Paper on the Classification of Muscari

[Tristan_He]

This recent paper looking at the systematics of Muscari (including Pseudomuscari / Leopoldia) using DNA may be of interest. It concludes that not all of the characters dividing the genera / subgenera are valid, and argues that Pseudomuscari and Leopoldia should be combined into Muscari.

Phylogeny based generic reclassification of Muscari sensu lato (Asparagaceae) using plastid and genomic DNA - Boehnert et al. 2023.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tax.12864

That's one taxonomic change I don't mind at all, as it's fewer names to remember! 

 

[Karaba]

All phylogenetic papers about Muscari have the same conclusions.

[hannah_rh_]

Hello,

I am a PhD student working on the taxonomy and evolution of Hyacinthinae which includes Muscari.

This is a really interesting paper. The authors are working with Muscari s.lat., therefore recognise the genus Muscari to include X number of subgenera, as opposed to recognising those subgenera as genera.

What Böhnert et al. (2023) do is identify a new subgenus within Muscari s.lat., Pulchella. Pulchella is made up of species typically recognised as subgen. Muscari. In their study, the issue arises with the placement of these species in the subgen Leopoldia instead of the expected placement in subgen Muscari. Therefore, instead of rendering Leopoldia and Muscari as non-monophyletic and combining the two into subgen Muscari, the authors decided to name this group Pulchella, after the species Muscari pulchellum.

The option to lump or split the subgenera are both perfectly valid and is often down to personal opinion.

When you say ..." and argues that Pseudomuscari and Leopoldia should be combined into Muscari.", you are not technically wrong. But it is important to recognise what treatment of Muscari the authors are following in the first place. As they recognise Leopoldia etc as subgenera, then they are automatically part of the genus Muscari and not genera in their own right.

I really hope that makes sense! Always happy to chat more.

Best,
Hannah
 

[Karaba]

When you say ..." and argues that Pseudomuscari and Leopoldia should be combined into Muscari.", you are not technically wrong. But it is important to recognise what treatment of Muscari the authors are following in the first place. As they recognise Leopoldia etc as subgenera, then they are automatically part of the genus Muscari and not genera in their own right.

I think that I understand what you mean. But, in opposite, If they had hypothetized that Muscari and Leopoldia are 2 different genera, they would have found that Muscari is not monophylletic, nor Leopoldia (some species like mirum and massayanum were traditionnally named under Muscari)... This would had led to rename some muscari to Leopoldia to render Leopoldia monophylletic (that Eker has done) and split all the subgenera of Musari in different genera.
Eker in The Illustrated Flora of Turkey split Muscari in Leopoldia, Muscari and Muscarimia. This taxonomic approach is followed by Powo, but it's still incomplete as Muscari is still paraphylletic. Leaving Muscari in a whole is a conservatory approach, leading to less taxonomic change than splitting Muscari in 5 or 6 genera, with some species that can be classified in a genus only by a molecular approach. The only goal of splitting Muscari is to have a Leopoldia genus. It's a bit like splitting Primula in a bunch of genera to restore Dodecatheon, or Lilium to restore Nomocharis.