
0012
1.20
62.
0412
1.00
The
old
esta
ngi
ospe
rmcro
wn
grou
pfo
ssils
date
toth
eE
arly
Cre
tace
ous
(Vala
ngin
ian;
Bre
nner
,19
96;M
agal
lon
an
dSa
nder
son,
2001
),bu
tthe
seare
not
ass
igna
ble
toeith
erlin
-eage
sam
pled
here
.We
ther
efor
euse
dth
eold
estf
ossi
lsass
igna
ble
toC
hlor
anth
acea
e(E
arly
Cre
tace
ous:
Bar
rem
ian;
Friis
et
al.,
1994
,199
9)to
const
rain
this
node
.04
Gym
nosp
erm
s(C
G)C
onife
rs(T
G)31
0.00
310.
006
0.00
310.
00C
onife
rco
nes
an
dtw
igs
from
the
Car
boni
fero
us(P
enns
ylvan
ian;M
iller
,19
99)a
reth
eold
-est
un
equ
ivoc
alre
main
so
fan
exta
ntsp
erm
ato
phyt
elin
eage
and
indi
cate
the
time
of
di-
verg
ence
of
co
nife
rsfr
omo
ther
seed
plan
tlin
eage
s.05
27
1.98
272.
166
6.85
NA
06
292.
4428
4.95
617
.90
NA
07M
onilo
phyt
es(C
G)36
4.43
359.
976
1.82
NA
08W
hisk
fern
s(T
G)O
phio
glos
soid
fern
s(T
G)
305.
5729
2.62
613
.15
NA
Afo
ssil
reco
rdfo
rth
ew
hisk
fern
sha
snot
yet
been
docu
men
ted
(Ken
rick
and
Cra
ne,
1997
).T
heo
ldes
tfos
sila
ssig
nabl
eto
the
oph
iogl
osso
idfe
rns
isB
otry
chiu
mw
ight
onii
(Late
Pale
ocen
e:T
hane
tian;
Rot
hwel
land
Stoc
key,
1989
).09
Whi
skfe
rns
(CG)
88.4
781
.66
69.
84N
A
10O
phio
glos
soid
fern
s(C
G)16
1.96
153.
456
11.9
8N
A
11L
epto
spor
angi
ate
fern
s(T
G)35
9.56
354.
006
0.04
NA
We
reco
gniz
em
em
bers
of
Tede
leac
eae
and
Bot
ryop
terid
acea
e,da
ting
back
toth
eE
arly
Car
boni
fero
us(G
altier
an
dPh
illip
s,19
96),
as
am
ong
the
old
estl
epto
spor
angi
ate
fern
s.T
heir
rela
tions
hips
toan
yex
tant
linea
geare
uncle
ar.
The
foss
ilconst
rain
tfro
mnode
12(3
54m
ya)w
as
app
lied
ton
ode
11fo
rth
e10
0re
plic
ate
analy
ses
use
dto
calc
ulat
eth
em
ole
cula
rage
mean
an
dst
anda
rdde
viat
ion.
12H
orse
tails
(TG)
Mar
attio
idfe
rns
(TG)
354.
00
354.
00Ar
chae
ocal
amite
san
dre
lativ
esfr
omth
eL
ate
Dev
onia
n(F
amen
nian;
Stei
net
al.,
1984
;B
atem
an,1
991;
Ken
rick
an
dC
rane
,199
7)are
accept
edhe
reto
beth
eold
estu
nequ
ivoc
alm
em
bers
of
the
hors
etai
llin
eage
,bas
edon
stem
anato
mic
alcha
ract
ers.
Mar
attio
idfe
rns,
such
as
Psa
roni
usan
dSc
olec
opte
ris,
were
abu
ndan
tin
the
Lat
eC
arbo
nife
rous
(Pen
nsyl-
van
ian)
an
dPe
rmia
n(H
illan
dC
amus
,198
6;L
iuet
al.,
2000
);th
eref
ore,
this
linea
gew
as
likel
ypr
esen
tin
the
Ear
lyC
arbo
nife
rous
(Miss
issipp
ian).
13H
orse
tails
(CG)
37.5
137
.65
63.
87N
A
14M
arat
tioid
fern
s(C
G)23
6.61
230.
526
5.45
NA
15
206.
0020
6.00
60.
0020
6.00
Foss
ilsass
igna
ble
toM
arat
tia(i.
e.,be
arin
gsy
nang
iasi
mila
rto
thos
eof
exta
ntM
arat
tia)
date
back
toth
eL
ate
Tria
ssic
(Hill
and
Cam
us,1
986;
Liu
et
al.,
2000
).16
Lep
tosp
oran
giat
efe
rns
(CG)
Osm
unda
ceou
sfe
rns
(TG)
323.
1031
9.60
65.
0828
2.00
The
old
esto
smu
nda
ceou
sfe
rnfo
ssil,
ass
igna
ble
base
don
stel
eorg
aniz
atio
n,is
Gra
mm
atop
-te
ris
from
the
Ear
lyPe
rmia
n(A
sselia
n;Sk
og,2
001;
Roe
ssle
rand
Gal
tier,
2002
).
17O
smun
dace
ous
fern
s(C
G)20
6.00
206.
006
0.00
206.
00B
ased
on
stem
an
ato
mic
alcha
ract
ers,
Mill
er(1
971)
consi
dere
dO
smun
daca
ulis
from
the
Lat
eTr
iass
icto
bea
mem
ber
of
the
osm
unda
ceou
scro
wn
grou
p(T
idw
ella
nd
Ash
,199
4;C
ollin
son,
1996
).18
98
.57
81.2
56
22.9
7N
A
-
October 2004] 1589PRYER ET AL.PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNST
AB
LE1.
Con
tinue
d.
Nod
eLi
neag
enam
e(s)
Mol
ecul
arage
est
imat
e(m
ya)
Mea
nm
ole
cula
rage
6SD
(mya
)Fo
ssil
age
const
rain
tC
omm
ents
19
286.
2428
4.54
66.
5826
9.00
The
obl
ique
an
nu
lus
an
dsp
ore
wall
ultr
astru
ctur
eof
Olig
ocar
pia
and
Szea
(Perm
ian:
Sak-
maria
n;W
an
get
al.,
1999
;Yao
and
Tayl
or,
1988
)ind
icat
eth
atth
ese
foss
ilsare
mem
bers
of
the
linea
geth
atin
clud
esfil
my
and
glei
chen
ioid
fern
s.T
hele
afm
orp
holo
gyof
thes
efo
ssils
does
no
tin
dica
tea
clo
sere
latio
nshi
pto
any
exta
ntm
em
ber
of
this
linea
ge;t
here
-fo
re,w
eco
nsi
der
them
tobe
stem
grou
pm
em
bers
.20
Gle
iche
nioi
dfe
rns
(TG)
Film
yfe
rns
(TG)
272.
8927
1.16
66.
06N
AT
heo
ldes
tgle
iche
nioi
dfe
rnfo
ssils
are
Mid
dle
Tria
ssic
inage
(Coll
inson
,199
6;Sk
og,
2001
)an
dbe
long
toth
edi
pter
idoi
d/m
aton
ioid
linea
ge(se
enode
23).
The
old
estfi
lmy
fern
foss
il,H
opet
edia
,is
from
the
Lat
eTr
iass
ic(C
arnia
n;A
xsm
ithet
al.,
2001
).21
Film
yfe
rns
(CG)
163.
2315
7.07
611
.26
NA
22G
leic
heni
oid
fern
s(C
G)G
leic
heni
acea
e(T
G)
263.
29
NA
Foss
ilsass
igna
ble
toG
leic
heni
acea
e(e.
g.,G
leic
heni
tes,
Gle
iche
noid
es,G
leic
heno
psis
;C
ol-
linso
n,19
96;S
kog,
2001
)are
know
nfr
omth
eJu
rass
icand
Cre
tace
ous,
butt
hese
cannot
beass
igne
du
nequ
ivoc
ally
toany
exta
ntlin
eage
and
are
likel
yst
emgr
oup
mem
bers
.Pe
rmia
nto
Tria
ssic
foss
ils(O
ligoc
arpi
a,Sz
ea)t
hata
reofte
ndi
scus
sed
as
Gle
iche
niac
eae
(Yao
an
dTa
ylor
,19
88;T
idw
ella
nd
Ash
,199
4;C
ollin
son,
1996
;Wang
et
al.,
1999
)may
infa
ctbe
stem
grou
pm
em
bers
of
Gle
iche
niac
eae
butc
ould
als
obe
stem
grou
pm
em
bers
of
Mat
onia
ceae
,Dip
terid
acea
e,or
film
yfe
rns
(seen
ode
19).
23M
aton
iace
ae(T
G)D
ipte
ridac
eae
(TG)
227.
0022
7.00
60.
0022
7.00
Dip
terid
oids
an
dm
ato
nioi
dsare
abu
ndan
tin
the
foss
ilre
cord
from
the
Lat
eTr
iass
icto
Ear
-
lyC
reta
ceou
s(S
kog,
2001
).T
heold
estf
ossi
ls,i
nclu
ding
Phl
ebop
teri
sand
Tom
anio
pter
is,
date
back
toth
eM
iddl
eTr
iass
icand
shar
ele
afand
sora
lcha
ract
ers
with
exta
ntge
nera
such
as
Dip
teri
san
dM
aton
ia(T
idw
ella
nd
Ash
,199
4;C
ollin
son,
1996
;Kla
vins
et
al.,
2004
).24
Mat
onia
ceae
(CG)
114.
7711
3.75
68.
92N
A
25D
ipte
ridac
eae
(CG)
70.8
968
.67
66.
62N
A
26G
leic
heni
acea
e(C
G)12
4.22
120.
616
6.15
NA
27
103.
5310
1.98
64.
60N
A
28
89.0
089
.04
60.
4589
.00
Gan
dolfo
et
al.
(199
7)de
mon
stra
ted
asi
ster
grou
pre
latio
nshi
pbe
twee
nth
efo
ssil
Boo
dlep
-te
ris
(Late
Cre
tace
ous:
Turo
nia
n)and
the
exta
ntge
nus
Stro
mat
opte
ris;
ther
efor
e,a
min
i-m
um
age
of
89m
yaw
as
ass
igne
dto
the
dive
rgen
ceof
Stro
mat
opte
ris
from
oth
erexta
ntta
xa.
29
99.6
395
.42
69.
07N
A
30
36.5
834
.11
65.
22N
A
31Sc
hiza
eoid
fern
s(T
G)26
6.25
265.
306
7.89
NA
The
old
ests
chi
zaeo
idfe
rnfo
ssils
are
from
the
Mid
dle
Jura
ssic
(seen
ode
32).
32Sc
hiza
eoid
fern
s(C
G)21
1.61
212.
506
12.6
016
9.00
Wik
stro
met
al.
(200
2)de
mon
stra
ted
asi
ster
grou
pre
latio
nshi
pbe
twee
nth
efo
ssil
Stac
hyp-
teri
s(M
iddle
Jura
ssic
:Bajo
cian)
and
the
exta
ntge
nus
Lygo
dium
;th
eref
ore,
am
inim
umage
of
169
mya
was
app
lied
toth
edi
verg
ence
of
Lygo
dium
from
oth
erexta
ntsc
hiza
eoid
gene
ra.T
here
latio
nshi
pso
fo
ther
Jura
ssic
schi
zaeo
idfe
rns,
such
as
Klu
kia
and
Klu
kiop
-si
s,are
un
know
n.33
13
5.29
138.
186
11.8
612
1.00
The
Ear
lyC
reta
ceou
s(N
eoco
mian
)gen
usR
uffor
diais
gene
rally
accept
edto
bea
rela
tive
of
the
ex
tant
genu
sAn
emia
(Wik
stro
met
al.,
2002
);th
eref
ore,
am
inim
umage
of
121
mya
was
ass
igne
dto
the
dive
rgen
ceof
Anem
iafr
omSc
hiza
ea.
34H
eter
ospo
rous
fern
s(T
G)22
0.02
219.
236
6.52
NA
The
old
estf
ossi
lass
igna
ble
toth
ehe
tero
spor
ous
fern
linea
geis
Cry
belo
spor
ites
berb
erio
i-de
sfr
omth
eL
ate
Jura
ssic
(Lup
iaet
al.,
2000
).35
Het
eros
poro
usfe
rns
(CG)
Mar
sile
acea
e(T
G)Sa
lvin
iace
ae(T
G)
173.
3217
1.27
67.
7613
7.00
Bas
edo
nle
afan
dst
emm
orp
holo
gy,
Yam
ada
and
Kat
o(2
002)
dem
onst
rate
dth
atth
efo
ssil
Reg
nelli
tes
na
gash
imae
(Earl
yC
reta
ceou
s:B
erria
sian
)is
ass
igna
ble
toM
arsi
leac
eae;
ther
efor
e,w
eaccept
this
foss
ilas
am
inim
umconst
rain
tfor
the
time
of
dive
rgen
cebe
-tw
een
Mar
sile
acea
ean
dSa
lvin
iace
ae.
36M
arsi
leac
eae
(CG)
93.0
289
.64
67.
41N
A
37Sa
lvin
iace
ae(C
G)89
.00
89.1
76
0.69
89.0
0M
egas
pore
so
fAz
olla
date
back
toth
eL
ate
Cre
tace
ous:
Turo
nia
n(C
ollins
on,1
991)
;we
use
thes
eto
mark
the
time
of
dive
rgen
cebe
twee
nAz
olla
and
Salv
inia
.
-
1590 [Vol. 91AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANYT
AB
LE1.
Con
tinue
d.
Nod
eLi
neag
enam
e(s)
Mol
ecul
arage
est
imat
e(m
ya)
Mea
nm
ole
cula
rage
6SD
(mya
)Fo
ssil
age
const
rain
tC
omm
ents
38Tr
ee
fern
s(T
G)Po
lypo
dfe
rns
(TG)
210.
79
NA
We
accept
Cya
thoc
aulis
an
dre
late
dfo
ssils
(Midd
leJu
rass
ic;L
antz
et
al.,
1999
)as
the
old
-est
un
equ
ivoc
altr
eefe
rns
(seen
ode
42).
Ass
ignm
ents
of
Tria
ssic
and
Ear
lyJu
rass
icfe
rnfo
ssils
totr
eefe
rnge
nera
such
as
Dic
kson
iaare
am
bigu
ous
and
cannot
beaccept
edw
ith-
ou
tfu
rther
crit
ical
ev
alu
atio
n.T
heold
estu
nequ
ivoc
alpo
lypo
dfe
rnfo
ssils
are
from
the
Low
erC
reta
ceou
s(N
eoco
mian
;Che
net
al.,
1997
;Den
g,20
02)o
fnort
hern
Chi
na(se
en
ode
47).
39Tr
ee
fern
s(C
G)18
2.86
181.
786
6.58
NA
40L
oxom
atac
eae
(TG)
154.
8215
0.52
611
.03
112.
00B
ased
on
rhiz
ome
an
ato
my
an
dha
irst
ruct
ure,
Loxs
omop
teri
s(E
arly
Cre
tace
ous:
Apt
ian;
Skog
,200
1)is
co
nsi
dere
dto
bea
mem
ber
of
Lox
omat
acea
eand
isuse
dto
const
rain
itstim
eo
fdi
verg
ence
from
Pla
giog
yria
.
41L
oxom
atac
eae
(CG)
34.6
132
.52
65.
96N
A
42
159.
0015
9.89
63.
0715
9.00
We
accept
Cya
thoc
aulis
an
dre
late
dfo
ssils
(Midd
leJu
rass
ic;L
antz
et
al.,
1999
;Sko
g,20
01)a
sbe
long
ing
toth
eC
yath
ea1
Hym
enop
hyllo
psis
linea
ge.W
euse
thes
efo
ssils
toco
nst
rain
the
time
of
dive
rgen
ceof
Cya
thea
1H
ymen
ophy
llops
isfr
omoth
ertr
eefe
rnge
nera
.43
50
.23
41.8
06
11.7
9N
A
44
152.
73
NA
45
133.
5012
9.47
615
.54
NA
46
123.
85
NA
47Po
lypo
ds(C
G)15
9.54
162.
686
8.96
121.
00V
ario
uscro
wn
grou
ppo
lypo
dfo
ssils
(with
well-
pres
erved
poly
pod
spor
angi
a)are
know
nfr
omth
eL
ower
Cre
tace
ous
(Neo
comi
an;C
hen
et
al.,
1997
;Den
g,20
02)o
fN
orth
ern
Chi
naan
dare
use
dhe
reto
co
nst
rain
the
age
of
this
node
.48
15
3.48
N
A
49L
inds
aeoi
dfe
rns
(TG)
133.
1713
6.75
68.
7899
.00
Bas
edo
ncha
ract
eris
ticro
ot
an
ato
my,
afo
ssil
from
the
Ear
lyC
reta
ceou
s(A
lbian
;Sch
neid
eran
dK
enric
k,20
01)p
rovi
des
unequ
ivoc
alevid
ence
for
the
pres
ence
of
linds
aeoi
dfe
rns
(Sph
enom
eris
inFi
g.4)
at
this
time.
50D
enns
taed
tiace
ae(T
G)12
4.92
128.
796
9.85
NA
The
foss
ilco
nst
rain
tfro
mn
ode
54(9
3.5m
ya)w
as
app
lied
toth
isnode
for
the
100
repl
i-cate
an
aly
ses
use
dto
calc
ulat
eth
em
ole
cula
rage
mean
and
stan
dard
devi
atio
n.51
Den
nsta
edtia
ceae
(CG)
102.
2398
.59
68.
33N
A
52
92.0
3
NA
53
47.1
145
.02
66.
29N
A
54Pt
erid
acea
e(T
G)E
upol
ypod
s(T
G)11
9.85
93
.50
Lea
fsh
ape
an
dth
epr
esen
ceo
fps
eudo
indu
sia
allo
wfo
rth
eass
ignm
ento
fa
foss
ilP
teri
sfr
omth
eL
ate
Cre
tace
ous
(Cen
oman
ian;K
rass
ilov
and
Bac
chia
,200
0)to
the
pter
idoi
dfe
rns.
Bec
ause
this
foss
ilis
no
tre
adi
lyass
igna
ble
toany
cro
wn
grou
ppt
erid
oid
linea
ge,
we
use
ithe
reto
co
nst
rain
the
time
of
dive
rgen
cebe
twee
npt
erid
oid
and
eupo
lypo
dfe
rns.
55E
upol
ypod
s(C
G)77
.19
75.4
96
7.66
NA
The
foss
ilco
nst
rain
tfro
mn
ode
56(6
5m
ya)w
as
app
lied
toth
isnode
for
the
100
repl
icat
ean
aly
ses
use
dto
calc
ulat
eth
em
ole
cula
rage
mean
and
stan
dard
devi
atio
n.56
65
.00
65
.00
Lea
fim
pres
sion
ssh
owin
gke
yfe
atur
esof
both
Ono
clea
and
Woo
dwar
dia
(blec
hnoid
fern
s)are
know
nfr
omth
eL
ate
Cre
tace
ous
(Maa
strich
tian;
Rot
hwel
land
Stoc
key,
1991
;Up-
chu
rch
an
dM
ack,
1998
;Pig
gand
Rot
hwel
l,20
01)a
nd
are
use
dhe
reto
const
rain
the
time
of
dive
rgen
ceo
fbl
echn
oid
and
thel
ypte
ridoi
dfe
rns.
57Pt
erid
acea
e(C
G)76
.62
83.8
56
9.45
NA
58
69.8
877
.02
69.
1565
.00
Foss
ilsass
igna
ble
toAc
rost
ichu
m(th
esis
ter
genu
sto
Cer
atop
teri
s;Sc
hnei
der
et
al.,
2004
b)are
pres
enti
nth
eL
ate
Cre
tace
ous
(Maa
strich
tian;
Bon
deand
Kum
aran
,200
2)and
are
use
dto
co
nst
rain
the
time
of
dive
rgen
cebe
twee
nC
erat
opte
ris
and
Adia
ntum
.
-
October 2004] 1591PRYER ET AL.PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNS
TABLE 2. Summary of DNA sequence data and alignments for each molecular region used in this study of monilophyte relationships.
Marker
Meansequencelengtha
Alignmentlength
Includedcharacters
Variablecharacters
Parsimonyinformativecharactersb
% Missingdatac
rbcLatpBrps418S
13201141
5911695
14021150
7681729
13201150
4741670
680635368371
558562312225
1.150.805.552.90
Total 4747 5049 4614 2054 1657 2.15a Completely missing sequences (one 18S; two rps4) were not included in this calculation.b Number of characters informative for equally weighted parsimony analyses.c Completely missing sequences (one 18S; two rps4) were included in this calculation.
ferns were diverse and abundant in the Mesozoic, and our newunderstanding of the relationships among extant members isimportant to consider when interpreting the fossil record(Skog, 2001; Klavins et al., 2004).
Gleichenioid/filmy fernsA sister relationship between glei-chenioid and filmy ferns was resolved here regardless of theoptimization criterion applied; however, the support for thisrelationship was strong only in the Bayesian analysis (Fig. 3;PP 5 96; BPML 5 55; BPMP 5 57). To the best of our knowl-edge, this sister relationship has never before been proposed,despite both gleichenioid and filmy ferns having sporangia thatpossess an annulus with an oblique to transverse aspect. Al-though the interpretation of the annulus aspect in Cheiropleu-ria and Dipteris (only slightly oblique) is somewhat ambigu-ous, it appears reasonable to suggest this as a morphologicalsynapomorphy uniting the gleichenioid 1 filmy fern clade. Atleast one interesting evolutionary and ecological implicationshould be considered if this sister relationship holds true.Many extant gleichenioids are scrambling or subscandent andpreferentially grow in open habitats and readily colonize sec-ondary habitats. Most filmy ferns are epiphytes, a trait thatmay have evolved in this lineage through a transitional stepinvolving scrambling or hemi-epiphytism (Dubuisson et al.,2003b). A scrambling habit as the putative plesiomorphic con-dition (as suggested by the sister group relationship of filmyand gleichenioid ferns) is consistent with this hypothesis.
Although it remains to be seen if our grouping of gleichen-ioid and filmy ferns will stand the test of time, it is worthnoting that what were once thought to be distantly related andsuccessive grades of taxa at the base of the leptosporangiateferns, may in fact be closely related members of a single cladethat diversified in the Late Paleozoic/Early Mesozoic (Fig. 4).The interpretation of the fossil record needs to be reevaluated,taking these results into account. Several Late Paleozoic/EarlyMesozoic fossils assumed to be related to Gleicheniaceae, suchas Szea and Oligocarpia, are more likely to be stem group(Fig. 2) members of the gleichenioid 1 filmy fern lineagebecause critical character states displayed by the fossils, suchas sporangial type and spore wall ultrastructure (Wang et al.,1998; Yao and Taylor, 1988), are plesiomorphic for this clade.
Schizaeoid fernsThe genera Lygodium, Schizaea, andAnemia (including Mohria) have almost always been consid-ered to represent a related group. Although this group of fernshas sometimes been considered to be among the more basalleptosporangiate nodes by some workers, Smith (1995) point-ed out that several researchers in the latter part of the lastcentury had suggested, largely on the basis of rather tenuouscharacters, that the schizaeoid ferns may have been a possible
point of origin for several higher leptosporangiate families,such as Pteridaceae, . . . and Marsileaceae. This was a ratherastute observation by these earlier workers, given that we haverelatively strong support (PP 5 100; BPML 5 83; BPMP 5 88)for stating that the schizaeoid ferns are the sister to the coreleptosporangiates (Fig. 3).
Core leptosporangiatesThis clade includes heterosporousferns, tree ferns, and polypods, each of which is clearly mono-phyletic (Fig. 3). The relationships among these three lineagesremain equivocal, and their circumscriptions, as presentedhere, differ considerably from traditional views. In the past,the two groups of heterosporous ferns (Marsilea/Pilularia andSalvinia/Azolla) were considered to be independently derived,but a sister group relationship has been confirmed here onceagain (Rothwell and Stockey, 1994; Hasebe et al., 1995; Pryeret al., 1995, 2001a).
The association of several genera, such as Plagiogyria, Hy-menophyllopsis, Loxoma, and Loxsomopsis, all lacking distincttrunks, among the tree ferns also conflicts with previously pro-posed relationships (Smith, 1995). These four genera had beenvariously aligned with families now seen to be only remotelyrelated: Hymenophyllopsis, Loxoma, and Loxsomopsis with thefilmy ferns (Hymenophyllaceae) or dennstaedtioid ferns (Den-nstaedtiaceae) and Plagiogyria with the osmundaceous ferns(Osmundaceae). Other tree fern genera often treated in mon-ogeneric families, e.g., Metaxya (Metaxyaceae) and Lophoso-ria (Lophosoriaceae), are shown here to be closely allied to,or embedded within, dicksonioid tree ferns (Fig. 3). To somefern systematists, one of the biggest surprises of all may bethe monophyly of the polypod ferns as circumscribed here(Fig. 3), which was not generally appreciated or accepted inearlier phylogenetic studies (Holttum, 1973; Mickel, 1974; Pi-chi Sermolli, 1977; see also Smith, 1995), despite the presenceof an obvious synapomorphythe vertical annulus of thesporanagium. Polypods comprise anywhere from 1530 fam-ilies (depending on the classification followed) and accountfor greater than 80% of extant species diversity.
Divergence time estimates and the fossil recordThe di-vergence time estimates resulting from our penalized likeli-hood analyses (Fig. 4; Table 1) are largely in accord withprevious ideas about the times of origin and diversification ofmajor fern clades (Rothwell, 1987; Tidwell and Ash, 1994;Collinson, 1996; Rothwell, 1996; Skog, 2001; P. S. Soltis etal., 2002). However, several clades with sparse fossil recordsare seen with this approach to have originated much earlierthan their meager fossil data would imply.
The earliest diverging of the 11 major lineages of monilo-phytes also have the oldest fossil records, with the exception
-
1592 [Vol. 91AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Fig. 3. Phylogenetic relationships at basal nodes of the monilophyte tree. The topology is the result of a Bayesian analysis of four genes (plastid rbcL,atpB, rps4, and nuclear 18S rDNA); average branch lengths are shown. Measures of support are given at the nodes: Bayesian posterior probability/maximumlikelihood bootstrap/maximum parsimony bootstrap; support values equal to 100 are abbreviated (1) and support values less than 50 are not reported (2).Moderately thickened lines indicate significant support from one or two measures (posterior probability $ 95; maximum likelihood bootstrap $ 70; or maximumparsimony bootstrap $ 70). Heavily thickened lines (most nodes) indicate significant support from all three measures.
-
October 2004] 1593PRYER ET AL.PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNS
Fig. 4. Phylogenetic chronogram for monilophytes, plotted against the geologic time scale. The topology is the result of a Bayesian analysis of four genes(cf., Fig. 3). Molecular age estimates are indicated by node positions and were estimated by means of a penalized likelihood analysis of the Bayesian consensustree (with average branch lengths), incorporating 21 fossil constraints (see Table 1). Black symbols indicate nodes with significant support (posterior probability$ 95%), and white symbols indicate nodes without significant support; circles indicate nodes that were not constrained, whereas diamonds indicate that a fossilconstraint was applied at that node (position of the diamond corresponds to the age of the fossil constraint applied). All fossil ages were applied as minimumage constraints, except at node 01, which was fixed at 380 million years ago (mya). Node numbers correspond to those in Table 1, where lineage names,molecular age estimates, molecular age means, and standard deviations (for well-supported nodes), as well as fossil age constraints, are provided. Gray shadowingon branches highlights 11 major monilophyte lineages; the molecular age estimate for a lineage is indicated by the tapered point on the left side, whereas theoldest unambiguous fossil age for the lineage is indicated by the juncture line between dark gray and light gray (note that there is no fossil record for whiskferns, and the fossil record for horsetails coincides with the molecular age estimate). Pie charts show the relative contributions of the various lineages to totalextant monilophyte species diversity (.11 500 species); approximate species numbers (modified from Hassler and Swale, 2004) precede the lineage names.
-
1594 [Vol. 91AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
of the whisk ferns and ophioglossoids (Fig. 4). A fossil recordfor whisk ferns is lacking, and what is available for ophiog-lossoids is only Cenozoic in age. We estimate that these twolineages diverged from one another in the Late Carboniferous(;306 mya, node 08, Fig. 4; Table 1), whereas the extantmembers diversified only in the mid to Late Mesozoic (;88mya and 162 mya, nodes 09 and 10, Fig. 4; Table 1). One ofour remaining challenges will be to identify the Carboniferousancestors of the whisk fern 1 ophioglossoid lineage. The re-maining eusporangiate monilophyte lineages, namely marat-tioid ferns and horsetails, have excellent fossil records extend-ing into the Carboniferous (Fig. 4; Table 1). Living horsetailsin the genus Equisetum appear to have diversified in the earlyCenozoic (;38 mya), which is in agreement with Des Maraiset al. (2003), whereas the extant lineages of the marattioidferns date back to the Triassic (;237 mya and 206 mya, nodes14 and 15, Fig. 4; Table 1).
The fossil record indicates that leptosporangiate ferns firstappeared in the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian) and soonafter diversified to give rise to roughly six independent line-ages, all of which have ambiguous relationships to extant lin-eages. Some of these Carboniferous leptosporangiate fernshave been put forward as putative stem groups (Fig. 2) ofextant lineages (Stewart and Rothwell, 1993; Galtier and Phil-lips, 1996; Rothwell, 1999); for example, Anachoropteridaceaefor osmundaceous ferns, Tedeleaceae for schizaeoid ferns, andSermyaceae for gleichenioid ferns (Collinson, 1996; but seeRothwell, 1999). Further studies are needed to elucidate rela-tionships among Carboniferous and extant leptosporangiateferns. Our divergence time estimates are consistent with thehypothesis of a major replacement of the Carboniferous lep-tosporangiate ferns with new (extant) lineages at the end ofthe Paleozoic (Rothwell, 1987; Stewart and Rothwell, 1993;Rothwell, 1996).
According to our estimates, the osmundaceous ferns, sistergroup to all other leptosporangiate ferns, arose in the LateCarboniferous (;323 mya, node 16, Fig. 4; Table 1). The old-est fossils unequivocally assignable to this lineage are fromthe Permian. The gleichenioid 1 filmy fern total lineage (node20) and the schizaeoid fern 1 core leptosporangiates total lin-eage (node 31) are estimated to have originated in the Permian(;273 mya and ;266 mya, respectively); the oldest fossilsassignable to extant families of these lineages are from theTriassic and Jurassic, respectively (Fig. 4, Table 1; Collinson,1996; Skog, 2001).
The major lineages within the core leptosporangiates(node 34, Fig. 4)heterosporous ferns, tree ferns, and polypodfernsare shown here to have diverged in the Triassic (;220mya and 211 mya), even though the oldest fossils unequivo-cally assignable to one of these lineages only date from theMiddle Jurassic. There are older fossils that have been as-signed to the tree fern lineage, especially Dicksoniaceae(Stewart and Rothwell, 1993; Skog, 2001), but these fossilsare more likely to be stem group (Fig. 2) members of the coreleptosporangiates. Therefore, these earlier assignments needreevaluation in the light of our improved understanding of theevolution of leptosporangiate ferns. The two living families ofheterosporous ferns are estimated here to have diverged in theMiddle Jurassic (;173 mya, node 35, Fig. 4), although theoldest fossil we can attribute to them is from the Early Cre-taceous (Table 1). The tree fern and polypod lineages (nodes39 and 47, respectively, Fig. 4, Table 1) also began to diversifyin the Jurassic (;183 mya and ;160 mya). The most species-
rich groups of living polypods, the pteridoid ferns and theeupolypods (nodes 57 and 55, respectively, Fig. 4, Table 1),are shown here to have diversified in the Late Cretaceous,which is consistent with the dates of divergence provided bySchneider et al. (2004b). This observation of a more recentfern diversification in the Late Mesozoic/Early Cenozoic, co-inciding with the radiation of angiosperms, is echoed in Glei-cheniaceae (node 26, Fig. 4, Table 1) and suggests that fernsmay have experienced successive replacement events, ratherthan an absolute decline, after the appearance of angiosperms(Schneider et al., 2004b). Further evidence is needed to ex-plore the implications of these findings, especially for thoselineages for which we have limited available phylogeneticdata.
CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS
All generally recognized extant fern families and nearly allmonilophyte genera at the early-diverging nodes have nowbeen sampled in published molecular phylogenetic studies,with few exceptions. Although our study has an extensivesampling from the major basal fern nodes, the sampling is stillinadequate with respect to the diversity within these groups.Some of these lineages have received some attention in thisregard; e.g., Ophioglossaceae (Hauk et al., 2003), Equisetaceae(Des Marais et al., 2003), Osmundaceae (Yatabe et al., 1999),filmy ferns (Dubuisson, 1997; Pryer et al., 2001b; Dubuissonet al., 2003a; Hennequin et al., 2003), Cheiropleuriaceae (Katoet al., 2001), Matoniaceae (Kato and Setoguchi, 1998), andSchizaeaceae (Skog et al., 2002; Wikstrom et al., 2002). Manyother important groups, such as Gleicheniaceae and tree ferns,are critically in need of further study. The polypods, the mostdiverse fern lineage, are especially in need of additional atten-tion, although several ongoing studies promise much progressin the near future. Furthermore, better resolution of relation-ships among and within certain clades, is still possible withadditional molecular data, including data on genome structure(Pryer et al., 2002). Better estimates of divergence times willlikely come with new fossil findings, and improved interpre-tations of the fossil record will occur in light of additionalevidence from gene sequencing.
Our study is one of several that provide a foundation forfuture family and genus level taxonomic studies in ferns,which will, in turn, allow for improved biogeographical, eco-logical, and evolutionary interpretations. Reinterpretation ofmorphological data and developmental information can nowbe attempted on a sounder footing, especially as they pertainto deep branches in the vascular plant tree. Using the bestestimate of phylogeny available at the time (Pryer et al.,2001a), Schneider et al. (2002) were able to provide severalcritical insights into morphological evolution within ferns. Theincreased taxonomic sampling presented here will allow us toreconstruct the evolution of other critical characters (e.g., spo-rangium structure) and to determine their implications for thebiology and systematics of ferns. Another promising field willbe the reconstruction of the evolution of genome size in fernsand the correlation of size, if any, with the variation in chro-mosome number, or other features, exhibited by ferns. We cannow begin to ask what key events might have led to the manylarge, species-rich radiations in the long history of fern life onEarth.
-
October 2004] 1595PRYER ET AL.PHYLOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF FERNS
LITERATURE CITED
ALTSCHUL, S. F., T. L. MADDEN, A. A. SCHA FFER, J. ZHANG, Z. ZHANG, W.MILLER, AND D. J. LIPMAN. 1997. Gapped blast and psi-blast: a newgeneration of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Research25: 33893402.
AXSMITH, B. J., M. KRINGS, AND T. N. TAYLOR. 2001. A filmy fern fromthe Upper Triassic of North Carolina (USA). American Journal of Botany88: 15581567.
BARKMAN, T. J., G. CHENERY, J. R. MCNEAL, J. LYONS-WEILER, W. ELISENS,G. MOORE, A. D. WOLFE, AND C. W. DE PAMPHILIS. 2000. Independentand combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compart-ments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 1316613171.
BATEMAN, R. M. 1991. Palaeobiological and phylogenetic implications ofanatomically-preserved Archaeocalamites from the Dinantian of OxroadBay and Loch Humphrey Burn, southern Scotland. Palaeontographica B223: 159.
BERRY, C. M., AND W. E. STEIN. 2000. A new iridopteridalean from theDevonian of Venezuela. International Journal of Plant Sciences 161:807827.
BIERHORST, D. W. 1977. The systematic position of Psilotum and Tmesipteris.Brittonia 29: 313.
BONDE, S. D., AND K. P. N. KUMARAN. 2002. The oldest macrofossil recordof the mangrove fern Acrostichum L. from the Late Cretaceous DeccanIntertrappean beds of India. Cretaceous Research 23: 149152.
BOWE, L. M., G. COAT, AND C. W. DE PAMPHILIS. 2000. Phylogeny of seedplants based on all three genomic compartments: extant gymnospermsare monophyletic and Gnetales closest relatives are conifers. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 40924097.
BREMER, K. 1985. Summary of green plant phylogeny and classification.Cladistics 1: 369385.