利用葉綠體DNA序列探討菲律賓樟之分類地位

文化大學機構典藏 CCUR > 環境規劃暨生物資源學院 > 環境設計學院 > 景觀學系所 > 期刊論文 > Item 987654321/18369

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/18369

題名:	利用葉綠體DNA序列探討菲律賓樟之分類地位
作者:	朱麗萍王亞男潘富俊楊正釧呂勝由
貢獻者:	景觀系
關鍵詞:	樟屬分類葉綠體DNA 菲律賓楠菲律賓樟楨楠屬
日期:	2006-06
上傳時間:	2010-12-30 09:56:35 (UTC+8)
摘要:	菲律賓樟(Cinnamomum philippinense (Merr.) Chang)在分類上隸屬樟科，曾被歸類於楨楠屬(Machilus)與酪梨屬(Persea)。本研究利用植物葉綠體DNA中的PetD~PetB基因間序列、TrnV~TrnM序列以及TrnS~TrnT序列分析菲律賓樟與樟屬、楨楠屬以及酪梨屬之親緣關係，以確定菲律賓樟的分類歸屬及楨楠屬和酪梨屬的關係。上述3個葉綠體DNA片段的定序結果顯示菲律賓樟較靠近楨楠屬，在3個片段多達31處變異處可供辨識的位置上菲律賓樟與楨楠屬植物序列之間沒有任何變異，而兩者與樟樹有15處發生序列變異或插入缺失，與酪梨亦有14處發生變異或缺失。菲律賓樟在遺傳距離上與楨楠屬植物之距離為0.00，與樟樹為0.006，與酪梨為0.004。Neighbor joining以及maximum parsimony之分析方式都可得三個分群：第一群包含樟樹、香桂；第二群將菲律賓樟與楨楠屬植物聯結在一起；第三群則將酪梨獨立於楨楠屬旁，另月桂為外群。在外部形態方面，經過標本比對採自菲律賓呂宋島初島住彥，所提供的菲律賓樟的標本與台灣地區所產的菲律賓樟外部形態相同，台灣產的與菲律賓產的應可處理為同一分類群。根據菲律賓樟的種子外形表面有斑紋及其生理特性與一般之楨楠屬相近，支持本研究將菲律賓樟歸併到楨楠屬，成為菲律賓楠(Machilus philippinensis Merr.)。楨楠屬和酪梨屬仍有些遺傳距離，樹狀圖分析結果並不互相隸屬，或許可視為相互獨立的兩個屬或是組。 Cinnamomum philippinense (Merr.) Chang (Lauraceae) had been treated as the member of the genus Machilus or Persea. In this study, segments PetD~PetB, TrnV~TrnM and TrnS~TrnT of chloroplast DNA were used to analyze the relationship of C. philippinense with the species of the genera Cinnamomum, Machilus and Persea in an attempt to resolve its taxonomic status. At the same time, the relationship between genera Machilus and Persea was also discussed. The result of chloroplast DNA analysis indicated that C. philippinense was closer to Machilus than to Cinnamomum. There was no difference between C. philippinense, Machilus thunbergii, M. japonica and M. zuihoensis in 31 variable sites from 3 sequenced fragments observed. However, there were 15 sites or indels differences between the species with the genus Cinnamomum. The genetic distance between C. philippinense and Machilus spp. was 0, whereas, 0.006 between the species and C. camphora, and 0.004 compared to Persea americana. Both cluster trees of NJ and MP analyses clearly revealed three groups of the materials analyzed: one group included Cinnamomum camphora, C. subavenium; another Cinnamomum philippinense, Machilus thunbergii, M. japonica and M. zuihoensis; and the third Persea americana. From the above results and carefully comparing the morphology of the related species, we highly recommend C. philippinense to be treated under the genus Machilus. Furthermore, based on the differences in chloplast DNA, as well as cluster analysis, Machilus and Persea could not be treated as the same genus.
關聯:	中華林學季刊 39卷2期 P.163-172
顯示於類別:	[景觀學系所] 期刊論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
index.html		0Kb	HTML	279	檢視/開啟

在CCUR中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

資料載入中.....