Spyridium eriocephalum, Fenzl

Clowes, Catherine, Fowler, Rachael M., Fahey, Patrick S., Kellermann, Jürgen, Brown, Gillian K. & Bayly, Michael J., 2022, Big trees of small baskets: phylogeny of the Australian genus Spyridium (Rhamnaceae: Pomaderreae), focusing on biogeographic patterns and species circumscriptions, Australian Systematic Botany 35 (2), pp. 95-119 : 115

Spyridium eriocephalum

Spyridium eriocephalum is polyphyletic and requires taxonomic revision, because its two varieties were found in distinct clades in both nrDNA and cpDNA phylogenies (Clades F and I, Fig. 2 ; Clades M 1 and Q 2, Fig. 5 ). Spyridium eriocephalum var. eriocephalum is monophyletic (albeit with limited sampling, but from separated localities) and geographically distinct from other taxa in the nrDNA tree ( Fig. 2 , 3 f ). Spyridium eriocephalum var. glabrisepalum is unresolved in a polytomy in the nrDNA phylogeny (Clade I, Fig. 3 ) with several other taxa ( Fig. 2 , 3 i ). The two varieties of S. eriocephalum are for the most part geographically distinct, with the exception being some overlap on Kangaroo Island ( J. Kellermann, unpubl. data). The typical variety is widespread in south-eastern Australia ( SA, Victoria, NSW and Tasmania), whereas var. glabrisepalum is restricted to Kangaroo Island. The two varieties are also morphologically distinguished by the presence of woolly sepal hairs ( var. eriocephalum ) versus hairless sepals that are instead glabrous-viscid ( var. glabrisepalum ; Canning 1986). Although the two taxa appear distinct (from each other) in both phylogenies, given that the two samples of var. glabrisepalum are placed with some other Kangaroo Island endemic taxa (e.g. S. coalitum ) in the nrDNA tree, it is possible that introgression may be influencing this placement ( Fig. 2 ). However, placement of var. glabrisepalum in the cpDNA phylogeny is somewhat incongruent although supported, with samples being placed with accessions representing other taxa collected from a range of sites from SA to Tasmania ( Fig. 5 ). Additional morphological or molecular work is recommended to re-assess these taxa and their relationships.

Figures

Fig. 2. (Caption on next page)

Fig. 5. (Caption on next page)

Fig. 3. (Caption on next page)