ArticlePDF Available


Nuclear ribosomal ITS1 and ITS2 DNA sequences were used in a phylogenetic analysis for 295 accessions representing most genera of subtribe Laeliinae (Orchidaceae), as well as select members of Meiracylliinae, Bletiinae, and other potential outgroups from Epidendroideae. The level of ITS variation was low, and most of the clades have low bootstrap support. Despite the large number of trees found (10,000), the groups identified correspond in part to previous taxonomic groups, at both the generic and infrageneric levels, and also correlate with geographic distribution. Arpophyllum was identified as sister to the rest of Laeliinae, and was embedded in a position close to Euchile, rather than in a distinct subtribe. On the other hand, Ponera, Isochilus, and Helleriella would best be classified in a distinct subtribe (Ponerinae), and Dilomilis and Neocogniauxia are sister to Pleurothallidinae. Cattleya, Encyclia, Epidendrum, and Laelia are clearly polyphyletic.
Lindleyana 15(2): 96–114. 2000.
E. H
L. D
W. M
A. S
W. C
Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS, UK
Department of Botany, School of Plant Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O. Box 221, Reading, RG6 2AS, UK
Environmental Horticulture, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110670, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0670 USA
Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110670, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0670 USA
Instituto de Ecologı´a, UNAM, Apartado Postal 70-275, Me´xico D.F. 04510 Mexico
Herbario AMO, Apartado Postal 53-123, Me´xico D.F. 11320, Mexico
ABSTRACT: Nuclear ribosomal ITS1 and ITS2 DNA sequences were used in a phylogenetic analysis for
295 accessions representing most genera of subtribe Laeliinae (Orchidaceae), as well as select members of
Pleurothallidinae, Coeliinae, Meiracylliinae, Bletiinae, and other potential outgroups from Epidendroideae.
The level of ITS variation was low, and most of the clades have low bootstrap support. Despite the large
number of trees found (
10,000), the groups identified correspond in part to previous taxonomic groups, at
both the generic and infrageneric levels, and also correlate with geographic distribution. Arpophyllum was
identified as sister to the rest of Laeliinae, and Meiracyllium (Meiracylliinae) was embedded in a position
close to Euchile, rather than in a distinct subtribe. On the other hand, Ponera, Isochilus, and Helleriella
would best be classified in a distinct subtribe (Ponerinae), and Dilomilis and Neocogniauxia are sister to
Pleurothallidinae. Cattleya, Encyclia, Epidendrum, and Laelia are clearly polyphyletic.
Neotropical orchid subtribe Laeliinae com-
prises 43 genera and 1466 species (Dressler,
1993), among them some of the most important
horticultural genera in Orchidaceae, such as Catt-
leya and Laelia, and also some genera such as
Epidendrum, Encyclia, and Prosthechea that
make up a large part of the orchid flora of the
Neotropics. Most species are epiphytic or rupic-
olous and have thickened leaves and pseudobulbs
as an adaptation for xeric habitats. Many species
of Cattleya, Laelia, Brassavola, and Rhyncholae-
lia have tubular nectaries partially embedded in
the ovary and advertise nectar for attracting pol-
We want to thank the curators of the living collections at
the Dept. of Genetics, ESALQ, University of Sa˜o Paulo at
Piracicaba, Brazil; Sa˜o Paulo Botanic Gardens (F. Barros); and
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (S. Bell); and S. Beckendorf, E.
L. Borba, and N. B. Machado Neto for material. This research
was supported by a grant from the American Orchid Society
Research Committee, a scholarship 200792/96-2 from the Bra-
zilian National Research Council (Conselho Nacional de Pes-
quisas, CNPq) to CVDB, and the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Author for correspondence: (
linators. Cattleya, Laelia, Pseudolaelia, and En-
cyclia are pollinated by bees and birds, Brassa-
vola and Rhyncholaelia by moths, and Epiden-
drum by moths, butterflies, and birds (Dodson and
Frymire, 1965; van der Pijl and Dodson, 1966).
The chromosome number varies from 2n
24 to
56 but is most commonly 2n
40 (Tanaka
and Kamemoto, 1984). Most of this chromosome
number variation appears within species rather
than characterizing genera or groups of genera.
Hybridization in nature has been documented by
a few intra- and intergeneric hybrids, especially
involving Cattleya and related genera (Adams and
Anderson, 1958), and there are thousands of in-
terspecific and intergeneric articifial hybrids made
for horticultural purposes.
In both vegetative and floral characters, Laeli-
inae are exceedingly diverse. Some genera such
as Epidendrum, Isochilus, Jacquiniella, and Po-
nera have a reed-stem habit, although most have
thickened pseudobulbs with one to many terminal
leaves (e.g., Encyclia, Prosthechea, and Cattley-
a). The number of pollinia varies from 2–12
(most commonly eight) and has been emphasized
for the separation of some pairs of genera such
as Cattleya (four) and Laelia (eight), although the
same character has been accepted as polymorphic
in Encyclia, Broughtonia, and Homalopetalum
(Baker, 1972).
Dressler (1993) grouped Laeliinae with Coeli-
inae, Pleurothallidinae, Arpophyllinae, Meiracyl-
liinae, and Sobraliinae in what he called New
World Epidendreae. The most distinctive char-
acter separating Laeliinae from the other subtribes
is lateral attening of the pollinia. Consequently,
because of their different types of pollinia Arpo-
phyllum and Meiracyllium were previously re-
moved from Laeliinae to the monogeneric sub-
tribes Arpophyllinae (Dressler, 1990) and Meira-
cylliinae (Dressler, 1960). Coeliinae can be dis-
tinguished from Laeliinae by their lateral
inorescences and from Pleurothallidinae by lack-
ing a joint between the ovary and pedicel. Sobra-
liinae have been shown recently to be only dis-
tantly related to these subtribes in an analysis of
Orchidaceae based on rbcL sequence data (Cam-
eron et al., 1999).
Several different classications have been pro-
posed to divide Laeliinae into generic series
(Schlechter, 1926; Brieger, 1976), generic allianc-
es (Dressler, 1981), and even into three related
subtribes (Szlachetko, 1995). A separate subtribe,
Ponerinae, has been used for the genera with a
column foot, including Helleriella, Hexadesmia,
Ponera, Scaphyglottis, Isochilus, Domingoa, Jac-
quiniella, and Orleanesia (Schlechter, 1926), but
in the system of Dressler (1993) Laeliinae includ-
ed all these genera. The only large-scale study of
generic relationships used foliar anatomy (Baker,
1972). Among other results he found Arpophyl-
lum, but not Meiracyllium, to be reasonably dis-
tinct from other Laeliinae. He proposed a reticu-
late graph depicting the relationships among gen-
era that was later transformed into six generic al-
liances by Dressler (1981). However, Baker
(1972) did not use an explicit method of analysis
to convert his results into a phylogenetic tree, and
a large number of genera were polymorphic for
many of the characters surveyed, leading Dressler
(1993) later to abandon the alliances completely.
Many authors have suggested the articiality of
some genera; this is especially true for Laelia
(Dressler 1981, 1993), which has a disjunct dis-
tribution between Mexico and northern Central
America and southeast Brazil. A recent morpho-
logical analysis of the Mexican Laelia species in-
dicated no relationship to Brazilian groups at all
(Halbinger and Soto, 1997). A similar analysis
(Higgins, 1997) of the genus Encyclia was used
to separate the genus Prosthechea from Encyclia,
but Higgins also transferred to Prosthechea spe-
cies later moved into Euchile (e.g., E. mariae and
E. citrina) by Withner (1998). There are many
small or monospecic genera with uncertain af-
nities and unusual vegetative and oral charac-
ters, such as Isabelia, Sophronitella, Neolauchea,
Pseudolaelia, Leptotes, Loefgrenianthus, Con-
stantia, Hagsatera, Artorima, and Alamania, and
some putatively related sets of genera such as
Broughtonia, Cattleyopsis, Laeliopsis (Sauleda,
1989; Dı´az Dumas, 1998), and Psychilis, Tetra-
micra, and Quisqueya, that are morphologically
so similar to each other as to make generic bound-
aries unclear. The phylogeny of none of the gen-
era has been studied except for the Mexican spe-
cies of Laelia (Halbinger and Soto, 1997). Nev-
ertheless, there have been many competing sys-
tems for infrageneric classication of Cattleya
and Laelia (Schlechter, 1917; Pabst, 1975; Brie-
ger, 1976; Fowlie, 1977; Braem, 1984, 1986;
Withner, 1988, 1990).
Many studies using DNA sequence data have
been performed to resolve phylogeny of animals
and plants at different levels. In Orchidaceae,
plastid regions have been used for higher level
phylogeny (Chase et al., 1994; Neyland and Ur-
batsch, 1996; Yukawa, Cameron, and Chase,
1996; Kores et al., 1997; Cameron et al., 1999),
as well as nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed
spacers (ITS) for lower taxonomic levels (Cox et
al., 1997; Pridgeon et al., 1997; Pridgeon and
Chase, 1998; Douzery et al., 1999; Cameron and
Chase, 1999; Ryan et al., 2000; Whitten et al., in
press). ITS was useful in most of these studies,
although the level of variation is neither consis-
tent nor predictable in different subtribes. In this
work we use ITS nrDNA sequences of Laeliinae
and putatively related subtribes to study relation-
ships of genera within the subtribe as well as the
species phylogeny of Cattleya and related genera.
Material from most genera of Laeliinae and
nearly all species in the Cattleya alliance was
sampled (Table 1). We were unable to obtain sam-
TABLE 1. Plant material and voucher information in this study.
Species Voucher
Acrorchis roseola Dressler
Alamania punicea La Llave & Lex.
Amblostoma armeniacum (Lindl.) Brieger ex Pabst
Amblostoma cernuum Scheidw.
Aplectrum hyemale Torr.
Arpophyllum giganteum Hartw. ex Lindl.
unvouchered (coll. W.M. Whitten)
van den Berg C184 (ESA)
van den Berg C2 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 15628 (ESA)
Chase O-104 (K)
Chase O-586 (K)
Arpophyllum spicatum La Llave & Lex.
Artorima erubescens (Lindl.) Dressler & G.E. Pollard
Barkeria skinneri (Batem. ex Lindl.) Lindl. ex Paxton
Barkeria whartoniana (C. Schweinf.) Soto Arenas
Barkeria whartoniana (C. Schweinf.) Soto Arenas
Bletia parkinsonii Hook.
Soto MAS 7814 (AMO)
unvouchered (coll. S. Beckendorf)
van den Berg C250 (K spirit)
van den Berg C163 (K spirit)
van den Berg C249 (K spirit)
Chase O-1215 (K)
Brassavola acaulis Lindl. & Paxton
Brassavola cucullata (L.) R.Br.
Brassavola cucullata (L.) R.Br.
Brassavola grandiflora Lindl.
Brassavola martiana Lindl.
Brassavola nodosa (L.) Lindl.
W. M. Whitten 99218 (FLAS)
W.E. Higgins 130 (FLAS 198290)
van den Berg C174 (K spirit)
W. M. Whitten 99216 (FLAS)
unvouchered (Kew 19952685)
Chase O-339 (K)
Brassavola subulifolia Lindl.
Brassavola tuberculata Hook.
Briegeria equitantifolia (Ames) Senghas
Broughtonia negrilensis Fowlie
Broughtonia sanguinea (Sw.) R.Br.
W. M. Whitten 99217 (FLAS)
Brieger Coll. 3497 (ESA)
van den Berg C171 (K spirit)
W.E. Higgins 152 (FLAS 198288)
Brieger Coll. 14440 (ESA)
Calanthe tricarinata Lindl.
Cattleya aclandiae Lindl.
Cattleya amethystoglossa Linden & Rchb.f. ex Warner
Cattleya araguaiensis Pabst
Cattleya aurantiaca (Batem. ex Lindl.) P.N.Don
Cattleya aurea Linden
Chase O-820 (K)
Brieger Coll. 32982 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 8272 (ESA)
unvouchered (Kew 19991443)
Brieger Coll. 124 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 2589 (ESA)
Cattleya bicolor Lindl. (Brası´lia)
Cattleya bicolor Lindl. (Diamantina)
Cattleya bicolor Lindl. (Formiga)
Cattleya bicolor Lindl. (Itatiaia)
Cattleya bowringiana Veitch
Cattleya bowringiana Veitch
Brieger Coll. 22574 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 30656 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 4336 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 891 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 96 (ESA)
van den Berg C284 (K)
Cattleya candida (Kunth) Lehm.
Cattleya dormaniana (Rchb.f.) Rchb.f.
Cattleya dowiana Batem.
Cattleya elongata Lindl.
Cattleya forbesii Lindl.
Cattleya gaskelliana Braem
Brieger Coll. 748 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 23977 (ESA)
Chase O-282 (K)
Brieger Coll. 8078 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 5358 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 6253 (ESA)
Cattleya granulosa Lindl. (Bahia State-BA)
Cattleya granulosa Lindl. (Pernambuco state-PE)
Cattleya guttata Lindl.
Cattleya harrisoniana Batem. ex Lindl.
Cattleya intermedia Graham ex Hook.
Cattleya iricolor Rchb.f.
Cattleya jenmanii Rolfe
Brieger Coll. 19216 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 22482 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 11299 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 16036 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 4095 (ESA)
unvouchered (Kew 19991502)
unvouchered (coll. C. van den Berg)
Cattleya kerrii Brieger & Bicalho
Cattleya labiata Lindl. (Pernambuco State)
Cattleya labiata Lindl. (Ceara´ State-CE)
Cattleya lawrenceana Rchb.f.
Cattleya loddigesii Lindl.
Cattleya lueddemanniana Rchb.f.
Brieger Coll. 18765 (Holotype-HB)
Brieger Coll. 5487 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 20545 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 3802 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 2483 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 755 (ESA)
Cattleya lueddemanniana Rchb.f.
Cattleya luteola Lindl.
Cattleya maxima Lindl.
Cattleya maxima Lindl.
Cattleya mendelii Backh.f.
Cattleya mooreana Withner, D. Allison & Guenard
Brieger Coll. 3759 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 32187 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 2986-32 (ESA)
unvouchered (Kew 19834362)
Brieger Coll. 2418 (ESA)
unvouchered (Kew 19991569)
Cattleya mossiae Hook.
Cattleya nobilior Rchb.f.
Cattleya patinii Cogn.
Cattleya percivaliana OBrien
Brieger Coll. 6219 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 30978 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 4138 (ESA)
van den Berg C279 (ESA)
TABLE 1. Continued.
Species Voucher
Cattleya porphyroglossa Linden & Rchb.f.
Cattleya schilleriana Rchb.f.
unvouchered (Kew 19862034)
Brieger Coll. 6640 (ESA)
Cattleya schoeldiana Rchb.f.
Cattleya schroderae Rchb.f.
Cattleya skinneri Batem.
Cattleya skinneri Batem.
Cattleya skinneri Batem.
Cattleya tenuis Campacci & Vedovello
Brieger Coll. 6656 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 94 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 10103 (ESA)
unvouchered (Kew 19864870)
Brieger Coll. 708 (ESA)
C211-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Cattleya tigrina A.Rich. (syn C. leopoldii Verschaff.)
Cattleya trianaei Linden & Rchb.f.
Cattleya trichopiliochila Barb.Rodr. (syn. C. eldorado Linden)
Cattleya velutina Rchb.f.
Cattleya violacea (Kunth) Rolfe
Cattleya walkeriana Gardner
van den Berg C186 (K spirit)
Brieger Coll. 2608 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 28787 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 7843 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 28495 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 1627 (ESA)
Cattleya warneri T.Moore
Cattleya warscewiczii Rchb.f.
Cattleyopsis lindenii (Lindl.) Cogn.
Caularthron bicornutum (Hook.) Raf.
Caularthron bilamellatum Rchb.f. (R.E.Schultes)
Chysis bractescens Lindl.
Brieger Coll. 6605 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 754 (ESA)
W.E. Higgins 251 (FLAS 198289)
Brieger Coll. 7959 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 3690 ESA)
Chase O-436 (K)
Coelia guatemalensis Rchb.f.
Coelia macrostachya Lindl.
Coelia triptera G.Don
Constantia cipoensis Porto & Brade
Constantia microscopica F.E.L.Miranda
Dilomilis montana (Sw.) Summerh.
M.Soto 7973 (AMO)
Chase O-817 (K)
Chase O-324 (K)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. s.n. (SP)
E.L.Borba 515 & J.M.Felix (UEC)
Chase O-206 (K)
Dimerandra emarginata (G.Mey.) Hoehne
Dinema polybulbon (Sw.) Lindl.
Domingoa kienastii (Rchb.f.) Dressler
Domingoa nodosa (Cogn.) Schltr.
Dracula chimaera (Rchb.f.) Luer
Earina autumnalis Hook.
Chase O-335 (K)
Brieger Coll. 6052 (ESA 35552)
W. E. Higgins 225 (FLAS 198291)
W. E. Higgins 1034 (FLAS 198284)
Chase O-967 (K)
Chase O-298 (K)
Encyclia adenocaula (La Llave & Lex.) Schltr.
Encyclia bractescens (Lindl.) Hoehne
Encyclia cordigera (Kunth) Dressler
Encyclia cyperifolia (C.Schweinf.) Carnevali & I.Ramı´rez
Encyclia dichroma (Lindl.) Schltr.
Encyclia granitica (Lindl.) Schltr.
W.E. Higgins 12 (FLAS 198274)
W.E. Higgins 21 (FLAS 198275)
W.E. Higgins 24 (FLAS 198276)
Brieger Coll. 5758 (ESA)
Selby BG.88-0310 (FLAS 198278)
Brieger Coll. 21371 (ESA)
Encyclia maderoi Schltr.
Encyclia oncidioides (Lindl.) Schltr.
Encyclia sp.
Encyclia tampensis (Lindl.) Small
Epidendrum campestre Lindl.
Epidendrum capricornu Kraenzl.
Brieger Coll. 2619 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 5420 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 11024 (ESA)
W.E. Higgins 27 (FLAS 198277)
E.L. Borba 553 (UEC)
van den Berg C251 (K spirit)
Epidendrum ciliare L.
Epidendrum cinnabarinum Salzm. ex Lindl.
Epidendrum conopseum R.Br.
Epidendrum criniferum Rchb.f.
Epidendrum ibaguense Lindl.
Epidendrum latifolium (Lindl.) Garay & H.R.Sweet
Brieger Coll. 1024 (ESA)
van den Berg C277 (K spirit)
W. E. Higgins 244 (FLAS 198271)
van den Berg C252 (K spirit)
W. E. Higgins 60 (FLAS 198270)
van den Berg C254 (K spirit)
Epidendrum nocturnum Jacq.
Epidendrum pseudepidendrum Rchb.f.
Epidendrum radioferens (Ames, F.T.Hubb. & C.Schweinf.) Ha´gsater
Epidendrum secundum Jacq.
Epidendrum stamfordianum Bateman
Epidendrum veroscriptum Ha´gsater
Chalets s.n. (AMO)
van den Berg C4 (ESA)
Chase O-300 (K)
E.L.Borba 552 (UEC)
Brieger Coll. 1200 (ESA)
van den Berg C247 (K spirit)
Euchile sinaloensis (ined.)
Euchile citrina (La Llave & Lex.) Withner
Euchile mariae (Ames) Withner
Hagsatera brachycolumna (L.O.Williams) R.Gonza´lez
Helleriella guerrerensis Dressler & Ha´gsater
Helleriella punctulata (Rchb.f.) Garay & H.R.Sweet
Hexadesmia crurigera Lindl.
Hexadesmia micrantha Lindl.
unvouchered (Kew 19991710)
W.E. Higgins 54 (FLAS 198269)
Chase O-158 (K)
W. E. Higgins 229 (FLAS 198272)
van den Berg C172 (K spirit)
Chase O-299 (K)
Chase O-336 (K)
unvouchered (coll. R.L.Dressler)
TABLE 1. Continued.
Species Voucher
Hexalectris revoluta Correll
Hexisea bidenata Lindl.
Hexisea imbricata (Lindl.) Rchb.f.
Homalopetalum pachyphyllum (L.O.Williams) Dressler
D. Goldman 1364 (TEX)
Brieger Coll. 1253 (ESA)
W.M. Whitten 97039 (FLAS)
M.Soto 7640 (AMO)
Homalopetalum pumilio (Rchb.f.) Schltr.
Homalopetalum pumilum (Ames) Dressler
Isabelia virginalis Barb.Rodr.
Isabelia virginalis Barb. Rodr.
Isochilus alatus Schltr.
Isochilus amparoanus Schltr.
M.Soto 7443 (AMO)
M.Soto 8950 (AMO)
Brieger Coll. 17289 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 30243 (ESA)
M. Soto 7190 (AMO)
Chase O-204 (K)
Isochilus brasiliensis Schltr.
Isochilus langlassei Schltr.
Isochilus major Cham. & Schltdl.
Jacquiniella globosa Schltr.
Jacquiniella teretifolia Britton & P.Wilson
Laelia alaorii Brieger & Bicalho
Brieger Coll. 33696 (ESA 35553)
M.Soto 7808 (AMO)
W. M. Whitten 91348 (FLAS)
W. M. Whitten 97064 (FLAS)
W. M. Whitten 97026 (FLAS)
Brieger Coll. 19179 (ESA)
Laelia albida Batem. ex Lindl.
Laelia alvaroana F.E.L.Miranda
Laelia alvaroana F.E.L.Miranda
Laelia anceps Lindl.
Laelia anceps Lindl.
Laelia angereri Pabst
unvouchered (coll. S. Beckendorf)
van den Berg C227 (ESA)
C207-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Chase O-998 (K)
Brieger Coll. 3811 (ESA)
C223-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Laelia autumnalis (La Llave & Lex.) Lindl.
Laelia bahiensis Schltr.
Laelia blumenscheinii Pabst
Laelia bradei Pabst
Laelia brevicaulis (H.G.Jones) Withner
Laelia briegeri Blumensch. ex Pabst
Laelia cardimii Pabst & A.F.Mello
unvouchered (coll. S. Beckendorf)
C221-Machado s.n. (ESA)
C209-Machado s.n. (ESA)
C215-Machado s.n. (ESA)
C208-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 4612 (ESA)
C205-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Laelia caulescens Lindl.
Laelia cinnabarina Batem. ex Lindl.
Laelia crispa Rchb.f.
Laelia crispata Thunb. (Garay) (syn. L. ava Lindl.)
Laelia crispilabia (A.Rich. ex Rchb.f.) Warner
Laelia dayana Rchb.f.
Brieger Coll. 1916 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 1395 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 3914 (ESA)
van den Berg C32 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 4837 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 15795 (ESA)
Laelia duveenii Fowlie
Laelia esalqueana Blumensch. ex Pabst
Laelia delensis Pabst
Laelia furfuracea Lindl.
Laelia ghillanyi Pabst
Laelia gloedeniana Hoehne
C213-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 4980 (ESA)
C225-Machado s.n. (ESA)
unvouchered (coll. S. Beckendorf)
C214-Machado s.n. (ESA)
van den Berg C35 (ESA)
Laelia gouldiana Rchb.f.
Laelia grandis Lindl. & Paxton
Laelia harpophylla Rchb.f.
Laelia itambana Pabst
Laelia jongheana Rchb.f.
Laelia kautskyi Pabst
unvouchered (coll. S. Beckendorf)
Brieger Coll. 19209 (ESA
Brieger Coll. 6687 (ESA)
C212-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 31534 (ESA)
van den Berg C286 (K spirit)
Laelia kettieana Pabst
Laelia liliputiana Pabst
Laelia lobata (Lindl.) Veitch
Laelia longipes Rchb.f.
Laelia lundii (Rchb.f.) Withner
Laelia mantiqueirae Pabst ex D.C.Zappi
C210-Machado s.n. (ESA)
C206-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 3557 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 5183 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 30692 (ESA)
van den Berg C224 (ESA)
Laelia milleri Blumensch. ex Pabst
Laelia mixta Hoehne ex Ruschi
Laelia perrinii Batem.
Laelia psteri Pabst & Senghas
Laelia praestans Linden & Rchb.f.
Laelia pumila (Hook.) Rchb.f.
Brieger Coll. 5070 (ESA)
C220-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 652 (ESA)
van den Berg C226 (ESA)
C217-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 7794 (ESA)
Laelia purpurata Lindl. & Paxton
Laelia reginae Pabst
Laelia rubescens Lindl.
Laelia rupestris Lindl.
Laelia sanguiloba Withner
Selby B.G. 84-0459 (SEL)
C218-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Chase O-1205 (K)
van den Berg C33 (ESA)
C216-Machado s.n. (ESA)
TABLE 1. Continued.
Species Voucher
Laelia sincorana Schltr.
Laelia speciosa (Kunth) Schltr.
Laelia speciosa (Kunth) Schltr.
Laelia tenebrosa (Rolfe) Rolfe
Laelia tereticaulis Hoehne
Laelia virens Lindl.
Laelia xanthina Lindl. ex Hook.
van den Berg C263 (K spirit)
Chase O-6088 (unvouchered)
Chase O-6411 (unvouchered)
van den Berg C279 (K spirit)
van den Berg C222 (ESA)
van den Berg C18 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 6662 (ESA)
Laelia xanthina Lindl. ex Hook.
Laeliopsis dominguensis (Lindl.) Lindl. & Paxton
Lanium avicula (Lindl.) Benth.
Leptotes bicolor Lindl.
Leptotes cf. tenuis Rchb.f.
Leptotes cf. unicolor Barb.Rodr.
Brieger Coll. 6635 (ESA)
unvouchered (coll. W.E. Higgins)
Brieger Coll. 23319 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 1068 (ESA)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 16809 (SP)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 13534 (SP)
Leptotes cf. unicolor Barb.Rodr.
Loefgrenianthus blanche-amesiae (Loefgr.) Hoehne
Masdevallia oribunda Lindl.
Meiracyllium gemma Rchb.f.
Meiracyllium trinasutum Rchb.f.
C204-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. s.n. (SP)
Chase O-296 (K)
M.Soto 8731 (AMO)
Chase O-202 (K)
Meiracyllium trinasutum Rchb.f.
Myrmecophila galeottiana (A.Rich.) Rolfe
Myrmecophila sp.
Myrmecophila thomsoniana (Rchb.f.) Rolfe
van den Berg C7 (ESA)
unvouchered (Kew 19823743)
Chase O-281 (K)
van den Berg C167 (K spirit)
Myrmecophila tibicinis (Batem.) Rolfe
Myrmecophila wendlandii (Rchb.f.) G.C.Kenn
Nageliella angustifolia (Booth ex Lindl.) Ames & Correll
Nageliella purpurea (Lindl.) L.O.Williams
Nanodes mathewsii (Rchb.f.) Rolfe
Nanodes schlechterianum (Ames) Brieger
van den Berg C81 (ESA)
van den Berg C165 (K spirit)
W. Bussey s.n. Guatemala (AMO)
van den Berg C260 (K spirit)
Brieger Coll. 16746 (ESA)
Chase O-301 (K)
Neocogniauxia hexaptera (Cogn.) Schltr.
Neocogniauxia monophylla (Griseb.) Schltr.
Neolauchea pulchella Kraenzl.
Neolauchea pulchella Kraenzl.
Nidema boothii (Lindl.) Schltr.
Oerstedella centradenia Rchb.f.
van den Berg C244 (K)
van den Berg C245 (K)
Brieger Coll. 11737 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 6367 (ESA)
W. E. Higgins 192 (FLAS 198273)
van den Berg C169 (K spirit)
Orleanesia amazonica Barb.Rodr.
Orleanesia pleurostachys (Linden & Rchb.f.) Garay & Dunst.
Platyglottis coriacea L.O.Williams
Pleione chunii C.L.Tso
Pleurothallis racemiora Lindl.
Polystachya galeata Rchb.f.
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 15936 (SP)
J.T. Atwood et al. 5614 (FLAS)
unvouchered (coll. R.L. Dressler)
van den Berg C290 (K spirit)
W. E. Higgins 140 (FLAS 198267)
van den Berg C283 (K spirit)
Ponera australis Cogn.
Ponera exilis Dressler
Ponera glomerata Correll
Ponera striata Lindl.
Ponera striata Lindl.
Prosthechea abbreviata (Schltr.) W.E.Higgins
Brieger Coll. 33642 (ESA 35548)
M.Soto s.n., Paracho, Michoacan (AMO)
M.Soto 8224 (AMO)
W. E. Higgins 197 (FLAS 198268)
Chase O-6178 (K spirit)
Brieger Coll. 10092 (ESA)
Prosthechea aemula (Lindl.) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea allemanii (Barb.Rodr.) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea calamaria (Lindl.) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea cf. moojenii (Pabst) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea cochleata (L.) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea fausta (Rchb.f. ex Cogn.) W.E.Higgins
W. E. Higgins 17 (FLAS 198279)
Brieger Coll. 5940 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 10368 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 8118 (ESA)
MBG 75-0658 (FLAS 198280)
van den Berg C95 (ESA)
Prosthechea lambda (Linden & Rchb.f) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea linkiana (Klotzsch) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea prismatocarpa (Rchb.f.) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea pygmaea (Hook.) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea suzanensis (Hoehne) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea venezuelana (Schltr.) W.E.Higgins
Brieger Coll. 6032 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 3879 (ESA)
W. E. Higgins 19 (FLAS 198283)
Selby B.G. 92-0206 (FLAS 198281)
van den Berg C119 (K spirit)
Brieger Coll. 2543 (ESA)
Prosthechea vitellina (Lindl.) W.E.Higgins
Prosthechea widgrenii (Lindl.) W.E.Higgins
Pseudolaelia cf. cipoensis Pabst
Pseudolaelia cf. cipoensis Pabst
Pseudolaelia cf. citrina Pabst
Pseudolaelia cf. dutraei Ruschi
W. E. Higgins 57 (FLAS 198282)
Brieger Coll. 30565 (ESA)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 12759 (SP)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 12406 (SP)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 12323 (SP)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 12243 (SP)
TABLE 1. Continued.
Species Voucher
Pseudolaelia cf. geraensis Pabst
Pseudolaelia cf. vellozicola (Hoehne) Porto & Brade
Pseudolaelia cf. vellozicola (Hoehne) Porto & Brade
Pseudolaelia vellozicola (Hoehne) Porto & Brade
Pseudolaelia vellozicola (Hoehne) Porto & Brade
E.L.Borba 554 (UEC)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 13358 (SP)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 13362 (SP)
Brieger Coll. 6736, Chase O-1200 (ESA)
Brieger Coll. 6736 (ESA)C201
Psychilis krugii (Bello) Sauleda
Psychillis macconnelliae Sauleda
Quisqueya ekmanii Dod
Reichenbachanthus cuniculatus (Schltr.) Pabst
Renata canaanensis Ruschi
Renata canaanensis Ruschi
Chase O-1062 (K)
W. E. Higgins 53 (FLAS 198287)
W. E. Higgins 1043 (FLAS 198286)
W. M. Whitten 96051 (FLAS)
Brieger Coll. 16205 (ESA) C150
Brieger Coll. 16205 (ESA) C188
Rhyncholaelia digbyana (Lindl.) Schltr.
Rhyncholaelia digbyana (Lindl.) Schltr.
Rhyncholaelia glauca (Lindl.) Schltr.
Scaphyglottis bilineata Schltr.
Scaphyglottis boliviensis (Rolfe) B.R.Adams
Scaphyglottis geminata Dressler & Mora Retana
Chase O-331 (K)
van den Berg C73 (ESA)
van den Berg C30 (ESA)
W. M. Whitten 96054 (FLAS)
W. M. Whitten 97006 (SEL)
W. M. Whitten 96050 (FLAS)
Scaphyglottis gentryi Dodson & Monsalve
Scaphyglottis graminifolia Poepp. & Endl.
Scaphyglottis lindeniana (A.Rich & Galeotti) L.O.Williams
Scaphyglottis pulchella (Schltr.) L.O.Williams
Schomburgkia crispa Lindl.
Schomburgkia lyonsii Lindl.
W. M. Whitten 97007 (FLAS)
W. M. Whitten 97012 (FLAS)
W. M. Whitten 96051 (FLAS)
unvouchered (coll. W.M. Whitten)
van den Berg C154 (ESA 35551)
Brieger Coll. 16846 (ESA)
Schomburgkia splendida Schltr.
Schomburgkia superbiens (Lindl.) Rolfe
Schomburgkia undulata Lindl.
Sophronitella violacea (Lindl.) Schltr.
Sophronitis brevipedunculata (Cogn.) Fowlie
Sophronitis brevipedunculata (Cogn.) Fowlie
Whitten 93026 (FLAS)
van den Berg C164 (K spirit)
van den Berg C29 (ESA)
van den Berg C127 (ESA)
C129-Machado s.n. (ESA)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. s.n. IBDF (SP)
Sophronitis cernua Lindl.
Sophronitis cernua Lindl.
Sophronitis coccinea (Lindl.) Rchb.f.
Sophronitis coccinea (Lindl.) Rchb.f.
Sophronitis mantiqueirae (Fowlie) Fowlie
Brieger Coll. 15737 (ESA)
van den Berg C246 (K spirit)
van den Berg C173 (K spirit)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 9577 (SP)
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 12195 (SP)
Sophronitis wittigiana Barb.Rodr.
Tetragamestus modestus Rchb.f.
Tetramicra elegans (Ham.) Cogn.
Thunia alba Rchb.f.
Sa˜o Paulo B.G. 8961 (SP)
Brieger Coll. 2756 (ESA)
W. E. Higgins 160 (FLAS 198285)
Chase O-589 (K)
ples of Pinelia, Pygmaeorchis, and Basiphyllaea.
The latter, however, was found to be a member
of Bletiinae in analyses of matK (D. Goldman,
pers. comm.) and ITS (V. Sosa, pers. comm.). We
also sampled multiple taxa representing Chysi-
inae, Coeliinae, Bletiinae, Pleurothallidinae, Ar-
pophyllinae, and Meiracylliinae. An assemblage
of Old World Epidendroideae was used as mul-
tiple outgroups: Thunia alba, Pleione chunii, Cal-
anthe tricarinata, Earina autumnalis, and Poly-
stachya galeata. These were chosen based on un-
published data of ITS, trnL-F, and matK (van den
Berg et al., unpubl.) and D. Goldman (pers.
comm.). Polystachya was included because it was
placed near Laeliinae by Cameron et al. (1999).
Despite being putatively related to Laeliinae in
the classication of Dressler (1993), members of
Sobraliinae were not included because of their ex-
cessively divergent sequences as well as their dis-
tant position in Cameron et al. (1999).
DNA was extracted mostly from fresh leaves
or owers using a method based on Doyle and
Doyle (1987), which included purication
through a cesium chloride/ethidium bromide gra-
dient (1.55 g ml
). The ITS region including the
5.8S gene was then amplied with the primers
17SE and 26SE of Sun et al. (1994). PCR prod-
ucts were cleaned with QIAquick silica columns
(QIAGEN, Ltd.), adding guanidinium chloride
(35%) to remove primer dimers. PCR products
were sequenced in both directions with the same
primers and also ITS5 and ITS4 (White et al.,
1990; Baldwin, 1992), using an ABI 377 auto-
mated sequencer following manufacturers proto-
cols (PE Applied Biosystems, Inc., Warrington,
Cheshire, UK). Electropherograms were super-
posed and edited using Sequencher 3.0 (Geneco-
des Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan), and the resultant
sequences were rst aligned using Clustal W
(Thompson, 1995) and then further adjusted by
eye. Phylogenetic analysis was performed with
PAUP 4.0b2 (Swofford, 1998) with Fitch parsi-
mony (equal weights, unordered; Fitch, 1971).
Initially we performed 1000 random taxon-addi-
tion replicates to look for multiple optimal-tree
islands (Maddison, 1991). The search was per-
formed with the subtree pruning-regrafting (SPR)
algorithm, but we limited swapping to only 15
trees per replicate to prevent extensive swapping
on suboptimal islands. The resulting shortest trees
were then used as starting trees using the tree bi-
section-reconnection (TBR) until we obtained a
set limit of 10,000 trees. We used both a matrix
with the sequences alone as well as another in-
cluding binary gap coding of all gaps of three
base pairs (bp) or more. This was constructed
with PAUPGAP v. 1.1.2. (Cox, 1997) but then
limited to only gaps of three bp or more. Support
was evaluated through bootstrapping (Felsenstein,
1995) of 1000 replicates with simple taxon ad-
dition and TBR branch swapping, but saving only
15 trees per replicate. All sequences have been
submitted to GenBank.
The results including the gaps did not conict
with the original matrix, and because the trees
were much more resolved due to the extra infor-
mation contained in the gaps, we decided to use
the analysis including gaps as a basis for the pre-
sent discussion. The aligned ITS sequence matrix
had 851 positions, to which we added 198 gap
characters (coded as plus/minus). The gap posi-
tions themselves were coded as missing charac-
ters. In the complete matrix, 535 of the 1049 char-
acters were potentially parsimony informative. In
the heuristic search, we found more than 10,000
trees (the limit we enforced) of 3958 steps, with
the consistency index (CI, including autapomor-
0.26 and the retention index (RI)
One of these trees is presented in summary in
Figure 1 and as a series of detailed subclades in
Figure 6, with the Fitch lengths above and the
bootstrap percentages below each branch. An ar-
rowhead indicates a node collapsing in the strict
consensus of the 10,000 trees. The CI/RI for tran-
sitions (ts) and transversions (tv) were 0.25/0.71
and 0.30/0.69, respectively, and the ts/tv ratio was
2.08. The CI excluding uninformative characters
and RI from the DNA sequences and gap coding
characters were 0.28/0.71 and 0.19/0.76, respec-
On the basis of ITS data, Laeliinae are mono-
phyletic provided that some genera are removed
to other subtribes. One such case is Dilomilis and
Neocogniauxia, which are sister to Pleurothalli-
dinae with high bootstrap support (97%). The oth-
er is a group of genera with a column foot, name-
ly Ponera, Helleriella, and Isochilus, which form
an independent clade sister to both Laeliinae and
Pleurothallidinae/Dilomilis/Neocogniauxia. How-
ever, additional genera with a column foot, such
as Scaphyglottis, Hexisea, Reichenbachanthus,
Domingoa, and Homalopetalum are members of
Laeliinae. The ITS data place Arpophyllum as sis-
ter to Laeliinae with high bootstrap support (98%)
but place Meiracyllium within the subtribe, close
to Euchile (the former Encyclia mariae/E. citrina
There are several distinct generic clusters in
Laeliinae, although only few of them have high
bootstrap support, which is due to the overall low
variability of ITS, especially in the spine of the
tree. Despite the low support, most of these clus-
ters appear consistently in 10,000 shortest trees
and are consistent with previous taxonomy,
whereas others represent assemblages of genera
from distinct oristic regions.
One of these clades (68%) is composed of Pseu-
dolaelia, Renata, Isabelia, Neolauchea, Sophroni-
tella, and Constantia (Fig. 2), an assemblage of
small Brazilian genera that are either epiphytic on
Vellozia (Velloziaceae) or found in rather dry hab-
itats in savanna vegetation. They also share pecu-
liar similar short side lobes of the lip and short
columns. Another such group (82%) is Broughton-
ia, Laeliopsis, Cattleyopsis, Psychilis, Quisqueya,
and Tetramicra (Fig. 2), all from the Caribbean. In
Figure 3, the clade of Mexican Laelia/Schomburg-
kia and Domingoa, Nageliella, and Homalopetal-
um does not appear in the strict consensus, al-
though all of its members are also principally Mex-
ican. The montane species of Laelia (containing
the type species L. speciosa) fall in a separate sub-
clade from L. anceps and L. rubescens, which in
turn go with Schomburgkia. It is important to no-
Fig 1. A summary of the relationships of one of 10,000 most parsimonious trees of the combined ITS and gap coding matrix.
tice that all these species of Laelia sensu stricto
are distantly placed from the Brazilian species of
Laelia, which belong to the Cattleya alliance
(Fig. 6). Another clade in Figure 3 contains the
genera with a column foot: Scaphyglottis, Reichen-
bachanthus, Hexisea, and Platyglottis. This also
shows clearly the positions of Hexadesmia and Te-
tragamestus embedded in Scaphyglottis. The spe-
cies known as Helleriella punctulata is in fact
also a Scaphyglottis and has no relationship to H.
nicaraguensis and H. guerrerensis of Ponerinae
(Fig. 2). The Epidendrum alliance appears as a
clade (Fig. 3) and includes Epidendrum, Orleane-
sia, Amblostoma, Barkeria, Lanium, Nanodes, and
Fig. 2. A portion of one of 10,000 most parsimonious trees of the combined ITS and gap coding matrix, CI
0.26 (excluding
non-informative characters), RI
0.71, Fitch tree length
3958. Fitch branch lengths are above branches, and bootstrap per-
centages (50% or more) are below. Arrows indicate branches not present in the strict consensus.
Caularthron. Although there is a clade with all
genera once considered to be part of Encyclia (ex-
cluding Psychilis; Fig. 4), it appeared in only 98%
of the trees and therefore collapses in the strict
consensus. One of its subclades has Encyclia sensu
stricto plus Meiracyllium and Euchile (the latter
segregated by Withner, 1998), and a second has
Prosthechea, with Alamania, Artorima, and Hag-
Fig. 3. Laelia s.s., Epidendrum, and Scaphyglottis alliances in the same most parsimonious tree as Figure 2.
satera as consecutive sister taxa, which is in turn
sister to a small clade containing Dinema, Nidema,
and Dimerandra.
Finally, there is a large assemblage of taxa that
we will refer to here as the Cattleya alliance
(Figs. 5, 6), which includes Cattleya, Brassavola,
Myrmecophila, Sophronitis, and the Brazilian
species of Laelia. Although we sampled most of
Fig. 4. Encyclia and related genera in the same most parsimonious tree as Figure 2.
the species in these genera, phylogeny reconstruc-
tion was made difcult by the low level of vari-
ation among species complexes, for example in
Laelia section Parviorae (Fig. 6). It is quite clear
that Sophronitis and Laelia are closely related,
and most of the sections proposed by Schlechter
(1917) and Withner (1990) are present. Cattleya
is polyphyletic, but there are two main sister
clades including the unifoliate species in one and
the other composed of the Brazilian bifoliate spe-
cies. However, the group of Cattleya skinneri (C.
skinneri, C. patinii, C. aurantiaca) is closer to
Rhyncholaelia, whereas C. bowringiana and C.
araguaiensis occur in isolated positions. There
was also an unpredicted group of unifoliate Catt-
leya species (C. trichopiliochila, C. lawrenceana,
C. lueddemanniana) that are sister to the Brazilian
species of Laelia, which includes also C. maxima.
Brassavola has one group of species with high
(98%) bootstrap support but is paraphyletic to
Cattleya due to the position of three species that
fall outside this group (B. acaulis, B. tuberculata,
and B. cucullata; Fig. 5). However, these rela-
tionships received less than 50% bootstrap sup-
port and collapse in the strict consensus.
Despite the large number of informative char-
acters in the matrix, most groups exhibited low
levels of sequence divergence. There was a sig-
nicant bias toward transitions, but both transi-
tions and transversions had nearly identical RIs
and therefore performed equally well in providing
phylogenetic patterns. As a consequence there is
no reason to apply differential weights to each
category (e.g. Albert, Mishler, and Chase 1993).
The placement of Dilomilis and Neocogniauxia
as sister to Pleurothallidinae agrees with the rbcL
results of Cameron et al. (1999), which included
only Dilomilis. This group presumably also in-
Fig. 5. Cattleya, Brassavola, Myrmecophila, and Rhyncholaelia in the same most parsimonious tree as Figure 2.
Fig. 6. Sophronitis and the Brazilian Laelia in the same most parsimonious tree as Figure 2.
cludes Tomzanonia, which was not available for
this study. Dressler (1993) mentioned that Dilo-
milis scirpoidea has seed-coat characters between
the Pleurothallis and Elleanthus seed types. How-
ever, Dilomilis and Neocogniauxia both lack the
articulation that is a synapomorphy for Pleuro-
thallidinae and also have a reed-stem habit (al-
though reduced in Neocogniauxia monophylla),
which is absent in that subtribe. The placement
of this group must be conrmed with additional
genes before a taxonomic decision to include
them in Pleurothallidinae or treat them as a sep-
arate subtribe is made.
In the morphological analysis of Freudenstein
and Rasmussen (1999), Isochilus also fell outside
Laeliinae, but Cameron et al. (1999) did not sam-
ple Ponera, Helleriella, and Isochilus. Therefore,
the fact that Ponera and Helleriella belong in a
separate clade with Isochilus is new to these re-
sults. The subtribal name, Ponerinae, has been
used by Schlechter (1926), Szlachetko (1995),
and Brieger (as a Gattungsreihe; 1976), for all
the members of Laeliinae sensu Dressler (1993)
possessing a column foot and hinged lip. Based
on the ITS results, Ponerinae need to be used in
a more restricted sense, including only Ponera,
Isochilus, and Helleriella (excluding H. punctu-
The positions of Arpophyllum and Meiracyl-
lium disagree with the topology of Cameron et al.
(1999), but their sampling was limited and boot-
strap support in the rbcL trees was low for these
taxa. These also disagree with the placement of
Arpophyllum and Meiracyllium as sister to each
other and sister to the rest of Laeliinae in Freu-
denstein and Rasmussen (1999), which was likely
due to the same characters of the pollinaria used
by Dressler (1960) and Dressler (1990) to place
these genera in their own monogeneric subtribes
(i.e. ovoid and clavate pollinia, respectively). It
was unexpected that Arpophyllum would be sister
to Laeliinae because this genus seems to have an
overall morphological similarity with Pleurothal-
lidinae. Baker (1972) found that many of the
characteristic anatomical features of Laeliinae are
absent in Arpophyllum. However, it lacks as well
the helical thickenings of the internal foliar tis-
sues typical for Pleurothallidinae.
Laelia, Cattleya, Encyclia s.l., and Epidendrum
are clearly shown to be polyphyletic here. Laelia
was suggested to be articial by Dressler (1981,
1993) and more recently by Halbinger and Soto
(1997). In the morphological cladistic analysis of
Halbinger and Soto (1997) the several clades of
Laelia formed an unresolved polytomy with dif-
ferent sections of Cattleya, Brassavola, and So-
phronitis, but L. anceps (Mexican) was sister to
Schomburgkia. The polyphyly of Laelia can be
explained by the fact that the diagnostic charac-
ters for Laelia seem to be plesiomorphies, such
as the presence of eight pollinia. The same applies
to the simple, large, and showy bee-pollinated
owers that differ little from Cattleya. Other un-
related orchid genera with such bee owers in-
clude Bletia, Epistephium, Sobralia, and Tricho-
pilia, which are undoubtedly the result of con-
vergent evolution. Laelia has also been dened
by the absence of all characters used to segregate
other genera in Laeliinae, such as hinged lips,
reed-stem habit, fusion of the column with the lip,
or particular vegetative adaptations like the hol-
low pseudobulbs of Caularthron and Myrmeco-
It is still unclear if the montane species of Lae-
lia s.s. (L. albida, L. autumnalis, L. furfuracea, L.
gouldiana, and L. speciosa) are reasonably dis-
tinct from L. anceps and L. rubescens, but obvi-
ously the Brazilian species have to be reclassied.
Because Sophronitis is polyphyletic and clearly
embedded in them, the reasonable solution is to
transfer all the Brazilian Laelia species into So-
phronitis. It could be argued that Sophronitis
should be maintained distinct and instead that res-
urrection of Hoffmansegella (Jones, 1968), which
had been proposed for Laelia sect. Parviorae,
would be more appropriate. However the type
species of Sophronitis is S. cernua, and the only
way to keep Sophronitis as a distinct genus would
be by restricting it to S. cernua plus L. harpo-
phylla and L. kautskyi. In that case, L. lundii
would need to be a monotypic genus, and all the
other species of Sophronitis would have to be
placed in Hoffmansegella. We prefer instead to
incorporate all of these species in Sophronitis s.l.
because there are no greater morphological dif-
ferences between Sophronitis and the Parviorae,
Hadrolaelia, and Cattleyodes than among these
subgroups themselves. The new combinations are
proposed in the accompanying paper by van den
Berg and Chase (2000).
The placement of C. trichopiliochila/C. lued-
demanniana/C. lawrenceana in the Brazilian Lae-
lia clade, and especially C. maxima, is unexpected
because they always have been considered part of
the C. labiata complex. The high level of diver-
gence for the latter (29 steps; Fig. 6) in compar-
ison with the overall low variation in this part of
the tree could mean that these are paralogous cop-
ies of ITS. However, by cloning these species we
were unable to obtain other ITS copies that would
provide a more reasonable placement of these
members of Cattleya subgenus Cattleya. Past hy-
bridization events and gene conversion could be
alternative explanations. Hopefully, analysis of
plastid DNA sequences (now in progress) should
aid in assessing the position of these species of
In a similar manner, it is clear that Schomburg-
kia and Myrmecophila belong to distinct clades
(Figs. 3, 5), the rst close to Laelia s.s. and the
second in the Cattleya alliance. However, the po-
sition of Schomburgkia in relation to Laelia s.s.
needs to be claried. In Cattleya, there is a clear
distinction between bifoliate and unifoliate clades,
but for nomenclatural stability we recommend
keeping them all as a single genus. However, a
new genus would be needed for C. skinneri, C.
aurantiaca, and C. patinii unless they are trans-
ferred to Rhyncholaelia. These bifoliate species of
Cattleya are characterized by a mosaic of char-
acters present in the uni- and bifoliate species,
such as an entire lip and fusiform pseudobulbs
typical of the former but the leaf number of the
latter (two to three). If it is accurate, the position
of C. araguaiensis and C. bowringiana would
also require them each to be made monotypic
genera, but the low levels of divergence detected
could implicate sampling error as the cause of
these unexpected placements. Although C. ara-
guaiensis is morphologically distinct from all oth-
er species of Cattleya, the only difference be-
tween C. bowringiana and the group of C. skin-
neri is the dilated discoid base of the pseudo-
bulbs. Due to the lack of bootstrap support, it
appears more appropriate to postpone these de-
cisions until additional regions of DNA are se-
quenced to conrm these placements. The para-
phyly of Brassavola in relation to Cattleya might
serve as a model for this sampling error phenom-
enon because in a combined analysis of ITS,
matK, and trnL-F (van den Berg et al., unpubl.)
Brassavola becomes monophyletic. With low lev-
els of divergence, a set of species forms a grade,
whereas with more data these same taxa form a
well supported clade (Sheahan and Chase, in
In the Epidendrum alliance, it appears also that
Epidendrum would need further segregation of
genera to be able to maintain groups such as Bar-
keria and Oerstedella. The sampling of species in
these genera, however, was extremely limited, and
a larger study is needed to clarify the relation-
ships. The small clade with Orleanesia, Caular-
thron, and Amblostoma armeniacum (Fig. 3) ap-
pears to be related to Epidendrum (although with
bootstrap support
50%). At least Caularthron
has anatomical afnities to Epidendrum according
to Baker (1972). Unlike the other genera in this
group, Caularthron has a lip unfused to the col-
umn (at least C. bicornutum), but the hollow
stems seem to be just a thicker version of the
typical reed-stem habit of Epidendrum.
In Encyclia s.l., segregated genera formerly in-
cluded in this genus (e.g. Euchile, Prosthechea,
and Dinema, but not Psychilis) did not form a
clade in all shortest trees. Several monospecic
genera (e.g. Hagsatera, Artorima, and Alamania)
were located near Prosthechea, and Meiracyllium
near Euchile. Meiracyllium should be included in
the Laeliinae, rather than in its own subtribe. In
agreement with this placement, Baker (1972) did
not nd any differences in the foliar anatomy be-
tween Meiracyllium and the rest of Laeliinae and
suggested that it is close to Domingoa and Na-
geliella, a placement that we did not conrm here.
Increased sampling in Encyclia and related genera
is required, due to the large number of species
(Higgins et al., unpubl.).
An interesting pattern found here is the place-
ment of most monotypic genera or species with
unusual/unique morphology as sister to large
clades rather than being embedded in them (i.e.,
they are not derived from their more species-rich
sister taxa). Examples of these are Loefgrenian-
thus, Hagsatera, Alamania, Artorima, Laelia lund-
ii, Laelia perrinii, Laelia virens, Laelia delensis,
Cattleya aurantiaca, Cattleya araguaiensis, Catt-
leya bowringiana, and Myrmecophila wendlandii.
Such species in Laeliinae therefore often repre-
sent relic lineages that never speciated and oc-
cupy habitats atypical for the subtribe.
On biogeographic grounds, it appears that Lae-
liinae and perhaps Pleurothallidinae originated in
Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. This is clearer
from the outgroup relationships; for example Ar-
pophyllum, Ponera, and Isochilus have represen-
tatives extending to Colombia, or even southern
Brazil, but these genera are by far more diverse
in Mexico and Guatemala. Bletia, Hexalectris,
Chysis, and Coelia follow the same pattern. Sim-
ilarly, Dilomilis/Neocogniauxia are exclusively
Caribbean. The Epidendrum and Encyclia clades
have their diversity more or less evenly spread
through the Neotropics, but northern elements are
sister to the rest of the more derived groups. For
example Artorima, Alamania, and Hagsatera are
sisters to Prosthechea, and two Mexican species
of Encyclia (E. bractescens, E. adenocaula) are
sisters to the rest of that genus. When we move
to the most derived members of the subtribe, in
the Cattleya alliance, species diversity is centered
in southeastern Brazil, but always with Caribbe-
an/Mexican elements as sisters (e.g. Myrmeco-
phila, Brassavola, and the Cattleya skinneri
group). However this pattern is difcult to assess
among the main groups of the subtribe because
the group containing Pseudolaelia and relatives is
exclusively Brazilian and sister to the rest of Lae-
liinae. There is no bootstrap support for the main
spine on the tree, but if the position of this group
is maintained in further studies it would indicate
that South America was colonized twice by taxa
coming from the north. The other explanation for
the pattern of Mexican/Caribbean taxa being sis-
ter to more widespread clades is that the former
are relics of lineages that have died out in South
Assessment of selected taxonomic characters in
LaeliinaeSome of the morphological characters
previously emphasized in the taxonomy of Lae-
liinae appear to be especially homoplastic. Over-
all ower morphology seems to be susceptible to
rapid change, driven by pollinator selection. A
clear case of this are Rhyncholaelia and Brassa-
vola, which were formerly considered a single ge-
nus and are both pollinated by sphingid moths but
which appear to be independently derived here.
Possession of a column foot is another such
case. This character appears to be widespread in
many different groups in Epidendroideae, includ-
ing Bletiinae, Chysiinae, Cyrtopodiinae, Dendro-
biinae, Eriinae, Pleurothallidinae, and many Max-
illarieae. In Laeliinae it seems to have evolved
independently in Scaphyglottis and its relatives
and in Domingoa/Nageliella/Homalopetalum. If it
is not a plesiomorphy, the column foot in Ponera,
Isochilus, and Helleriella could be the result of a
third separate evolutionary event. In Jacquiniella
the column foot is a saccate nectary (Dressler,
1981), and based on the ITS topology this genus
might be sister to the Scaphyglottis clade, so it is
unclear if this would be a fourth evolutionary
Pollinium number also shows this same sort of
multiple parallelism. The primitive number would
appear to be eight, present also in the sister group
of Laeliinae, Arpophyllum. Reduction to four pol-
linia therefore occurred independently in Isochi-
lus, Reichenbachanthus, Hexisea, Nageliella, and
some subgroups within Encyclia, Epidendrum,
and Cattleya.
In vegetative characters, there are also clear ex-
amples of multiple origins. The most striking are
the hollow stems of Caularthron and Myrmeco-
phila, which are used by ants as nesting sites.
This sort of specialized morphological adaptation
is relatively rare in terrestrial angiosperms, al-
though repeatedly evolved in different families of
epiphytes (Benzing, 1990). In Myrmecophila, this
phenomenon appears to include absorption of nu-
trients (Rico-Gray and Thien, 1989), but in Cau-
larthron the association seems to have a protec-
tive function only (Fisher and Zimmermann,
The reed-stem habit is likely to be plesiom-
orphic. In many cases, it could reect a primary
primitive state: Ponera/Isochilus/Helleriella (Po-
nerinae); Dilomilis/Neocogniauxia, and Jacqui-
niella. This character was the primary reason that
Scaphyglottis punctulata was transferred by Gar-
ay and Sweet (1974) to Helleriella. In the Epi-
dendrum clade, which typically have reed-stems,
there are also obvious reversals to the typical
pseudobulbs, and species such as E. ciliare and
E. oerstedii, which are vegetatively similar to
Cattleya, led Brieger (1976) to segregate Auliza.
However, the vegetative diversity in this clade is
extremely high (Pe´rez-Garcia, 1993), and plants
with similar owers can have strikingly different
habits (e.g. E. ciliare, E. oerstedii, E. nocturnum,
E. falcatum, E. parkinsonianum, and E. vivipa-
rum). The widespread nature of the reed-stem
habit and the many apparent reversals leads us to
conclude that its taxonomic importance is limited.
It is important to compare our results with the
foliar anatomy data of Baker (1972), which con-
stitute the only alternative large-scale study of
Laeliinae. Most of the characters he studied are
polymorphic in the generic groupings he pro-
posed, and an attempt to produce a cladogram by
coding these characters in addition to other mor-
phological characters produced an unresolved po-
lytomy (van den Berg, unpubl.). This could be
explained by the fact that many vegetative char-
acters are adaptations to specic climatic condi-
tions and therefore likely to show extreme plas-
ticity. The generic relationships he traced based
on trends rather than a strict character coding (re-
produced in Dressler, 1981) coincide with some
of the groups present in the ITS tree, but most of
these have at least one genus misplaced. Notably,
Baker (1972) failed to report any differences be-
tween L. anceps (Mexico) and L. purpurata and
L. pumila (both Brazilian). Similarly he found no
differences between Myrmecophila wendlandii
and Schomburkgia splendida, which he treated
under Schomburgkia. He reported, however, the
distinctness of Ponera from Scaphyglottis but
mentioned that Isochilus is related to both. The
main difculty in using Bakers data is the sub-
jective manner in which the characters were as-
Further work is needed to clarify the relation-
ships of Laeliinae both at the generic and species
levels, although most of the outgroup relation-
ships have been well resolved with ITS data
alone. In groups for which the sampling is nearly
complete (e.g. the Cattleya alliance), the use of
additional DNA regions should lead to increased
support of some clades and resolution of polyto-
mies. In other groups, such as the Epidendrum
alliance and Encyclia s.l., much more thorough
taxonomic sampling is required. The use of re-
gions with different patterns of molecular evolu-
tion, such as nuclear protein-coding genes and
plastid genes and spacers, should also clarify how
much of the organismal phylogeny is recovered
by ITS data. This is an especially important issue
in groups such as Laeliinae in which only eco-
logical and limited physiological incompatibility
barriers exist. Therefore, hybridization cannot be
disregarded as a mode of speciation and a cause
of conict when trying to reconstruct phyloge-
Adams, B.R. 1993. A Taxonomic Revision of Scaphyglottis
Poeppig & Endl. (Orchidaceae-Epidendroideae). Ph.D.
thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois.
Adams, H. and E. Anderson. 1958. A conspectus of hybrid-
ization in the Orchidaceae. Evolution 12: 512518.
Albert, V. A., B. A. Mishler, and M. W. Chase. 1992. Character
state weighting for restriction site data in phylogenetic
reconstruction, with an example from chloroplast DNA.
Pages 369401 in P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and J. J. Doyle
(eds.), Molecular Systematics of Plants. Chapman and
Hall, New York.
Baker, R. K. 1972. Foliar Anatomy of the Laeliinae (Orchi-
daceae). Ph.D. thesis, Washington University, St. Louis,
Baldwin, B. G. 1992. Phylogenetic utility of the internal tran-
scribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA in plants: an
example from the Compositae. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 1: 316.
Bateman, R. M., A. M. Pridgeon, and M. W. Chase. 1997.
Phylogenetics of subtribe Orchidinae (Orchidoideae, Or-
chidaceae) based on nuclear ITS sequences. 2. Infrage-
neric relationships and reclassication to achieve mono-
phyly of Orchis sensu stricto. Lindleyana 12: 113141.
Benzing, D. H. 1990. Vascular Epiphytes. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, New York.
Braem, G. J. 1984. Die bifoliaten Cattleyen Brasiliens.
Bru¨cke-Verlag Kurt Schmersow, Hildesheim, Germany.
. 1986. Die unifoliaten (einbla¨ttrigen) Cattleyen. Bru¨cke-
Verlag Kurt Schmersow, Hildesheim, Germany.
Brieger, F. G. 1976. Subtribus Epidendrinae. Pages 460635
in F. G. Brieger, R. Maatsch, and K. Senghas (eds.),
Schlechters Die Orchideen. 3
Ed. Verlag Paul Parey,
Cameron, K. M., M. W. Chase, W. M. Whitten, P. J. Kores,
D. C. Jarrell, V. A. Albert, T. Yukawa, H. G. Hills, and
D. H. Goldman. 1999. A phylogenetic analysis of the Or-
chidaceae: evidence from rbcL nucleotide sequences.
Amer. J. Bot. 86: 208224.
Cameron, K. M. and M. W. Chase. 1999. Phylogenetic rela-
tionships of Pogoniinae (Vanilloideae, Orchidaceae): a
herbaceous example of the eastern North America-eastern
Asia phytogeographic disjunction. J. Pl. Res. 112: 317
Chase, M. W., K. M. Cameron, H G. Hills, and D. Jarrell.
1994. DNA sequences and phylogenetics of the Orchi-
daceae and other liliod monocots. Pages 6173 in A. M.
Pridgeon (ed.), Proceedings of the 14
World Orchid
Conference, Glasgow. HMSO, Glasgow, Scotland.
Cox, A. V. 1997. PaupGap Version 1.0. Program and Docu-
mentation. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
, A. M. Pridgeon, V. A. Albert, and M. W. Chase. 1997.
Phylogenetics of the slipper orchids (Cypripedioideae,
Orchidaceae): nuclear rDNA sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol.
208: 197223.
Dı´az Dumas, M. 1998. Revisio´n de los ge´neros antillanos
Broughtonia R. Brown, Cattleyopsis Lemaire y Laeliopsis
Lindley (Orchidaceae). Rev. Jard. Bot. Nac. (Habana) 17/
18: 916.
Dodson, C. H. and G. P. Frymire. 1961. Natural pollination of
orchids. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 49: 133152.
Douzery, E. J. P., A. M. Pridgeon, P. Kores, H. P. Linder, H.
Kurzweil, and M. W. Chase. 1999. Molecular phyloge-
netics of Diseae (Orchidaceae): a contribution from nu-
clear ribosomal ITS sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 887
Doyle, J. J. and J. L. Doyle. 1987. A rapid isolation procedure
for small quantities of leaf tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 19:
Dressler, R. L. 1960. The relationships of Meiracyllium (Or-
chidaceae). Brittonia 12: 222225.
. 1981. The Orchids: Natural History and Classication.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
. 1990. The major clades of the Orchidaceae-Epiden-
droideae. Lindleyana 5: 117125.
. 1993. Phylogeny and Classication of the Orchid Fam-
ily. Dioscorides Press, Portland Oregon.
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Condence limits on phylogenies: an ap-
proach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783791.
Fisher, B. L. and J. K. Zimmerman. 1988. Ant/orchid associ-
ations in the Barro Colorado National Monument, Pana-
ma. Lindleyana 3: 1216.
Fitch, W. M. 1971. Toward dening the course of evolution:
minimum change for a specic tree topology. Syst. Zool.
20: 406416.
Fowlie, J. A. 1977. The Brazilian Bifoliate Cattleyas and Their
Color Varieties. Azul Quinta Press, Pomona, California.
Freudenstein, J. V. and F. N. Rasmussen. 1999. What does
morphology tell us about orchid relationships?a cladis-
tic analysis. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 225248.
Garay, L. A. and H. R. Sweet. 1974. Flora of the Lesser An-
tilles: Orchidaceae. Arnold Arboretum, Harvard Univer-
sity, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.
Halbinger, F. and M. A Soto Arenas. 1997. Laelias of Mexico.
Orquı´dea (Mex.) 15: 1160.
Higgins, W. E. 1997. A reconsideration of the genus Prosthe-
chea (Orchidaceae). Phytologia 82: 370383.
Jones, H. G. 1968. Studies in Neotropical orchidology. Acta
Bot. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 14: 6370.
Kores, P. J., K. M. Cameron, M. Molvray, and M. W. Chase.
1997. The phylogenetic relationships of Orchidoideae and
Spiranthoideae (Orchidaceae) as inferred from rbcL plas-
tid sequences. Lindleyana 12: 111.
Maddison, D. R. 1991. The discovery and importance of mul-
tiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. Syst. Zool. 40:
Neyland, R. and L. E. Urbatsch. 1996. Phylogeny of subfamily
Epidendroideae (Orchidaceae) inferred from ndhF chlor-
oplast gene sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 83: 11951206.
Pabst, G. F. J. and F. Dungs. 1975. Orchidaceae Brasilienses.
Bru¨cke-Verlag, Hildesheim, Germany.
Perez-Garcia, E. A. 1993. Arquitectura Vegetal en Epidendrum
L. (Orchidaceae). Biology Degree Thesis, Universidad
Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Mexico City.
Pijl, L. van der and C. H. Dodson. 1966. Orchid Flowers:
Their Pollination and Evolution. University of Miami
Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
Pridgeon, A. M. and M. W. Chase. 1998. Phylogenetics of
subtribe Catasetinae (Orchidaceae) from nuclear and chlor-
oplast DNA sequences. Pages 275281 in C. E. B. Pereira
(ed.), Proceedings of the 15th World Orchid Conference.
Naturalia Publications, Turriers, France.
Pridgeon, A. M., R. M. Bateman, A. V. Cox, J. R. Hapeman,
and M. W. Chase. 1997. Phylogenetics of subtribe Or-
chidinae (Orchidoideae, Orchidaceae) based on nuclear
ITS sequences. 1. Intergeneric relationships and polyphy-
ly of Orchis sensu lato. Lindleyana 12: 89109.
Rico-Gray, V., J. T. Barber, L. B. Thien, E. G. Ellgaard, and
J. J. Toney. 1989. An unusual animal-plant interaction:
feeding of Schomburgkia tibicinis (Orchidaceae) by ants.
Amer. J. Bot. 76: 603608.
Ryan, A., W. M. Whitten, M. A. T. Johnson, and M. W. Chase.
2000. A phylogenetic assessment of Lycaste and Anguloa
(Orchidaceae: Maxillarieae). Lindleyana 15: 3345.
Sauleda, R. P. and R. M. Adams. 1984. A reappraisal of the
orchid genera Broughtonia R. Br., Cattleyopsis Lem. and
Laeliopsis Lindl. Rhodora 86: 445467.
Schlechter, R. 1917. Die Einteilung der Gattung Laelia und
die geographische Verbreitung ihrer Gruppen. Orchis 11:
. 1926. Das System der Orchidaceae. Notizblatt Bot. Gart.
Mus. Berlin 9: 563591.
Sheahan, M. C. and M. W. Chase. In press. Phylogenetic re-
lationships within Zygophyllaceae based on DNA se-
quences of three plastid regions, with special emphasis on
Zygophylloideae. Syst. Bot.
Sun, Y., D. Z. Skinner, G. H. Liang, and S. H. Hulbert. 1994.
Phylogenetic analysis of Sorghum and related taxa using
internal transcribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA.
Theor. Appl. Genet. 89: 2632.
Swofford, D. L. 1998. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using
parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4. Sinauer As-
sociates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Szlachetko, D. L. 1995. Systema Orchidalium. Fragm. Flor.
Geobot. Supp. 3: 1152.
Tanaka, R. and H. Kamemoto. 1984. Chromosomes in orchids:
counting and numbers. Pages 323410 in J. Arditti (ed.),
Orchid Biology: Reviews and Perspectives, III. Comstock
Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York.
Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Simpson. 1995.
CLUSTAL W: improving the sensistivity of progressive
multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting,
position, specic gap penalties and weight matrix choice.
Nucl. Acids Res. 22: 46734680.
van den Berg, C. and M. W. Chase. 2000. Nomenclatural notes
in LaeliinaeI. Lindleyana 15: ???.
White, T. J., T. Bruns, S. Lee, and J. Taylor. 1990. Ampli-
cation and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA
genes for phylogenetics. Pages 315322 in M. Innis, D.
Gelfand, J. Sninsky, and T. White (eds.), PCR: A Guide
to Methods and Applications. Academic Press, San Die-
go, California.
Withner, C. L. 1988. The Cattleyas and Their Relatives. I. The
Cattleyas. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.
. 1990. The Cattleyas and Their Relatives. II. The Laelias.
Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.
. 1998. The Cattleyas and Their Relatives. V. Brassavola,
Encyclia and Other Genera of Mexico and Central Amer-
ica. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.
Whitten, W. M., N. H. Williams, and M. W. Chase. In press.
Subtribal and generic relationships of Maxillarieae (Or-
chidaceae) with emphasis on Stanhopeinae: molecular ev-
idence. Amer. J. Bot.
Yukawa, T., K. M. Cameron, and M. W. Chase. 1996. Chlo-
roplast DNA phylogeny of subtribe Dendrobiinae (Or-
chidaceae): insights from a combined analysis based on
rbcL DNA sequences and restriction site variation. J. Pl.
Res. 109: 169176.
... Phylogenetic studies have confirmed that Schlechter's sections could not be treated under the same genus (van den Berg et al. 2000, 2009, Soto et al. 2006 because Myrmecophila (S. sect. Chaunoschomburgkia) is more closely related to Epidendrum Linnaeus (1763Linnaeus ( : 1347, Barkeria Knowles & Westcott (1838: 49), Caularthron Rafinesque (1837: 40) and Orleanesia Barbosa Rodrigues (1877: 63), whereas Schomburgkia s.s. was included in Laelia Lindley (1831: 115). ...
We describe a new species of Schomburgkia, S. vandenbergiana, from northeastern Brazil and provide a phylogenetic analysis and a summary of its conservation status. Our phylogenetic analyses indicate that S. vandenbergiana is most likely related to S. undulata and S. gloriosa. The species with dark purple flowers, S. elata, S. splendida, S. undulata and S. vandenbergiana, did not form a clade, and this trait seems to have multiple independent origins. Based on small flower size and number of keels on the disc of the lip, the new species is morphologically more similar to S. heidii, a species native to Colombia and Venezuela, but it differs in the shorter sepals and lip and erose clinandrium margin. The new species should be classified as endangered (EN) based on the IUCN criteria B1ab(i)+2ab(ii).
... ) is a neotropical genus in the Orchidaceae composed of species with herbaceous plants and of great horticultural importance (van den Berg 2005(van den Berg , 2008. The circumscription of this genus has undergone taxonomic reformulations in recent decades based on molecular phylogenetic data (van den Berg 2009, van den Berg et al. 2000, 2009. Sophronitis Lindley (1828Lindley ( : t. 1147), and all Brazilian species previously included in Laelia Lindley (1831: 115), are presently included in Cattleya (van den Berg 2008Berg , 2019. ...
Full-text available
This study describes and illustrates Cattleya mireileiana (Orchidaceae: Laeliinae), a new species endemic to the Southern Espinhaço Complex near Diamantina, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, where it was found in a few isolated rocky outcrops, sharing habitat with Cattleya rupestres. It is close to three other species: Cattleya bradei, C. briegeri, and C. cruziana. However, the new species differs in the number of nodes present in the pseudobulb components, the size of the diameter, the scent of the flowers and the time of flowering. In addition, its flowers have two unique chromatic characteristics that distinguish it from all other species with yellow flowers in the Parviflorae series: the color of the carinae and the whitish area at the base of the petals and sepals. We provide a detailed morphological description, a distribution map, in situ photographs, and compare it with similar species. We assessed its state of conservation as data deficient (DD), as the only know population consists of at least 150 mature individuals and is outside of an environmentally protected area.
... based on several structural features of the plants and was supported by a recent molecular DNA analysis (Dressler & Higgins, 2003). erefore, before the paper of R. Dressler and W. Higgins was published, G. bowringiana was known as Cattleya bowringiana Veitch (van den Berg et al., 2000), which is now considered as a synonym of G. bowringiana (Dressler et al., 2005;"Guarianthe bowringiana, " 2021). ...
Full-text available
Guarianthe bowringiana is one of the oldest samples cultivated at NBG’s orchid unit glasshouses since 1970s. An efficient protocol for asymbiotic in vitro seed germination of G. bowringiana has previously been established. Given that acclimatization is a crucial step in micropropagation, this study assesses the structural adaptation and antioxidant response of G. bowringiana seedlings during ex vitro acclimatization to ex vitro conditions. The leaf surface micromorphology of the G. bowringiana juvenile plants propagated in vitro from seeds as well as the leaves of adult plants cultivated in glasshouse were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. The levels of lipid peroxidation (TBARS level), superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity, and the photosynthetic activity were monitored for seven days from the transfer of seedlings from the in vitro cultivation vessels as they are markers indicating the response of the leaves of in vitro propagated G. bowringiana plants to oxidative stress during the early stages of acclimatization to ex vitro conditions. During the initial 2 days of the monitored acclimatization period (0–7 days), the level of photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a , b , and carotenoid content) increased, followed by an insignificant increase during the successive period (by the seventh day) of acclimatization. At the same time, the level of the tested antioxidant enzyme (SOD) exhibited an increasing trend throughout the acclimatization period. The SOD activities in the leaves of G. bowringiana seedlings were significantly affected when they were transferred from in vitro to ex vitro conditions due to drought stress. Thus, it was revealed that in the early stages of acclimatizing to the altered environments, G. bowringiana seedlings exhibited a rapid increase in photosynthetic pigments, superoxide dismutase activity, and lipid peroxidation levels after being transferred to ex vitro conditions. Comparison of the leaf micromorphologies of G. bowringiana plants grown under in vitro and those grown under ex vitro conditions revealed that leaf development had undergone significant changes during acclimatization to the altered conditions. In vitro to ex vitro transfer leads to a transient decrease in photosynthetic parameters.
The varied patterns of genetic differentiation of vulnerable orchids populations (eg. Cattleya genus) urgently need to be known. Here, we present contextualized examples of genetic studies and discuss conservation challenges for orchids in the neotropical region, as the genetic diversity is essential for conservation and management actions of threatened species. In most of the sampled populations of Cattleya granulosa, an endangered orchid inhabiting the Atlantic Forest remnants, for example, there is a body of evidence of the occurrence of genetic bottlenecks. Our study showed that conservation genetics should consider the spatial distribution of genetic diversity in order to develop appropriate conservation strategies. Thus, further advances in the protection of genetic diversity are needed, since conventional databases and public policies may be insufficient in land use planning aiming at biodiversity conservation. In addition to the need to maintain genetic diversity, it is necessary to understand the reproductive and demographic characteristics caused by the interaction of a number of evolutionary and ecological mechanisms to maintain the evolutionary potential of an orchid species or population.KeywordsPlant conservation geneticsCattleya geneticsOrchidaceaeNeotropical orchidsThreatened orchids
Molecular identification using short orthological DNA sequences (DNA barcoding) has been applied for the classification of orchid species which is a major step in biodiversity management, conservation, breeding, authenticating components of herbal products, and tracking the adulteration of orchid species. One of the most widely used loci for phylogenetic inference at the generic and infrageneric levels in plants was ITS located between 18S rDNA, 5.8S rDNA, and 26S rDNA. The ITS or ITS2 region has been suggested as a plant barcode in some previous studies. However, DNA barcoding using the entire ITS genome is considered less effective and efficient in the process of PCR amplification and sequencing. Besides, complete DNA barcodes are difficult to obtain from herbarium samples and herbal products because some DNA sequences have been degraded. DNA mini-barcodes were developed over the past ten years to overcome issues related to DNA barcoding. DNA mini-barcodes use shorter DNA segments for PCR amplification, so they can identify species effectively and efficiently compared to the regular DNA barcoding. Specific primers that encode the ITS1 and ITS2 regions need to be designed for the PCR amplification. DNA mini-barcoding ITS has proven useful in species identification, classification studies, and authentication of specific orchid species. Therefore, a new rapid identification method based on the ITS mini-barcode is expected to be established, especially for orchid species. Keywords : DNA mini-barcode, Internal Transcribed Spacer, Orchid, Primer Design
We explore the phylogenetic position of the Encyclia adenocarpos complex through a multilocus analysis of Encyclia with the following DNA regions: ITS and plastid rpl32-trnL, trnL-F, and ycf1, analyzed under the Bayesian inference and Maximum Parsimony paradigms. We also performed an analysis of reconstruction of ancestral areas, with particular interest in the first diverging lineages of Encyclia. We used an ad hoc regionalization system designed to fit our distributional Encyclia data to reconstruct the ancestral distribution of the genus and the most relevant nodes. The analyses yielded a moderately well-supported topology with the broadest taxonomic Encyclia sampling yet. Our results indicate the Encyclia adenocarpos complex is monophyletic, highly supported, and sister to a large clade with ca. 95% of the species of Encyclia included in the analyses and suggest the clade is composed of several related, fundamentally allopatric species distributed along the Pacific slopes of Megamexico, including a novelty here proposed, Encyclia mariaeugeniae, which is closely related to Encyclia enriquearcilae yet differing in several diagnostic characters, such as a narrower central lobe to the labellum. The novelty was assessed as EN under IUCN criteria. We provide a key to the E. adenocarpos clade. Our Encyclia phylogeny identifies several clades displaying strong geographic signal; some of these are discussed in terms of morphology, ecological preferences, and pollination syndromes. The reconstruction of ancestral areas indicates with high probability that the earliest diverging nodes of Encyclia occurred in Megamexico. Floral variation within clades suggests the genus colonized geographical areas and underwent diversifications to occupy novel pollination syndromes in a pattern of allopatric, similar assemblages of syndromes composed of unrelated taxa. We present a preliminary species list of Encyclia and their distributions along the major biogeographic areas to provide a hypothesis of diversity patterns and the biogeographical areas where the species occur. As we currently understand the genus, Encyclia consists of 213 taxa, including 179 formally proposed species, 10 undescribed ones, and 25 nothotaxa. We provide five plates depicting 100 species to document the morphological and geographical diversity of Encyclia.
Full-text available
The orchid Guarianthe skinneri (Bateman) Dressler & Higgins, with attractive mauve flowers, survives in small populations in forest fragments in Mexico and Central America. This orchid is vulnerable due to illegal extraction and habitat reduction. Attempts at sustainable cultivation are hindered by a disease, referred to in this study as the "Black Blotch", characterized in the field by the development of black areas and necrosis on the surface of the pseudobulbs. Fungi were isolated from infected pseudobulbs of G. skinneri cultivated under semi-natural conditions. The fungal strains were identified using morphological and molecular methods. Lasiodiplodia was isolated and described, with hyaline immature conidia and brown, septate mature conidia. The identity of five of the isolates was confirmed as Lasiodiplodia theobromae and three isolates as Lasiodiplodia sp. Pathogenicity tests were carried out by inoculating the isolates on pseudobulbs of healthy, mature plants of G. skinneri. Symptoms appeared after 24 h, characterized by soft and slightly sunken light reddish-brown lesions, with a dark brown to black necrotic spot which increased in size, and, at 35 days, exudation, and detachment or rupture of the cuticle surface were observed. Pycnidia formed on the surface and between the cells of the spongy parenchyma of some of the pseudobulbs. The causal agents of the "Black Blotch" were identified as L. theobromae and Lasiodiplodia sp., this being the first report of Lasiodiplodia causing disease on Guarianthe skinneri.
Full-text available
Orchids are an important horticultural culture. Cattleya and its allies are among the most used ornamental group of this plant family. Cattleya hybrids normally are big pot plants with a determined flowering season (spring, summer, autumn or winter), so a small plant with vivid and multi-flowered spikes coloured and non-determined flowering season is desired. The hybrid Cattleya Aurora’s Little Ian is a new small pink-reddish hybrid flower, producing over four small to medium flowers per bunch. For the first time there is a description of a parameter, petal width, with heritability estimation and efficient to select superior clones derived from plants of the Section Cyrtolaelia in the Cattleya hybrid group. It could be easily grown either at shade house or at windowsill emitting shoots and flowering freely in each new shoot, independent of photo or thermoperiod, as long as it is kept in good growing conditions. Keywords: Plant breeding; orchid hybrid; selection; small plants
Full-text available
An updated checklist of the Orchidaceae from the state of Maranhão is provided. We confirmed 51 genera and 119 species, of which the most representative genera are Habenaria (17 spp.), Catasetum (14 spp.) and Epidendrum (10 spp.). Our checklist includes 30 species that are not listed in the Flora do Brasil for the state, many of which, however, have been recorded in previous publications. Thus, excluding these, six species are cited here for the first time to Maranhão, all of which are also new records for the Brazilian Northeast region. Comparing such data with previous lists, with 103 and 105 species, we detected a strong incongruity among the data. Of the former list, 25 species lack vouchers from the state and were not collected in our expeditions, thus these taxa are not confirmed, while of the latter we found 20 species that are also not confirmed for the same reasons. A list with the 34 excluded taxa is provided. Most of the collection effort in the state coincides with university campuses, and the northwestern region is the most species rich, but unfortunately it is also the most threatened area.
Parsimony analysis of nucleotide sequences of the plastid gene rbcL and non-coding trnL-F region was used to examine phylogenetic relationships of 36 members of Zygophyllaceae, especially of the four genera forming subfamily Zygophylloideae (Zygophyllum, Fagonia, Tetraena and Augea). The two data sets were analyzed separately, and in combination. Results of the three analyses were largely in agreement and support previous division of Zygophyllaceae into five subfamilies. Zygophylloideae were further divided into five clades each with high bootstrap support, although the branches connecting these clades are poorly supported. Zygophyllum appears polyphyletic and may need further revision. The taxonomic positions of Morkillia, Sericodes, Pintoa, and Tribulopis are also clarified.
More time, money, and scientific effort have gone into bringing into successful cultivation an important fraction of the Orchidaceae of the world than has been devoted to any other family of plants or animals. In the last century and a half, tens of thousands of crosses between species and some thousands of crosses between genera have been officially registered. Though well known to horticulturists, the extent of this record is realized by few biologists. It is here tabulated, one set of trigeneric hybrids are illustrated as an example, and the bearing of these data on evolutionary theories is briefly discussed.
This project undertakes the first molecular-based phylogenetic study of subfamily Epidendroideae (Orchidaceae). Approximately 1200 nucleotides (from the 3' half of the chloroplast gene ndhF for 34 orchid taxa and a lilioid monocot, Clivia miniata (Amaryllidaceae), were subjected to phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and maximum likelihood methods. Oryza saliva (Poaceae), a nonlilioid monocot, was designated as outgroup. Trees from both parsimony and maximum likelihood methods suggest that subfamily Epidendroideae is monophyletic, with Listera (Neottieae) as sister. Although subtribal relationships are typically well resolved and have strong branch support, intertribal relationships are generally poorly resolved. Perhaps this general lack of resolution among tribes reflects a rapid species radiation that coincided with anatomical, physiological, and anatomical adaptations that initiated large-scale epiphytism in the ancestral Epidendroideae. Six taxa in this study exhibit deletions that are not evenly divisible by three and result in extensive sequence frameshifts. For example, one deletion is 227 bp in length and is flanked by the short direct repeat sequence: TCAATAGGAATTTCTTTT. Multiple deletions and frameshifts suggest that ndhF may be a pseudogene, in at least some orchid taxa.