Available online at www.notulaebiologicae.ro Print ISSN 2067-3205; Electronic 2067-3264 Notulae Scientia Biologicae Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 Classiication of the Leguminosae-Papilionoideae: A Numerical Re-assessment Adel EL-GAZZAR 1, Monier Abd EL-GHANI2*, Nahed EL-HUSSEINI2, Adel KHATTAB2 1 2 Department of Biological and Geological Sciences, Faculty of Education, Suez Canal University, N. Sinai, Egypt Department of Botany , Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt; elghani@yahoo.com (*corresponding author) Abstract he subdivision of the Leguminosae-Papilionoideae into taxa of lower rank was subject for major discrepancies between traditional classiications while more recent phylogenetic studies provided no decisive answer to this problem. As a contribution towards resolving this situation, 81 morphological characters were recorded comparatively for 226 species and infra-speciic taxa belonging to 75 genera representing 21 of the 32 tribes currently recognized in this subfamily. he data matrix was subjected to cluster analysis using the Sørensen distance measure and Ward’s clustering method of the PC-ord version-5 package of programs for Windows. his combination was selected from among the 56 combinations available in this package because it produced the taxonomically most feasible arrangement of the genera and species. he 75 genera are divided into two main groups A and B, whose recognition requires little more than the re-alignment of a few genera to resemble tribes 1-18 (Sophoreae to Hedysareae) and tribes 19-32 (Loteae to Genisteae), respectively, in the currently accepted classiication. Only six of the 21 tribes represented by two or more genera seem suiciently robust as the genera representing each of them hold together in only one of the two major groups A and B. Of the 29 genera represented by more than one species each 17, 7 and 5 are taxonomically coherent, nearly coherent and incoherent, respectively. he currently accepted circumscription and inter-relationships among the disrupted tribes and genera are in need of much detailed investigation. Keywords: cluster analysis, epidermal trichomes, Faboideae, leguminosae, morphology, Papilionoideae Introduction he Papilionoideae DC. (nom. altern. Fabaceae Lindl.Faboideae) is by far the largest of the three subfamilies of Leguminosae Adanson. It comprises 476 genera and 13855 species (APG 2012), distributed mainly in the temperate and subtropical parts of the world. Many of the species are of immense economic value globally as legume crops, including the innumerable cultivars of beans, faba beans, vetches (Vicia spp., Phaseolus spp., Vigna spp.), soybean (Glycine max), peas (Pisum sativum), chickpea (Cicer arietinum), lucerne or alfalfa (Medicago sativa), lentils (Lens esculentus), clovers (Trifolium spp.) and lupins (Lupinus spp.). Despite the huge range of variation in morphological features of their vegetative parts, members of the Papilionoideae are easily distinguishable from the other two subfamilies of the Leguminosae (Mimosoideae and Caesalpinioideae) by numerous morphological attributes including the papilionoid structure of the corolla, asymmetrical seeds, ovate-elliptical cotyledons, campylotropous ovules and the embryo axis is curved or a short spiral (Isely 1955 and 1981; Watson and Dallwitz 1992; onwards, Kirkbride et al. 2003; APG 2012; El-Gazzar et al. 2012). his clear distinction of the Papilionoideae from the rest of the Leguminosae gained substantial support from phylogenetic studies (Käss and Wink 1996-1997; Doyle et al. 1997; KaReceived 17 June 2013; accepted 07 November 2013 jita et al. 2001; Doyle and Luckow 2003; Wojciechowski et al. 2004; Champagne et al. 2007). he subdivision of the Papilionoideae into taxa of lower rank was for many decades highly controversial (ElGazzar and El-Fiki 1977, El-Gazzar 1979 and 1981, Käss and Wink 1995, 1996 and 1997, Doyle et al. 1997, Doyle and Luckow 2003, Wojciechowski et al. 2004, Champagne et al. 2007). his is clearly evident from the huge diferences in the numbers and circumscription of tribes and sub-tribes recognized in the four major classiications of the Papilionoideae by De Candolle (1825), Bentham and Hooker (1865), Taubert (1894), Polhill and Raven (1981), who divided this subfamily into 6, 11, 10 and 32 tribes, respectively. Diferences between the four systems in the number of subtribes are even greater. he apparently excessive fragmentation of the Papilionoideae in the system by Polhill and Raven (1981) into 32 tribes with 21 sub-tribes and 10 “groups” seems to have been universally accepted without being put to practical test. he only common feature of all classiicatory systems of the Papilionoideae to date is the recognition of tribes and sub-tribes on the basis of a limited range of loral characters with greater emphasis on petal morphology and stamen arrangement. Such few characters were used oten singly to distinguish between chunky assemblages of genera. his seems to explain the unsettled disposition of El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 500 most genera in the tribes and subtribes recognized in different classiications. he diferent arrangements of genera within the Papilionoideae are so great that a study based on a wider range of the plants’ characters seemed urgently needed. he present study was embarked upon in an attempt to answer the question: to what extent would the currently accepted classiication of the Papilionoideae by Polhill and Raven (1981) withstand the test of numerical analyses of a comprehensive set of characters recorded comparatively from a cosmopolitan sample of genera and species using a number of computer programs with varying degrees of mathematical sophistication and taxonomic eiciency? Material and methods he sample of taxa he present study was based on a cosmopolitan sample of 226 species and infra-speciic taxa representing 75 genera of the Papilionoideae. his sample is necessarily small relative to the enormous size of the subfamily. However, it is fairly representative of the subfamily because: (a) it covers 21 of the 32 tribes and most of the sub-tribes in the currently accepted classiication, (b) the genera are proportionately represented so that larger genera are represented by relatively larger numbers of species except in some relatively large genera (e.g. Aspalathus, Eriosema, Mucuna and Ormosia), and (c) it is geographically balanced in that all of the chief centers of distribution are proportionately catered for. he number of fresh and herbarium specimens of individual species ranged between one and 35 with most of the species being represented by ive-ten specimens each. he specimens are collected from some of the local botanic gardens (Orman Botanic Gardens in Giza, Alexandria University and Aswan) and the four major local herbaria (ALEX, CAID, CAI, CAIM; acronyms are according to Holmgren et al. (1990). Identiication of the specimens was double checked using appropriate loras (Andrews 1952; Heywood and Ball 1968; Davis 1969; Zohary 1987; Boulos 1999 and 2009) and the online loras of China (Flora of China 2013), the Iberian Peninsula (Flora Iberica 2013) and Pakistan (Ali 2013). Identities were conirmed by matching with images of type and non-type material on various websites (e.g. www.aluka.org; www.tropicos. org, http://coldb.mnhn.fr; http://sweetgum.nybg.org). Nomenclature of all taxa was updated according to the two major online sources (www.tropicos.org; www.theplantlist.org). Data analysis A list of 81 characters recorded comparatively for 226 species belonging to 75 genera is given in Tab. 1. he data matrix was subjected to cluster analysis using the package of classiicatory programs PC-ord version 5 for windows (McCune, 1997). It consists of seven distance measures and eight clustering (sorting or linkage) methods thus offering 56 possible hierarchical arrangements of the species. Pre-requisites of the program necessitated the abbreviation of names of taxa into only eight digits. Full valid names of taxa with their author citations and abbreviations are presented in Appendix 1. Tab. 1. List of the 81 characters and their character-states recorded comparatively for 226 species of the Leguminosae-Papilionoideae and used to build a system of classiication of the subfamily 1. Plant: erect 1/ climbing 2/ prostrate 3 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Plant: herb 1/ shrub 2/ tree 3 Lateral branches: spiny tipped 1/ not spiny tipped 2 Spines on stem internodes: present 1/ absent 2 Leaf midrib: turned into spine 1/ not turned into spine 2 Stem: hairy 1/ glabrous 2 Stem: rough 1/ smooth 2 Stem: winged 1/ not winged 2 Leaf-blade: simple 1/trifoliolate 2/ palmate 3/ pinnate 4 Leaves or lealets: ovate 1/ oblong 2/ linear 3/ lanceolate 4 Leaf or lealet apex: notched 1/ not notched 2 Leaf or lealet base of lamina: notched 1/ not notched 2 Leaf or lealet margin: entire 1/ not entire 2 Leaves or lealets: deciduous 1/ evergreen 2 Leaves or lealets: lat 1/ at least some modiied into tendrils 2 Upper surface of leaf or lealet: hairy 1/ glabrous 2 Lower surface of leaf or lealet: hairy 1/ glabrous 2 Lead width in cm Leaf length in cm Lealet width in cm Lealet length in cm Stipules: present 1/ absent 2 Stipule margin: entire 1/ not entire 2 Stipules: leafy 1/ not leat 2 Stipules: free 1/ adnate 2 Stipule length in cm Stipule width in cm Inlorescence: raceme 1/ capitate 2/ umbel 3 Petals: white 1/ not white Inlorescence length in cm Flower length in cm Calyx length in cm Calyx: number of veins Calyx: persistent 1/ deciduous 2 Calyx teeth: four 1/ ive 2 Calyx teeth: equal 1/ unequal 2 Eglandular hairs on calyx: present 1/ absent 2 Glandular hairs on calyx: present 1/ absent 2 Margin of calyx teeth: feathery 1/ not feathery 2 Apex of standard: retuse 1/ obtuse-acute 2 Color of vein in standard: same as blade 1/ diferent 2 Standard: clawed 1/ not clawed 2 Standard: length in cm 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 501 44. Standard: width in cm 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. Standard: hairy 1/ glabrous 2 Apex of wings: retuse 1/ obtuse-acute 2 Wing margin: entire 1/ not entire 2 Color of veins in wing: same as blade 1/ diferent 2 Wings: clawed 1/ not clawed 2 Wing: length in cm Wing: maximum width in cm Wing sculpture or shrinks: present 1/ absent 2 Apex of keel: retuse 1/ obtuse 2/ acute 3 Color of veins in keel: same as blade 1/ diferent 2 Keel: clawed 1/ not clawed 2 Keel: length in cm Keel: maximum width in cm Staminal arrangement: type one 1/ type two 2 Stamen length in cm (incl. tube): 1.7 or more 1/ 1.2 or less 2 Stamens: monadelphous 1/ diadelphous 2 Anthers: globose 1/ elongate 2 Pod: length in cm Pod: width in cm Pod: curved 1/ straight 2/ helical 3 Pod: hairy 1/ glabrous 2 Spines on pod: present 1/ absent 2 Pod apex: rounded 1/ acute 2/ acuminate 3 Pod beak: straight 1/ curved 2 Pod: terete 1/ lattened 2 Opposite margins of pod joint: similar 1/ dissimilar 2 Opposite margins of pod joint: straight 1/ rounded 2 Seed: length in cm Seed color: red 1/ yellow 2/ black 3 Seed surface: smooth 1/ corrugated 2 Glandular hairs on upper leaf surface: present 1/ absent 2 Glandular hairs on lower leaf surface: present 1/ absent 2 Gland dots on leaves: present 1/ absent 2 Calcium oxalate crystals in leaves: present 1/ absent 2 Cell walls of lower epidermis: wavy 1/ not wavy 2 Cell walls of upper epidermis: wavy 1/ not wavy 2 Stomata in upper epidermis: present 1/ absent 2 Each of the resulting dendrograms has a certain % of chaining which is an expression of its clustering intensity. Low values of % chaining indicate a high clustering intensity of the dendrogram, and vice versa: the higher the clustering intensity, the more discrete (and taxonomically reliable) the groups in the dendrogram are. Comparison between the resulting dendrograms was carried out manually to select those which were closest to each other and to the currently accepted classiication by Polhill and Raven (1981). Results he 56 dendrograms were shortlisted into four with the least percentages of chaining. hey were based on the following combinations of distance measures and clustering methods: Distance measure clustering method % chaining Sørensen Ward`s 0.70 Relative Sørensen Ward`s 0.63 Euclidean Ward`s 1.37 Relative Euclidean Ward`s 1.00 A ‘stopping level’ was selected to produce basic groups in each of the four dendrograms and the species composition of the eight basic groups in the irst dendrogram singled it out and favored its selection for further discussion. he lower reaches of each of groups 1-8 in Fig. 1 are shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 1. Dendrogram based on the 81 characters listed in Tab. 1, recorded comparatively for 226 species of the LeguminosaePapilionoideae, and analyzed by the Sørensen distance measure and Ward`s clustering method. he % chaining is 0.7 El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 502 Discussion he present arrangement he groups and sub-groups of genera and species displayed in Figs. 1 and 2 are by no means intended as a formal classiication of the Papilionoideae and will not be given any scientiic names. hey are merely a preliminary framework expressing the phyletic relationships between the genera included in the present study in terms of the recorded characters. It is open for future improvement by the addition of taxa and/or characters. he choice of the hierarchical level leading to the recognition of the eight basic groups in the present study remains highly subjective. For instance, if this stopping level was lowered slightly than the eight-group level so that the relatively large group A.C.1 is divided into four smaller and taxonomically meaningful sub-groups, other seemingly intact groups as B.E.5 and B.E.6 would have been unnecessarily fragmented. Fig. 2. he genera and species of groups 1-8 in Fig. 1. Names of taxa are abbreviated according to the list in the Appendix Comparison with the accepted classiication Although the traditional classiications of the Papilionoideae have the advantage of being comprehensive and cover the entire generic content of the subfamily known at the time of their establishment, the majority of groupings recognized in them are based on single characters of the lowers and pods. On the other hand, the present study is based on a much smaller sample of genera and species but with a much wider range of the variation in vegetative and loral morphology. In view of this basic diference, it is to be expected that the groupings in the present study would diverge to some extent from those in any of the traditional classiications. his is clearly evident from Tab. 2 where the agreements and disagreements between groups A and B and their eight sub-groups in Figs. 1 and 2 and Tab. 2 and the classiication proposed by Polhill and Raven (1981) may be summed up in the following: 1. he sequence of tribes 1-32 in Polhill and Raven’s (1981) classiication seems taxonomically meaningful in terms of the two major groups A and B in Tab. 2. hus, the great majority of genera belonging to tribes 2-18 (Sophoreae to Hedysareae) fall in group A, whereas most of the genera representing tribes 19-32 (Loteae to Genisteae; shaded in Tab. 2) appear in group B. It seems that the recognition of groups A and B requires only the re-allocation of some genera to coincide with the sequential arrangement of traditional tribes and that a major division within the Papilionoideae is worthy of further investigation. 2. Only six of the 32 tribes represented by two or more genera in the present study seem coherent as their genera hold together in either group A or group B. hey are the Sophoreae (3 genera), Robinieae (2 genera), Desmodieae (2 genera) and Aeschynomeneae (2 genera) in group A, and the Crotalarieae (2 genera) and Trifolieae (5 genera) in group B. he nearly coherent tribes include the Phaseoleae (10 genera), Tephrosieae (5 genera), Vicieae (5 genera) and Galegeae (8 genera) in group A, and the Coronilleae El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 503 (5 genera) in group B. he placement of Rhynchosia in Phaseoleae, Alhagi in Galegeae and Scorpurus in Coronilleae seems questionable. Each of the Genisteae (9 genera) and Loteae (5 genera) is almost equally divided between the two major groups A and B. Tab. 2. Comparison between the distribution of 75 genera of the Papilionoideae among groups 1-8 in the arrangements presented in Figs. 1 and 2, and the tribes recognized by Polhill and Raven (1981). Numbers of species are given in parentheses. Genera belonging to Group B are shaded. Genera treated by Polhill and Raven (1981) as sections of other genera are asterisked Tribes(Polhill & Raven,1981) 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 10 Genera (no of species) Baphia (1/1) Calpurnia (1/1) Styphnolobium (1; ~ Sophora)* Dalbergieae Dalbergia (1/1) Abreae Abrus (1/1) Tephrosia (2/5) Tephrosia (3/5) Mundulea (1/1) Tephrosieae Milletia (1/1) Derris (1/1) Wisteria (1/1) Sesbania (2/2) Robinieae (Sesbanieae) Robinia (2/2) Indigofera (1/12) Indigofereae Indigofera (11/12) Desmodium (2/2) Desmodieae Lespedeza (1/1) Ophrestia (1/1) Kennedia (1/1) Clitoria (1/1) Vigna (3/3) Galactea (1/1) Macrotyloma (1/2) Phaseoleae Macrotyloma (1/2) Cajanus (1/1) Erythrina (1/1) Phaseolus (2/2) Rhynchosia (2/2) Psoraleeae Bituminaria (2/2) Amorpheae Amorpha (1/1) Aeschynomene (1/1) Aeschynomeneae Arachis (1/1) Ophrestia (1/1) Kennedia (1/1) Clitoria (1/1) Phaseoleae Vigna (3/3) Galactea (1/1) Sophoreae Groups in Figs 1 and 2 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.3 A.C.3 A.C.1 A.C.1 B.E.6 A.C.1 A.D.4 A.D.4 A.D.4 A.C.1 A.D.4 B.E.5 B.E.6 A.C.3 A.C.3 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.3 A.C.3 B.E.6 A.D.4 A.D.4 A.D.4 B.E.6 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.3 11 Psoraleeae Macrotyloma (1/2) Macrotyloma (1/2) Cajanus (1/1) Erythrina (1/1) Phaseolus (2/2) Rhynchosia (2/2) Bituminaria (2/2) A.C.3 B.E.6 A.D.4 A.D.4 A.D.4 B.E.6 A.C.1 12 Amorpheae Amorpha (1/1) A.C.1 14 Aeschynomeneae 16 Galegeae 18 Hedysareae 19 Loteae 20 Coronilleae 21 Vicieae 22 Cicereae 23 Trifolieae Aeschynomene (1/1) Arachis (1/1) Colutea (1/1) Oxytropis (1/1) Spiesia (1; ~ Oxytropis)* Astragalus (1/29) Astragalus (26/29) Astragalus (2/29) Biserrula (1/1) Galega (1/1) Glycyrrhiza (1/1) Alhagi (1/1) Hedysarum (1/2) Hedysarum (1/2) Onobrychis (1/2) Onobrychis (1/2) Ebenus (1/1) Taverniera (2/2) Tetragonolobus (1/1) Anthyllis (2/2) Hymenocarpus (1/1) Lotus (18/18) Dorycnium (1; ~ Lotus)* Scorpurus (1/1) Ornithopus (1/1) Coronilla (1/1) Hippocrepis (5/5) Securigera (1/1) Vicia (7/10) Vicia (1/10) Vicia (2/10) Pisum (2/2) Orobus (1; ~ Vicia)* Lathyrus (7/8) Lathyrus (1/8) Lens (1/1) Cicer (1/1) Melilotus (6/6) Trigonella (8/8) Ononis (9/9) Trifolium (15/17) Trifolium (1/17) Trifolium (1/17) Medicago (9/13) Medicago (4/13) A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.2 A.D.4 A.C.2 A.C.3 A.C.3 B.E.5 A.C.1 A.C.2 A.C.1 A.C.2 B.E.5 B.E.5 A.C.1 A.C.2 B.E.5 B.E.5 B.E.6 A.C.3 B.E.6 B.F.7 B.F.7 B.F.7 A.C.1 A.C.2 B.F.7 A.C.1 A.C.3 A.C.3 B.F.8 B.E.6 A.C.1 B.F.7 B.F.7 B.F.8 B.F.8 B.F.7 A.C.1 B.F.7 B.F.8 El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 504 29 Crotalarieae 31 hermopsideae 32 Genisteae Crotalaria (4/5) Crotalaria (1/5) Lotononis (2/2) Anagyris (1/1) Lupinus (3/3) Argyrolobium (1/2) Argyrolobium (1/2) Adenocarpus (1/1) Lembotropis (1; ~ Cytisus)* Ulex (1/1) Calicotome (1/1) Genista (2/2) Teline (1; ~ Genista)* Retama (1/1) B.E.5 B.F.7 B.E.5 A.C.1 A.C.1 A.C.3 B.E.5 A.C.3 A.C.3 A.C.3 B.E.5 B.E.5 B.E.5 B.E.5 Based on data of sequencing nuclear ribosomal DNA, Allan and Porter (2000) proposed submerging the Coronilleae into the Loteae and a indicated a bio-geographic distinction within the combined tribe between the New Word Lotus s.l clade and the Old World Lotus s.l. clade. Although the sample of species representing these two tribes in the present study belongs predominantly to the Old World, the dispersal of their species among the three basal groups of group A.C. and three of the basal groups of Group B (B.E.5, B.E.6 and B.F.7) in Tab. 2 does not corroborate the results of Allan and Porter (2000). he generic concept in Papilionoideae he distribution of species representing the 75 genera among the eight groups in Figs. 1 and 2 is set against the tribes and sub-tribes recognized in the latest and most comprehensive classiication of the Papilionoideae by Polhill and Raven (1981) in Tab. 2. his arrangement facilitated putting the taxonomic robustness of these genera to a practical test. Accordingly, the 29 genera represented in the present study by more than one species each are distinguishable into the following three categories: 1. Highly coherent genera with all of their representatives appearing together in only one of groups 1-8 (17 genera): Sesbania (2 spp.), Lupinus (3 spp.), Pisum (2 spp.), Vigna (3 spp.), Bituminaria (2 spp.), Anthyllis (2 spp.), Desmodium (2 spp.), Robinia (2 spp.), Phaseolus (2 spp.), Lotononis (2 spp.), Taverniera (2 spp.), Lotus (18 spp.), Hippocrepis (5 spp.), Melilotus (6 spp.), Ononis (9 spp.), Trigonella (7 spp.), and Genista (2/2). 2. Nearly coherent genera (7 genera): Vicia (7/10 spp. in group A.C.1), Astragalus (26/29 spp. in group A.C.2), Lathyrus (7/8 spp. in group A.C.3), Crotalaria (4/5 spp. in group B.E.5), Indigofera (11/12 spp. in group B.E.6), Medicago (9/13 spp. in group B.F.7), and Trifolium (15/17 spp. in group B.F.8). 3. Disrupted genera (5 genera): Tephrosia with two species in group A.C.1 and three species in group B.E.6, Argyrolobium with one species in each of groups A.C.3 and B.E.5, Macrotyloma with one species in each of groups A.C.3 and B.E.6, and Onobrychis and Hedysarum with 1 species each in each of groups A.C.1 and A.C.2. Out of these 29 genera, 17 seem taxonomically robust, followed by seven almost equally coherent genera, whereas the two species representing each of Onobrychis and Hedysarum were disbanded in groups A.C.1 and A.C.2. Representatives of Tephrosia, Macrotyloma and Argyrolobium together with some species of Vicia, Lathyrus and Trifolium crossed the boundary between the two major groups A and B in Fig. 1 and Tab. 2. In the category of seven nearly coherent genera, the separation of some splinter species from the main aggregation of their relatives in the same genus emphasizes the need to re-evaluate the intraspeciic relationships of such genera by more detailed studies based on larger numbers of their species. his is best exempliied by the isolation of Astragalus kahiricus in group A.D.4 and A. fresenii and A. pendulilora in group A.C.1 instead of group A.C.2 where all other 26 Astragalus species are placed together. Generally, this categorization of genera seems to indicate a relatively sound generic concept in the Papilionoideae, especially in the case of such megagenera as Astragalus which occupies a prominent position among the largest angiosperm genera ( Jer-Ming Hu et al., 2013). It is worth noting that Tab. 2 includes six genera treated by Polhill and Raven (1981) as sections or sub-sections of larger genera but recognized as distinct genera comprising species with currently accepted names in “www.the plant list.org” and “www.tropicos.org”. Four of these segregate genera (Spiesia as ~Oxytropis; Dorycnium as ~Lotus; Orobus as ~Vicia; Teline as ~Genista), appear inseparable from their larger relatives, thus supporting the treatment of Polhill and Raven (1981) and providing fresh evidence favoring re-uniting them with their close allies. In view of the foregoing remarks it seems advisable to subject larger samples of genera and species of the Leguminosae-Papilionoideae to much detailed studies based on the comparative recording of the widest possible range of variation in the plants’ characters and subjecting the output to a number of numerical analyses with variable combinations of similarity assessment algorithms and clustering procedures, in order to select the classiication which best imposes a clear pattern on the distribution of the recorded characters among the plants. Special emphasis should be laid on such genera as Tephrosia, Argyrolobium, Macrotyloma, Hedysarum and Onobrychis as well as such relatively large tribes as the Genisteae and Loteae whose representative species failed to emerge together in only one of groups 1-8 or were dispersed between the two major Groups A and B. References Allan GJ, Porter JM (2000). Tribal delimitation and phylogenetic relationships of Loteae and Coronilleae (Faboideae: Fabaceae) with special reference to Lotus: evidence from nu- El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 505 clear ribosomal ITS sequences. American J Bot 87(12):18711881. Ali SI (2013). Papilionaceae Giseke, Flora of Pakistan. [www. tropicos.org/name/50304858?projectid=32]. APG (2012). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Fabales. [www. mobot.org/mobot/research/APweb/orders/fabalesweb. htm]. Andrews FW (1952). he Flowering Plants of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 2. T. Buncle & Co. Ltd., Abroath, Scotland. p. 163-248. Bentham G, Hooker JD (1865). Leguminosae. Genera Plantarum 1(2):434-600. Lovell Reeve & Co, London. Boulos L (1999). Flora of Egypt. Azollacae-Oxalidacae. Al-Hadara Publishing. Cairo, 1:249-372. Boulos L (2009). Flora of Egypt Checklist. Revised annotated edition. Al-Hadara Publishing, Cairo, p. 88-118. Champagne CEM, Goliber TE, Wojciechowski MF, Mei RW, Townsley BT, Wang K, Paz MM, Geeta R, Sinha NR (2007). Compound leaf development and evolution in the legumes. he Plant Cell 19:3369-3378. Davis PH (1969). Leguminosae, Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, 3. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. p 1-597. De Candolle AP (1825). Ordo LXIII Leguminosae. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis 2:93-524. Doyle JJ, Luckow MA (2003). he rest of the iceberg. Legume diversity and evolution in a phylogenetic context. Plant Physiol 131:900-910. Doyle JJ, Doyle GL, Ballenger JA, Dickson EE, Kajita T, Ohashi H (1997). A phylogeny of the chloroplast gene rbcL in the Leguminosae: taxonomic correlations and insights into the evolution of nodulation. Am J Bot 84(4):541-555. El-Gazzar A (1979). Ravenelia and its segregates (Uredinales) as indicators of taxonomic ainity in Leguminosae. Symbolae Botanicae Upsaliense 22(4):182-193. El-Gazzar A (1981). Systematic implications of susceptibility to Uromyces rusts in Leguminosae. In R.M. Polhill and P.H. Raven (eds.) “Advances in Legume Systematics”. Part 2. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Academic Press, London and New York. El-Gazzar A, El-Fiki MA (1977). he main subdivisions of Leguminosae. Botaniska Notiser 129:71-375. El-Gazzar A, Abdel Ghani MM, El-Husseini NM, Khattab AA (2012). Computer-generated keys to the lora of Egypt. 5. he Leguminosae-Papilionoideae. Assiut University J Bot 41(2):129-181. Flora Iberica (2013). [www.loraiberica.es/loraiberica/texto/ pdfs/07_LEGUMINOSAE.pdf ]. Flora of China (2013). [www.eloras.org/lorataxon.aspx?lora_ id=2&taxon_id=10355#key-1-8]. Holmgren PK, Holmgren NH, Barnett LC (1990). Index Herbariorum. Part 1. he Herbaria of the World. Regnum Veg- etabile 120, p. 693. Isely D (1955). Observations on seeds of the Leguminosae: Mimosoideae and Caesalpinioideae. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 62:142-149. Isely D (1981). Leguminosae of the United States. Memoirs of the New York Bot Gard 25:128-213. Jer-Ming Hu, Sanderson MJ, Wojciechowski MF (2013). Introduction. [http:// loco.biosci.arizona.edu/astragalus/introduction.htm]. Käss E, Wink M (1995). Molecular phylogeny of the Papilionoideae (Family Leguminosae): RbcL gene sequences versus chemical taxonomy. Acta Bot 108:149-162. Käss E, Wink M (1996). Molecular evolution of the Leguminosae: phylogeny of the three subfamilies based on rbc Lsequences. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 24(5): 365-378. Käss E, Wink M (1997). Phylogenetic relationships in the Papilionoideae (family Leguminosae) based on nucleotide sequences of cpDNA (rbcL) and ncDNA (ITS 1 and 2). Mol Phylogenet Evol 8(1):65-88. Kajita T, Ohashi H, Tateishi Y, Bailey CD, Doyle JJ (2001). rbcL and legume phylogeny, with particular reference to Phaseoleae, Millettieae and Allies. System Bot 26(3):515-536. Kirkbride JH Jr., Gunn CR, Weitzman AL (2003). Fruits and seeds of genera in the subfamily Faboideae (Fabaceae). Technical Bulletin number 1890, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. p. 1-84. [also available at: www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/FruitsSeeds/FS100Front.pdf ]. McCune B (1997). PC-ORD version 5, for Windows. Speciications. [http://home.centurytel.net/~mjm/winspecs.htm]. Polhill RM, Raven PH (1981). Advances in Legume Systematics. Part 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Taubert P (1891-1894). Leguminosae. In: Die Naturlichen Planzenfamilien. Engler A and Prantl K (eds.), III(3):70288. Watson L, Dallwitz MJ (1992 onwards). he Families of Flowering Plants, illustrations, identiication, and information retrieval. Version 19th December 2012 [http://delta-intkey. com/angio/www/legumino.htm]. Wojciechowski MF, Lavin M, Sanderson MJ (2004). A phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae) based on analysis of the plastid MATK gene resolves many well-supported subclades within the family. Am J Bot 91(11):1846-1862. Zohary M (1987). Flora Palaestina. Part two. Platanaceae to Umblliferae. he Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, pp. 34-224. Appendix. Alphabetical arrangement of full names of 226 species and inra-speciic taxa representing 75 genera of the Leguminosae-Papilionoideae and their abbreviations (heavy-bold in parentheses) used in the construction of the dendrograms in Figs. 1 and 2. El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 506 A: Abrus precatorius L. (abrprcto), Adenocarpus cincinnatus (Ball.) Maire (adenocin), Aeschynomene elaphroxylon (Guill. & Perr.) Taub. (aschnmel), Alhagi graecorum Boiss. (alhgrcom), Amorpha ruticosa L. (amrphrt), Anagyris foetida L. (angyfotd), Anthyllis tetraphylla L. (anthtetp), Anthyllis vulneraria L. subsp. maura (Beck) Maire (anthvuln), Arachis hypogea L. (arachhyp), Argyrolobium arabicum (Decne.) Jaub.& Spach (argyarab), Argyrolobium unilorum (Decne.) Jaub.& Spach (argyunif ), Astragalus amalecitanus Boiss. (astramlc), Astragalus annularis Forssk. (astranul), Astragalus asterias Steven (astrastr), Astragalus boeticus L. (astrbotc), Astragalus bombycinus Boiss. (astrbomb), Astragalus caprinus L. (astrcprn), Astragalus corrugatus Bertol. (astrcrug), Astragalus dactylocarpus Boiss. subsp. acinaciferus (Boiss.) E. Ott (astrdctc), Astragalus echinus DC. (astrechn), Astragalus eremophilus Boiss. (astrermp), Astragalus resenii Decne. (astrrsn), Astragalus ruticosus Forssk. (astrrtc), Astragalus hamosus L. (astrhmos), Astragalus hauarensis Boiss. (astrhurn), Astragalus hispidulus DC. (astrhspd), Astragalus kahiricus DC. (astrkahr), Astragalus macrocarpus DC. subsp. macrocarpus (astrmcro), Astragalus mareoticus Delile (astrmreo), Astragalus pendulilora Lam. (astrapnd), Astragalus peregrinus Vahl subsp. peregrines (astrprgn), Astragalus schimperi Boiss. (astrschm), Astragalus sieberi DC. (astrsibr), Astragalus sinaicus Boiss. (astrsinc), Astragalus sparsus Decne. (astrsprs), Astragalus spinosus (Forssk.) Muschl. (astrspns), Astragalus tribuloides Delile (astrtrbo), Astragalus trigonus DC. (astrtrgn), Astragalus trimestris L. (astrtrms), Astragalus vogelii (Webb) Bornm. (astrvogl). B: Baphia longipedicellata De Wild. subsp. keniensis (Brummitt) Soladoye (baphlong), Biserrula pelecinus L. subsp. pelecinus (bisrplcn), Bituminaria bituminosa (L.) C.H.Stirt. (bitubitu), Bituminaria laccida (Nabelek.) Greuter (bitulac). C: Calpurina villosa Harv. (calprnvl), Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. (cajcajan), Calicotome spinosa (L.) Link (calcotsp), Cicer arietinum L. (cicerart), Clitoria ternatea L. (clittern), Colutea istria Mill. (coluistr), Coronilla scorpioides (L.) Koch (corscorp), Crotalaria aegyptiaca Benth. (crotagyp), Crotalaria impressa Nees. ex Walp. (crotimpr), Crotalaria senegalensis (Pers.) DC. (crotsngl), Crotalaria thebaica (Delile) DC. (crotthbc), Crotalaria microphylla Vahl (crotmcrp). D: Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. ex DC. (dlbrgsis), Derris robusta (DC.) Benth. (derisrbs), Desmodium canadense (L.) DC. (desmcndn), Desmodium laxilorum DC. (desmlxl), Dorycnium pentaphyllum Scop. subsp. germanicum (Grimli) Gams (dorcnpnt). E: Ebenus armitagei Schweinf.& Taub. (ebnsarmt), Erythrina cafra hunb. (erythcr). G: Galactia elliottii Nutt. (galcelit), Galega oicialis L. (galgofc), Genista canariensis DC. (genstcnr), Genista germanica L. (genstgrm), Glycyrrhiza glabra L. (glycrglb). H: Hedysarum coronarium L. (hedycorn), Hedysarum spinosissimum L. subsp. spinosissimum (hedyspns), Hippocrepis areolata Desv. (hippareo), Hippocrepis constricta Kunze (hippcons), Hippocrepis cyclocarpa Murb. (hippcycl), Hippocrepis multisiliquosa L. (hippmult), Hippocrepis unisiliquosa L. (hippunis), Hymenocarpos circinnatus (L.) Savi (hymncirc). I: Indigofera arabica Jaub.& Spach (indgarab), Indigofera argentea Burm. f. (indgargn), Indigofera articulata Gouan. (indgartc), Indigofera coerulea Roxb. var. coerulea (indgcoer), Indigofera colutea (Burm. f.) Merr. (indgcolu), Indigofera cordifolia Roth (indgcord), Indigofera hochstetteri Baker (indghoch), Indigofera oblongifolia Forssk. (indgobln), Indigofera sessililora DC. (indgsess), Indigofera spinilora Boiss. (indgspni), Indigofera spinosa Forssk. (indgspno), Indigofera trita L. subsp. subulata (Vahl ex Poir.) Ali var. nubica (J. B. Gillett) Boulos & Schrire (indgtrta). K: Kennedia coccinea (Curtis) Vent. (kenedcoc). L: Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet (labpurpr), Lathyrus annuus L. (latyanus), Lathyrus aphaca L. (latyapha), Lathyrus gorgonei Parl. (latygorg), Lathyrus hirsutus L. (latyhirs), Lathyrus marmoratus Boiss.& Blanche (latymrmo), Lathyrus sativus L. (latystvs), Lathyrus setifolius L. (latystif ), Lathyrus sphaericus Retz. (latysphr), Lembotropis nigricans (L.) Griseb. (lembnigr), Lens culinaris Medik. subsp. culinaris (lensculn), Lespedeza bicolor Turcz. (lspdzbcl), Lotononis lupinifolia (Boiss. ex Jaub. & Spach) Benth. (lotnlupn), Lotononis platycarpa (Viv.) Pic. Serm. (lotnplat), Lotus angustissimus L. (lotsangs), Lotus arabicus L. (lotsarbs), Lotus creticus L. (lotscrtc), Lotus cytisoides L. (lotscyts), Lotus edulis L. (lotsedls), Lotus glaber Mill. (lotsglbr), Lotus glinoides Delile (lotsglnd), Lotus halophilus Boiss.& Spruner (lotshalp), Lotus hebranicus Hochst. ex Brand (lotsherb), Lotus lalambensis Schweinf. (lotslala), Lotus lanuginosus Vent. (lotslanu), Lotus nubicus Baker (lotsnubc), Lotus ornithopodioides L. (lotsornt), Lotus palustris Willd. (lotsplst), Lotus pedunculatus Cav. (lotspdnc), Lotus peregrinus L. (lotsprgn), Lotus polyphyllos E. D. Clake (lotspoly), Lotus tetragonolobus L. (lotstetr), Lupinus albus L. (lupnalbs), Lupinus angustifolius L. (lupnangs), Lupinus digitatus Forssk. (lupndgit). M: Macrotyloma axillare (E. Mey.) Verdc. (mcrotaxl), Macrotyloma bilorum (Schum. & honn.) Hepper (mcrotbl), Medicago arabica (L.) Huds. (medcarab), Medicago coronata (L.) Bartal. (medccoro), Medicago granadensis Willd. (medcgran), Medicago intertexta (L.) Mill. var. Ciliaris (L.) Heyn (medcintx), Medicago laciniata (L.) Mill. (medclacn), Medicago littoralis Rohde ex Loisel. (medclitt), Medicago lupulina L. (medclupu), Medicago minima (L.) L. (medcminm), Medicago orbicularis (L.) Bartal. (medcorbc), Medicago polymorpha L. (medcpoly), Medicago rigidula (L.) All. (medcrigd), Medicago sativa L. (medcstva), Medicago truncatula Gaertn. (medctrun), Melilotus albus Medik. (melialbs), Melilotus elegans Salzm. ex Ser. (melielgn), Melilotus indicus (L.) All. (meliindc), Melilotus messanensis (L.) All. (melimess), Melilotus segetalis (Brot.) El-Gazzar A. et al. / Not Sci Biol, 2013, 5(4):499-507 507 Ser. (melisegt), Melilotus sulcatus Desf. (melisulc), Millettia oblata Dunn (miltoblt), Mundulea sericea (Willd.) A. Chev. (mundserc). O: Onobrychis crista-galli (L.) Lam. (onobcrga), Onobrychis ptolemaica (Delile) DC. (onobptol), Ononis difusa Ten. (onondif ), Ononis mitissima L. (ononmiti), Ononis natrix L. (ononntrx), Ononis pubescens L. (ononpubs), Ononis reclinata L. (ononrecl), Ononis serrata Forssk. (ononsert), Ononis sicula Guss. (ononsicu), Ononis vaginalis Vahl (ononvgin), Ononis variegata L. (ononvarg), Ophrestia hedysaroides (Willd.) Verdc. (ophrhdys), Ornithopus sativus Brot. (orntstvs), Orobus atropurpureus Desf. (orobpurp), Oxytropis campestris (L.) DC. (oxytcmps). P: Phaseolus coccineus L. (phsucocn), Phaseolus vulgaris L. (phsuvlgs), Pisum fulvum Sm. (pismfulv), Pisum sativum L. (pismstvm). R: Retama raetam (Forssk.) Webb& Berthel. (retmratm), Rhynchosia malacophylla (Spreng.) Bojer (rhncmalc), Rhynchosia minima (L.) DC. (rhncminm), Robinia hispida L. (robnhspd), Robinia pseudoacacia L. (robnpsdc). S: Scorpiurus muricatus L. (scormurc), Securigera securidaca (L.) Degen& Dorl. (secusecu), Sesbania sericea (Willd.) Link (sesbseri), Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. (sesbsesb), Spiesia kasbecki (Bunge ex Boiss.) Kuntze (spisksbc), Styphnolobium japonicum (L.) Schott (stypjpnc). T: Taverniera aegyptiaca Boiss. (tvrnagyp), Taverniera lappacea (Forssk.) DC. (tvrnlapp), Teline linifolia (L.) Webb (telnlnfo), Tephrosia nubica (Boiss.) Baker in Oliv. subsp. nubica (tephnubc), Tephrosia purpurea (L,) Pers. (tephpurp), Tephrosia quartiniana Cuf. ex Greuter& Burdet (tephqurt), Tephrosia unilora Pers. subsp. petrosa (Blatt.& Hallb.) J. B. Gillett & Ali (tephunif ), Tephrosia villosa (L.) Pers. subsp. ehrenbergiana (Schweinf.) Brummitt (tephvilo), Tetragonolobus maritimus (L.) A.W. Roth (tetrgnmr), Trifolium alexandrinum L. (trifalex), Trifolium angustifolium L. (trifangu), Trifolium campestre Schreb. in Sturm (trifcmps), Trifolium dasyurum C. Presl (trifdasy), Trifolium dichroanthum Boiss. (trifdicr), Trifolium ragiferum L. (trifrgf ), Trifolium glanduliferum Boiss. var. nervulosum (Boiss.&Heldr.) Zohary (trifglnd), Trifolium incarnatum L. (trifglnd), Trifolium lappaceum L. (trilapc), Trifolium nigrescens Viv. (trifnigr), Trifolium philistaeum Zohary (trifphil), Trifolium purpureum Loisel. (trifpurp), Trifolium repens L. (trirepn), Trifolium resupinatum L. (trirsup), Trifolium scabrum L. (trifscbr), Trifolium stellatum L. (trifstel), Trifolium tomentosum L. (tritomn), Trigonella anguina Delile (trigangu), Trigonella arabica Delile (trigarab), Trigonella berythea Boiss.& Blanche in Boiss. (trigbery), Trigonella hamosa L. (trighamo), Trigonella laciniata L. (triglaci), Trigonella maritima Poirr. in Lam. (trigmart), Trigonella occulata Ser. in DC. (trigoccu), Trigonella stellata Forssk. (trigstel). U: Ulex parvilorus subsp. aricanus (Webb) Greuter (ulexprvf ). V: Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. (viciervi), Vicia hirsuta (L.) Gray (vicihirs), Vicia hybrida L. (vicihybr), Vicia lutea L. (vicilute), Vicia monantha Retz (vicimona), Vicia narbonensis L. (vicinarb), Vicia peregrina L. (viciperg), Vicia sativa L. (vicistva), Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb. (vicitetr), Vicia villosa Roth (vicivill), Vigna luteola (Jacq.) Benth. in Mart. (vignlute), Vigna membranacea A. Rich. (vignmemb), Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. subsp. sesquipedalis (L.) Verdc. (vignungu). W: Wisteria sinensis (Sims) DC. (wistsine).