Fig 1.
Phylogenetic summary of the genus Scleria.
Based on Bayesian analysis of Bauters et al. [1]. Posterior probabilities are displayed above the branches. Subgenera are displayed on the tree.
Table 1.
Primer combinations used: ITSA(ITSsef17)–ITS4, internal: ITSA(ITSsef17)–ITS-C, ITS-D–ITS4; ETS1f–18SR.
Fig 2.
Summary tree of concatenated ETS and ITS analysis.
50% majority rule consensus tree based on concatenated nuclear dataset. Posterior probabilities obtained from BI indicated on the respective branches when equal or higher than 0.90, bootstrap values equal or higher than 75% displayed under the branches. Branches in red indicate differences with the results of the chloroplast dataset. Taxa displayed in green represent samples absent from the chloroplast analyses.
Fig 3.
Summary tree of concatenated ndhF and rps16 analysis.
50% majority rule consensus tree based on concatenated chloroplast dataset. Posterior probabilities obtained from BI indicated on the respective branches when equal or higher than 0.90, bootstrap values equal or higher than 75% displayed under the branches. Branches in red indicate differences with the results of the chloroplast dataset. Taxa displayed in green represent samples absent from the chloroplast analyses.
Fig 4.
Estimated species tree with coalescent approaches using two nuclear markers, ETS and ITS and two chloroplast markers, ndhF and rps16.
Only posterior probabilities above 0.90 are displayed above the branches.
Fig 5.
Scleria ankaratrensis: A. habit, B. detail of glomerule, C. detail of a spikelet, D. Nutlet (all drawn from Larridon I. et al. 2010–0340 (GENT)).
Fig 6.
SEM micrographs of: A. nutlet of Scleria ankaratrensis (Larridon et al. 2010–340 (GENT)), B. nutlet of Scleria liberica (NBT JR53 (GENT)), C. underside of nutlet of Scleria liberica (NBT JR53 (GENT)), D. tuberculated rim at base of nutlet of Scleria liberica (NBT JR53 (GENT)), E. nutlet of Scleria maypurensis (Gröger A. & Garcia R. 1103 (GENT), F. details of tissue covering the stipe of Scleria maypurensis (Gröger A. & Garcia R. 1103 (GENT). Drawn by Judit Fehér (Ghent University).
Table 2.
Comparisson between S. ankaratrensis, S. hirtella and S. tricholepis.
Fig 7.
A. Habit, B. Detail of glomerule, C. Detail of spikelet, D. Nutlet (A drawn from Adam 30156 (GENT), B, C and D drawn from NBT JR053 (GENT)). Drawn by Judit Fehér (Ghent University).
Table 3.
Comparison between S. liberica, S. interrupta and S. tricholepis.
Fig 8.
A. habit, B. detail of glomerule, C. detail of spikelet, D. nutlet (all drawn from Gröger A. & Garcia R. 1103 (GENT)). Drawn by Judit Fehér (Ghent University).
Table 4.
Comparison between S. maypurensis and S. verticillata.
Fig 9.
A. habit, B. detail of glomerule, C. detail of spikelet, D. nutlet (drawn from Porembski S. 3609 (GENT)). Drawn by Judit Fehér (Ghent University).
Fig 10.
SEM micrographs of: G. nutlet of Scleria mongomoensis (Porembski S. 3560 (GENT)), H. stipe of Scleria monogomoensis mongomoensis (Porembski S. 3560 (GENT)), I. nutlet of Scleria pedicellata (Ngok Banak L. 1736 (MO)), J. Nutlet of Scleria pseudohispidior (Friis et al. 7889 (WAG)), K. detail of tuberculate rim of nutlet of Scleria pseudohispidior (Friis et al. 7889 (WAG)), L. detail of the pores of Scleria pseudohispidior (Friis et al. 7889 (WAG)).
Table 5.
Comparison between S. melanotricha and S. mongomoensis.
Fig 11.
A. habit, B. detail of glomerule, C. detail of spikelet, D. nutlet (all drawn from Ngok Banak L. 1736). Drawn by Judit Fehér (Ghent University).
Table 6.
Comparison between S. afroreflexa and S. pedicellata.
Fig 12.
A. habit, B. detail of glomerule, C. detail of spikelet, D. nutlet (all drawn from Friis 7889 (WAG)). Drawn by Judit Fehér (Ghent University).
Table 7.
Comparison between S. hispidior and S. pseudohispidior.