CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 452Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsPlant Diversity and Evolution

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 133 of the 137 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Autopolyploidy in angiosperms: Have we grossly underestimated the number of species?

Pamela S. Soltis, Pamela S. Soltis, Douglas W. Schemske, James F. Hancock, John N. Thompson, Brian C. Husband, Walter S. Judd·2007·Taxon
DOI 10.2307/25065732
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many species comprise multiple cytotypes that represent autopolyploids, or presumed autopolyploids, of the basic diploid cytotype. However, rarely has an autopolyploid been formally named and considered to represent a species distinct from its diploid progenitor (Zea diploperennis and Z. perennis represent a rare example). The major reasons why autopolyploids have not been named as distinct species are: (1) tradition of including multiple cytotypes in a single named species; and (2) tradition and convenience of adhering to a broad morphology-based taxonomic (or phenetic) species concept. As a result, plant biologists have underrepresented the distinct biological entities that actually exist in nature. Although it may seem practical to include morphologically highly similar cytotypes in one species, this practice obscures insights into evolution and speciation and hinders conservation. However, we do not suggest that all cytotypes should be named; each case must be carefully considered. A number of species comprising multiple cytotypes have been thoroughly investigated. Drawing on the literature, as well as our own experience with several autopolyploids (Tolmiea menziesii, Galax urceolata, Chamerion angustifolium, Heuchera grossulariifolia, Vaccinium corymbosum), we reassess the traditional view of plant autopolyploids as mere cytotypes. When considered carefully, many unnamed autopolyploids fulfill the requirements of multiple species concepts, including the biological, taxonomic, diagnosability, apomorphic, and evolutionary species concepts. Compared to the diploid parent, the autopolyploids noted above possess distinct geographic ranges, can be distinguished morphologically, and are largely reproductively isolated (via a diversity of mechanisms including reproductive and ecological isolation). These five autopolyploids (and probably many others) represent distinct evolutionary lineages; we therefore suggest that they be considered distinct species and also provide a system for naming them.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/25065732

Cites

133 of 133 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 137 references

4 of the 137 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 448

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Soltis, P. S., Soltis, P. S., Schemske, D. W., Hancock, J. F., Thompson, J. N., Husband, B. C., & Judd, W. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Florida Museum of Natural History (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • University of Guelph (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Taxon
Publisher
Unmaintained records
Published
2007-02-01
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
13-30
ISSN
0040-0262 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/25065732
OpenAlex
W129302041
Cited by
452
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 37
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Taxon
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
autopolyploidy, cytotypes, species delimitation, plant taxonomy, species concept, speciation, reproductive isolation, flowering plants, Tolmiea menziesii, Chamaenerion angustifolium, Vaccinium corymbosum

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review