Talk:Prunus subg. Prunus

Prunus subg. Prunus vs. Plum

Pinging Choess, Plantdrew and Abductive - asking for your eyes on this article, which was created from a redirect to Plum. This is beyond my meager understanding of plant taxonomy. Looking forward to your responses. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this article follows Yazbek, it basically can't be wrong. She wrote the monograph and then the 2013 clarifying article. Abductive (reasoning) 13:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If peaches, almonds and apricots are included, this shouldn't be a redirect to plum. This article seems to be largely based on Shi, synthesized with Yazbek, as Shi only explicitly give the subgenus placement of a limited number of species. Yazbek recognized Amygdalus as a subgenus rather than a section within subgenus Prunus. Additional edits would be needed to bring Wikipedia to the point where it is consistent in following Shi. And I'm not sure that Wikipedia has ever been consistent in following any particular infrageneric classification of Prunus (though I'm sure Abductive has a better sense than I do of the state of Wikipedia's Prunus classification). Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prunus tomentosa

@Neux-Neux: Obviously It's more related with Prunus pedunculata (Sect. Louiseania) rather than Prunus humilis.[1] The study you provided did not include any species of Louiseania. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 00:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phylogenetic tree you provided is based on chloroplast genomes and only involves two sect. Microcerasus species: Prunus tomentosa and P. humilis. The fact that P. tomentosa is more closely related to species of sect. Louiseania than to P. humilis in this tree does NOT indicate P. tomentosa should be transferred to sect. Louiseania, because:

Incongruence between nuclear and chloroplast DNA phylogenies is not uncommon in Rosaceae.
The relationship between sect. Microcerasus, sect. Armeniaca and sect. Louiseania has never been studied. It is not impossible that the whole Louiseania Carrière (1872) would be incorporated into Microcerasus Webb & Berthel. (1842) or Armeniaca Scop. (1754).

Neux-Neux (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is not well supported, right? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 01:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic analyses based on nuclear genome show that Prunus triloba is embedded in the Microcerasus clade and closely related to P. prostrata, the type species of Microcerasus.^[1] Therefore, it is definitely inappropriate to move P. tomentosa out of sect. Microcerasus simply because it is closely related to species of sect. Louiseania.--Neux-Neux (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hodel, Richard G. J.; Zimmer, Elizabeth; Wen, Jun (2021-07-01). "A phylogenomic approach resolves the backbone of Prunus (Rosaceae) and identifies signals of hybridization and allopolyploidy". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 160: 107118. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107118. ISSN 1055-7903.

[1] Hodel, Richard G. J.; Zimmer, Elizabeth; Wen, Jun (2021-07-01). "A phylogenomic approach resolves the backbone of Prunus (Rosaceae) and identifies signals of hybridization and allopolyploidy". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 160: 107118. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107118. ISSN 1055-7903.

[1]