Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /ympev

Molecular phylogeny of Cypripedium (Orchidaceae: Cypripedioideae) inferredfrom multiple nuclear and chloroplast regions

Ji-hong Li a,h, Zhong-jian Liu b, Gerardo A. Salazar c, Peter Bernhardt d, Holger Perner e, Yukawa Tomohisa f,Xiao-hua Jin a, Shih-wen Chung g, Yi-bo Luo a,b,⇑a State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, Chinab The National Orchid Conservation Center, Shenzhen 518114, Chinac Departamento de Botánica, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70-367, 04510 Mexico, D.F., Mexicod Department of Biology, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63103, USAe Huanglong Administration of National Scenic Spot, Huanglong Sichuan, Chinaf Tsukuba Botanical Garden, National Museum of Nature and Science, 1-1, Amakubo 4, Tsukuba 305-0005, Japang Department of Life Science, National Taiwan University, 1, Roosevelt Road, Sec. 4, Taipei 106, Taiwanh Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 25 November 2010Revised 3 June 2011Accepted 8 June 2011Available online 22 June 2011

Keywords:CypripediumcpDNAnrDNA ITSPhylogenyMonophyleticParaphyletic

1055-7903/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.06.006

⇑ Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory ofBotany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of ScieFax: +86 010 82590843.

E-mail address: luoyb@ibcas.ac.cn (Y.-b. Luo).

A molecular analysis was performed on 56 taxa in the orchid genus Cypripedium using nrDNA ITS and fivechloroplast regions (trnH-psbA, atpI-atpH, trnS-trnfM, trnL-F spacer, and the trnL intron). The genus Cyp-ripedium was confirmed as monophyletic. Our data provided strong support for monophyletic groupingof eight infrageneric sections (Subtropica, Obtusipetala, Trigonopedia, Sinopedilum, Bifolia, Flabelinervia,Arietinum, and Cypripedium) defined in earlier taxonomic treatments, and paraphyletic grouping of twosections (Irapeana and Retinervi). Within the genus Cypripedium, the first divergent lineage consisted oftwo Mesomaerican species, and subsequently the Cypripedium debile lineage from eastern Asia was split.Our study did not support the notion that two Asian species (Cypripedium subtropicum and Cypripediumsingchii) were closely related to either Mesoamerican Cypripedium irapeanum or North American Cypripe-dium californicum, as indicated by previous interpretations based on morphological evidences. In addi-tion, one pair of vicariant species, Cypripedium plectrochilum (eastern Asia) and Cypripedium arietinum(North America), unique to section Arietinum, was confirmed. Furthermore, within the monophyleticsection Cypripedium two previously recognized subsections, Cypripedium and Macrantha, were shownto be paraphyletic. Our results suggested that this section split into two groups based on distribution(North America vs. Eurasia) instead of such previously used, morphological traits as flower color, andthe shape of the lips (labellum) and lateral petals.

� 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The genus Cypripedium has a far wider distribution and morevegetative and floral variations than the four remaining genera inthe subfamily Cypripediodeae, Orchidaceae (van der Pijl andDodson, 1966; sensu Cribb, 1997). Cypripedium consists of approx-imately 50 species of terrestrial herbs found in woodland and mea-dow habitats, from sea level to middle-montane elevations. Thesespecies are distributed through subtropical to temperate latitudesof the Northern Hemisphere excluding northern Africa (Cribb,1997; Averyanov, 2000; Chen and Cribb, 2005; Perner, 2008). East-ern Asia and North America represent two centers of diversity for

ll rights reserved.

Systematic and Evolutionarynces, Beijing 100093, China.

this genus. At least 38 species occur in Eastern Asian region, andabout 30 species in southwestern China (Cribb, 1997; Chen andCribb, 2005). North America (including Mexico) with about 16 spe-cies, is the second and smaller center of diversity (Cribb, 1997).

Historically, the morphological boundaries of this genus arebased on only two diagnostic characters. Cypripedium spp. arethe only ‘‘slipper’’ orchids in the subfamily bearing both plicateleaves and unilocular ovaries with parietal placentation (Coxet al., 1997; Cribb, 1997). While the genus Cypripedium is regardedas monophyletic based on the morphological data (above) and DNAsequences (Cox et al., 1997; Cribb, 1997; Eccarius, 2009), the pre-vious molecular phylogenies of this genus have left a number ofunresolved questions due to incomplete samples. As fresh speci-men material of pivotal species were unavailable for previous phy-logenetic analyses such studies were based on unbalancedsamplings from eastern Asia compared to more comprehensivecollections derived from the Western Hemisphere and Western

J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 309

Europe (Cox et al., 1997). In particular, earlier studies lacked infor-mation on the DNA sequence analysis of a key species, Cypripediumsubtropicum (Cox et al., 1997; Eccarius, 2009). This enigmatic and,until recently, unavailable species, was known from a single collec-tion in Tibet, China. Habit, inflorescence and column structure in C.subtropicum resembled three Mesoamerican-South American taxa,Mexipedium xerophyticum, Cypripedium irapeanum and Selenipedi-um spp. (Rosso, 1996; Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997). Conse-quently, the uncertain position of C. subtropicum within thephylogeny blurred borders between genera within the subfamilyCypripedioideae (Chen, 1983; Chen and Lang, 1986; Cox et al.,1997; Cribb, 1997). Indeed, the taxonomic borders of nearly everygenus described within this subfamily have been debated since thesecond half of the 19th century (Atwood, 1984). The positions ofeastern Asian Cypripedium debile and North American Cypripediumcalifornicum within the genus Cypripedium also varied betweenstudies (Cox et al., 1997; Eccarius, 2009).

We argue that this uncertainty regarding the precise relation-ship between C. subtropicum and C. irapeanum in previous studieslikely inhibited accurate reconstruction of phylogenetic relation-ships within the genus Cypripedium, and between Cypripediumand other genera within the subfamily, Cypripedioideae. We alsoargue that incomplete sampling of species from eastern Asia raisesquestions about earlier interpretations by taxonomists that someEurasian species are sister species of some North American specieswith parallel morphologies (Chen, 1983; Chen and Lang, 1986; Coxet al., 1997; Cribb, 1997).

For this study, we have focused on improved sampling of Cypri-pedium to facilitate a more accurate reconstruction of phylogeneticrelationships. We have included the first published sequences ofthe key species, C. subtropicum and its close ally Cypripedium sing-chii (Liu and Chen, 2009), and also collected specimens from 46 ofthe 50 described Cypripedium spp. (excluding known recurrent hy-brids), with an emphasis on expanded representation of easternAsian taxa. Based on sequences of five cpDNA regions (trnH-psbA,atpI-atpH, trnS-trnfM, trnL-F spacer, and the trnL intron) and theinternal transcribed spacer region of nuclear ribosomal DNA(nrDNA ITS), we provide a well-supported phylogenetic resolutionfor the intra-generic placement of C. subtropicum and C. singchii,and a robust generic phylogeny for Cypripedium within theCypripedioideae.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ingroup sampling and outgroup selection

The specimens analyzed in this study were selected to maxi-mize all infrageneric groups following the classification by Cribb(1997) and Perner (2008), and to represent the full distributionalrange of the genus Cypripedium in the Northern Hemisphere. Spec-imens were obtained from either cultivated or wild-collectedplants. Taxonomy and nomenclature followed Cribb (1997) andPerner (2008). We obtained 67 samples representing 46 of the cur-rently recognized 50 species excluding the rare Cypripedium dickin-sonianum, Cypripedium ludlowii, Cypripedium elegans andCypripedium cordigerum. Based on previous molecular analyses onorchid taxa (see Cox et al., 1997; Cameron et al., 1999; Chaseet al., 2003; Górniak et al., 2010), five species assigned to theremaining four genera in the subfamily Cypripedioideae (Mexipedi-um, Paphiopedium, Phragmipedium and Selenipedium) were also in-cluded in this study, and additionally six species now classified asmembers of the subfamilies Apostasioideae (Apostasia, Neuwiedia)and Vanilloideae (Vanilla s.s.) were used to represent outgroups. Alist of the taxa analyzed, including information on voucher speci-mens and GenBank accessions, is given in Table 1.

2.2. DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and sequencing

Total DNA was extracted from silica-gel dried leaves with theTIANamp plant DNA Kit (Tiangen, China) according to the instruc-tions of the manufacturer. The primers used for amplification andsequencing of each individual region were ITS5/ITS4 (Baldwin,1992) for ITS, c/d for the trnL intron and e/f for the trnL-F interge-neric spacer (Taberlet et al., 1991), trnH (Tate and Simpson, 2003)/psbA (Sang et al., 1997) for the trnH-psbA intergenic spacer, trnS/trnfM for the trnS-trnfM intergenic spacer (Demesure et al.,1995), and atpI/atpH for the atpI-atpH intergenic spacer (Shawet al., 2007). PCRs were performed in a total reaction (50 ll) con-taining 10 ng of template DNA, 5 ll of 10� reaction buffer withMgCl2, 50 mM of each dNTP, 0.5 U of Ex Taq DNA polymerase(Takara Biotechnology, Japan) and 0.2 mM of each primer (SangonBiotechnology, China). The thermal cycler programme consisted ofan initial denaturation step at 94 �C for 2 min, followed by 30 cy-cles of 30 s at 94 �C, 30 s at 52–55 �C (depending on the annealingtemperature of specific primers), 1 min at 72 �C and a final exten-sion at 72 �C for 10 min. The PCR products were purified by usingthe DNA Fragment Quick Purification/Recover Kit (Dingguo, China),following the manufacturer’s protocol prior to sequencing.Sequencing reactions were performed using the dye-terminatorcycle-sequencing ready-reaction kit following the manufacturer’sprotocol, and analyzed on an ABI 3730 DNA Sequencer (AppliedBiosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Each fragment was sequencedfor both strands. For DNA sequences added newly in this study,their 50 and 30 ends were identified using Cypripediodeae orOrchidaceae sequences already available in Genebank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). New sequences have been deposited inGenBank under the Accession Numbers JF796853—JF797170,JF825972—JF825978, FR720327—FR720330, and FR851209—FR851227.

2.3. Phylogenetic analyses

All sequences were aligned using ClustalX v.1.83 (Thompsonet al., 1997). With the use of BioEdit (Hall, 1999) manual adjust-ments were made by inserting gaps to improve the alignments.The analyses excluded two difficult-to-align regions in ITS, repre-senting 51 sites, one poly T region and one difficult-to-align regionin trnL [UAA] 30 exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer, encompassing84 positions, two difficult-to-align regions in trnH-psbA intergenicspacer, involving 168 sites, one poly A region in atpI-tpH intergenicspacer, including 33 sites, one difficult-to-align region in trnS-trnfMintergenic spacer, containing 20 positions. Some unavailable se-quences in combined data analyses were treated as missing. Se-quence alignments and Nexus formatted files are available uponrequest from the corresponding author.

The homogeneities across the five cpDNA fragments, andbetween nrDNA ITS data and the combined cpDNA dataset (trnL in-tron, trnL [UAA] 30 exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer, and trnH-psbA, atpI-atpH, trnS-trnfM intergenic spacers) were tested usingthe incongruence length difference (ILD) test (Farris et al., 1995),as implemented in PAUP� v4.0b10 (Swofford, 2003). The ILD testwas conducted with 1000 replicates, each with 10 random additionsequence replicates, TBR branch swapping, and keeping no morethan 100 trees per random addition replicate. Following Cunning-ham (1997), a significance level of P = 0.01 was adopted for thistest. Also in the present study, congruence between datasets wasassessed by comparison of topology and support values of strictconsensus trees of data partitions. This ‘‘hard incongruence’’ testwas performed by directly comparing visually the support andresolution of each of the clades in the separate analyses with ahigher bootstrap percentage (BP) and posterior probability (PP)than BP > 75 and PP > 90 (Wiens, 1998; Norup et al., 2006).

Table 1List of taxa and plant materials (classiSection Cypripedium fication follows Cribb, 1997 and Perner, 2008).

Taxa Vouchers GenBank accession numbers

ITS trnH-psbA trnS-trnfM atpI-atpH trnL intron trnL–F spacer

IngroupCypripediumSection subtropicaC. subtropicum Jin XH N8003 (PE), China JF796896 JF796934 JF797053 JF797117 –c JF796994C. singchii Liu ZJ E8800 (NOCC), China JF796897 JF796935 JF797054 JF797118 –c JF796995C. wardii Li JH S6101 (NOCC), China JF796924 –c JF797098 JF797116 JF796853 JF796996

Section IrapeanaC. californicum Gunnlaugson D S1144a, USA (Cult.) Z78532b JF796941 JF797060 JF797151 –c AB056264b

C. irapeanum Salazar GA 7234 (MEXU), Mexico FR720328 FR851212 FR851227 FR851222 FR851217C. molle Salazar GA 6883 (MEXU), Mexico FR720327 FR851211 FR851226 FR851221 FR851216

Section Cypripedium

Section Cypripedium subsection CypripediumC. calceolus Zhang Y E8044a, China (Cult.) Z78521b JF796982 JF797102 JF797140 JF796869 AY557224b

C. henryi Li JH S6157 (NOCC), China JF796910 JF796956 JF797074 JF797150 JF796861 JF797011C. segawii Gunnlaugson D S1145a, Taiwan (Cult.) Z78520b JF796974 JF797092 JF797135 JF796862 JF797012C. shanxiense Ling CY S0609 (PE), China JF796919 JF796975 JF797093 JF797136 JF796868 JF797018C. parviflorum var. parviflorum Taylor SL S0516 (PE), USA EF370089b JF796968 JF797086 JF797133 JF796863 JF797013C. parviflorum var. pubescens Edens R S0133 (PE), USA Z78519b JF796940 JF797059 JF797131 JF796866 JF797016C. candidum Steele B S1299a, USA (Cult.) EF370092b JF796942 JF797061 JF797132 JF796864 JF797014C. kentuckiense Gunnlaugson D S1146a, USA (Cult.) JF796911 JF796958 JF797076 JF797130 JF796870 JF797019C. montanum Frystak M S0613 (PE), USA EF370091b JF796965 JF797083 JF797129 JF796867 JF797017C. fasciolatum Li JH S6156 (NOCC), China Z78530b JF796947 JF797065 JF797145 JF796874 JF797023C. farreri Li JH S6181 (NOCC), China JF796904 JF796946 JF797064 JF797144 JF796873 JF797022

Section Cypripedium subsection MacranthaC. macranthos Ling CY S9032a (PE), China Z78522b JF796962 JF797080 JF797148 JF796877 JF797026C. macranthos aff. Gunnlaugson D S1148a, China (Cult.) JF796915 JF796966 JF797084 JF797149 JF796878 JF797027C. froschii Gunnlaugson D S1150a, China (Cult.) JF796909 JF796954 JF797072 JF797147 JF796876 JF797025C. tibeticum var. tibeticum Li JH S6132 (NOCC), China JF796922 JF796978 JF797096 JF797138 JF796881 JF797030C. tibeticum var. tibeticum aff. Gunnlaugson D S1151a, China (Cult.) JF796902 JF796944 JF797063 JF797143 JF796872 JF797021C. tibeticum var. corrugatum Gunnlaugson D S1149a, China (Cult.) JF796901 JF796943 JF797062 JF797142 JF796871 JF797020C. rubitinctum Gunnlaugson D S1152a, China (Cult.) JF796918 JF796973 JF797091 JF797134 JF796879 JF797028C. calcicola Li JH S6153 (NOCC), China JF796921 JF796977 JF797095 JF797137 JF796880 JF797029C. yunnanense Li JH S6601 (NOCC), China JF796925 –c JF797099 JF797141 JF796883 JF797032C. franchetii Li JH S6261 (NOCC), China JF796908 JF796953 JF797071 JF797146 JF796875 JF797024C. himalaicum Z78523b –c –c –c –c –c

Section EnantiopedilumC. fasciculatum Kouzes R N6160 (PE), USA JF796927 JF796984 JF797104 JF797166 –c JF797044

Section ObtusipetalaC. flavum var. flavum Li JH S6161 (NOCC), China Z78517b JF796948 JF797066 JF797160 JF796857 JF797005C. flavum var. semialba Gunnlaugson D S1154a, China (Cult.) JF796906 JF796950 JF797068 JF797162 –c JF797007C. flavum var. luteum Gunnlaugson D S1055a, China (Cult.) JF796905 JF796949 JF797067 JF797161 –c JF797006C. passerinum Kevan P S0622 (PE), Canada Z78516b JF796969 JF797087 JF797163 JF796858 JF797008C. reginae forma reginae Steele B S1158a, USA (Cult.) Z78518b JF796970 JF797088 JF797164 JF796859 JF797009C. reginae forma albolabium Steele B S1159a, USA (Cult.) JF796917 JF796971 JF797089 JF797165 JF796860 JF797010

Section AcauliaC. acaule Gill DE S0810 (PE), USA Z78525b JF796936 JF797055 JF797167 –c AB056262b

Section RetinerviaC. palangshanense Li JH S6152 (NOCC), China JF796916 JF796967 JF797085 JF797152 JF796893 JF797045C. debile Zhong SW S6527 (PE), Taiwan JF796929 JF796987 JF797107 JF797168 –c JF797048

310J.-h.Li

etal./M

olecularPhylogenetics

andEvolution

61(2011)

308–320

C. debile Li JH N6160 (PE), China JF796926 JF796983 JF797103 JF797169 –c JF797046C. debile Tomohis Y 06-6 (TNS), Japan JF796928 JF796986 JF797106 –c –c JF797047

Section BifoliaC. guttatum Li JH S6620 (NOCC), China Z78526b JF796955 JF797073 JF797115 JF796894 JF797049C. yatabeanum Tomohis Y s.n. (TNS), Japan Z78527b JF796985 JF797105 JF797114 –c JF797050

Section FlabellinerviaC. japonicum Li JH E6701 (NOCC), China EF370093b JF796957 JF797075 JF797156 –c JF797051C. formosanum Gunnlaugson D S1010a, Taiwan (Cult.) Z78524b JF796951 JF797069 JF797155 JF796890 JF797041

Section ArietinumC. arietinum Kevan P S6611 (PE), Canada JF796899 JF796938 JF797057 JF797153 JF796892 JF797043C. plectrochilum Li JH S6301 (NOCC), China Z78528b JF796972 JF797090 JF797154 JF796891 JF797042

Section SinopedilumC. bardolphianum Li JH S6163 (NOCC), China JF796900 JF796939 JF797058 JF797119 –c JF797002C. bardolphianum var. zhongdianense Li JH S6107 (NOCC), China JF796933 JF796993 JF797113 JF797170 JF796895 JF797052C. micranthum Li JH S6155 (NOCC), China JF796914 JF796964 JF797082 JF797120 JF796856 JF797004C. forrestii Li JH S6306 (NOCC), China JF796907 JF796952 JF797070 JF797121 –c JF797003

Section TrigonopediaC. margaritaceum Li JH S6302 (NOCC), China Z78530b JF796963 JF797081 JF797127 –c JF796998C. lichiangense Li JH S6303 (NOCC), China Z78529b JF796960 JF797078 JF797124 –c JF797001C. wumengense Li JH S6102 (NOCC), China JF796913 JF796961 JF797079 JF797125 –c JF797033C. sichuanense Li JH S6154 (NOCC), China JF796920 JF796976 JF797094 JF797122 JF796854 JF796999C. fargesii Perner H E8160 (PE), China JF796903 JF796945 –c JF797126 –c JF796997C. lentiginosum Li JH S7704 (NOCC), China JF796912 JF796959 JF797077 JF797123 JF796855 JF797000

OutgroupSelenipedium aequinoctiale Górniak M. A405 (PE), s.n. JF825977 JF825974 JF825976 JF825972 JF825973 JF825975Paphiopedilum malipoense Liu ZJ E7030a, China (Cult.) Z78498b JF796981 JF797101 JF797158 JF796885 JF797035Phragmipedium schlimii Perner H S7032a, South America (Cult.) Z78514b JF796980 JF797100 JF797157 JF796884 JF797034Ph. exstaminodium Salazar GA 7499 (MEXU), Mexico FR720329 FR851209 FR851224 FR851219 FR851214Mexipedium xerophyticum Salazar GA 5627 (MEXU), Mexico FR720330 FR851210 FR851225 FR851220 FR851215V. pompona Salazar GA 7053 (AMO), Mexico GQ867237b –c FR851223 FR851218 FR851213Vanilla siamensis Luo YB E1070 (PE), China JF825978 JF796992 JF797112 –c –c JF797040V. shenzhenense Liu ZJ E1080a, China (Cult.) JF796930 JF796988 JF797108 –c JF796886 JF797036Apostasia shenzhenense Liu ZJ E1090a, China (Cult.) –c JF796991 JF797111 –c JF796889 JF797039Neuwiedia malipoense Liu ZJ E1100a, China (Cult.) JF796931 JF796989 JF797109 JF797159 JF796887 JF797037N. singapureana Liu ZJ E1060a, China (Cult.) JF796932 JF796990 JF797110 –c JF796888 JF797038

Notes: All specimens were collected in the field with the following exceptions.a Private garden of greenhouse collection.b Material obtained from Genbank.c Unavailable sequences.

J.-h.Liet

al./Molecular

Phylogeneticsand

Evolution61

(2011)308–

320311

Table 2Analyses of datasets.

Information ITS trnH-psbA trnS-trnfM atpI-atpH trnL intron trnL–F spacer cpDNA Combined ITS and cpDNA(conflict taxa excluded)

No. ingroups 56 53 54 54 37 55 55 51No. outgroups 10 10 11 7 10 11 11 11Aligned length 806 1574 1212 1047 879 638 5350 6156No. variable characters 365 232 138 169 106 83 627 1017No. parsimony-informative characters 268 138 97 103 75 55 360 665Tree length (steps) 950 319 340 460 310 159 811 1907Consistency index (CI) 0.567 0.892 0.858 0.813 0.884 0.866 0.845 0.783Retention index (RI) 0.834 0.854 0.896 0.867 0.821 0.856 0.886 0.818Rescaled consistency index (RC) 0.473 0.703 0.777 0.705 0.733 0.656 0.749 0.571Model GTR + I + G GTR + I + G TIM + G TVM + G TVM + G K81uf + G TVM + I + G TIM + I + G

312 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320

Phylogenetic analyses for each matrix were carried out usingmaximum parsimony (MP) and Bayesian inference (BI) methodsin PAUP� v.4.0b10 (Swofford, 2003) and MrBayes v.3.0b4 (Ronquistand Huelsenbeck, 2003), respectively. For MP analyses, heuristicsearches were conducted with 1000 random addition replicatesfollowed by tree bisection-reconnection branch swapping. Allcharacters were unordered and equally weighted with gaps treatedas missing data. Topological robustness was assessed by 1000bootstrap replicates. For BI analyses, each DNA region was assignedits own model of nucleotide substitution, as determined by theAkaike information criterion (AIC) in Modeltest v.3.06 (Posadaand Crandall, 1998). Four chains of the Markov chain Monte Carlowere run, sampling one tree every 1000 generations for 3000,000,starting with a random tree. Majority rule (>50%) consensus treeswere constructed after removing the burn-in period samples (thefirst 25% of sampled trees).

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of nuclear ITS sequence data

For the nrDNA ITS dataset, the numbers of variable and parsi-mony informative sites, tree statistics for the MP analysis and thebest-fit model determined by Modeltest are given in Table 2. TheBayesian phylogram is shown in Fig. 1 with BP and PP. The treetopologies generated by BI were approximately congruent withthose of MP analysis.

Monophyletic Cypripedium was strongly recognized with BP98/PP100. The Cypripedium spp. from eastern Asia and North Americaformed one clade with strong support (BP85/PP100). This cladewas sister to a much smaller clade comprised of only the two Mes-oamerican species, C. irapeanum and Cypripedium molle, with a sup-port of BP100/PP100. Among the 12 sections recognized by Cribb(1997) and Perner (2008), Subtropica, Obtusipetala, Trigonopedia,Sinopedilum, Bifolia, Flabelinervia, Arietinum, and Cypripedium weremonophyletic with well support values. In contrast, Irapeana, Ret-inervia, and two subsections in section Cypripedium (Cypripediumand Macrantha) were paraphyletic.

3.2. Analysis of chloroplast sequence data

For the homogeneity test, the trnH-psbA, trnS-trnfM, atpI-atpH,trnL [UAA] 30 exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer, and trnL intron,contained 138, 97, 103, 75, and 55 parsimony informative sites,respectively. The P values resulting from the partition homogeneitytest are listed in Table 3. There was no significant incongruenceacross these five cpDNA fragments at P < 0.01. The trnL [UAA] 30

exon–trnF [GAA] intergenic spacer was shown to be highly congru-ent with trnS-trnfM, trnL intron, and trnH-psbA. Moreover, the vi-sual node-by-node comparisons, revealed no major incongruencefor all the nodes of topology of each cpDNA fragment (data not

shown) with bootstrap support and a posterior probability higherthan BP > 75 and PP > 90, respectively (Wiens, 1998; Norup et al.,2006). According to this congruence for these regions evolved asa single locus we combined the five cpDNA regions into the wholeanalysis.

For the combined cpDNA dataset, the numbers of variable andparsimony informative sites, tree statistics for the MP analysisand the best-fit model determined by Modeltest are presented inTable 2. The Bayesian phylogram is shown in Fig. 2 with BP andPP. The tree topologies generated by BI were consistent with thoseof MP analysis. Monophyletic Cypripedium was strongly supportedwith BP99/PP100. This topologies generated by chloroplast se-quences mostly accords to the cladograms on the basis of nrDNAITS.

3.3. Combined analysis

As maternally inherited cpDNA and bi-parentally inherited nu-clear DNA may have different evolutionary histories we analyzeddata partitions to examine the potential difference among gen-omes. The partition homogeneity test for the nrDNA ITS and cpDNAdatasets resulted in P = 0.01 (Table 3) implying incongruencebetween the two datasets. Moreover, the visual node-by-nodecomparisons revealed that the placements of Cypripedium margari-taceum, Cypripedium passerinum, Cypripedium calcicola, Cypripe-dium farreri, and Cypripedium fasiolatum, were incongruentbetween ITS and cpDNA topologies with bootstrap support and aposterior probability higher than BP > 75 and PP > 90 (Wiens,1998; Norup et al., 2006), respectively. Conflict among topologies,derived from analyzing different character sets, may be the resultof recurrent hybridization, incomplete lineage sorting and/or intro-gression. When these five conflict species were excluded, the par-tition homogeneity test for the nrDNA ITS and cpDNA datasetsshowed that P = 0.06 (Table 3). This indicated no significant incon-gruence between the two datasets. Therefore, we chose to combinethe two datasets excluding the five conflict species.

For this combined nrDNA ITS and cpDNA dataset, the numbersof variable and parsimony informative sites, tree statistics for theMP analysis and the best-fit model determined by Modeltest aregiven in Table 2. The Bayesian phylogram is shown in Fig. 3 withBP and PP. The tree topologies produced by BI were nearly thesame as those of MP analysis. The combined analysis resulted ingreater resolution as compared to the separate analyses. Moreover,when specimens representing the Apostasioideae and/or the Vanil-loideae were excluded as outgroups from the combined analyses,the results remained the same (data not shown), which indicatedthat the phylogeny of Cypripedium was stable and reliable in thisstudy.

The monophyletic status of the genus Cypripedium was con-firmed again and supported with BP98/PP100. All sections withinthe genus, except for paraphyletic Irapeana and Retinervia,

Fig. 1. Phylogram obtained from Bayesian inference analysis of the nrDNA ITS data. Numbers at the nodes are bootstrap percentages and Bayesian posterior probabilities(>50%), respectively. ‘‘–’’ indicates that the node was not supported in MP analysis. The section names in bold are indicated as monophyletic while two section names in grayare implied as paraphyletic. Within section Cypripedium, the taxa with an asterisk (�) represent subsection Cypripedium while the rest of the taxa remained members ofsubsection Macrantha. EA, NA, and MA represent eastern Asia, North America and Mesoamerica separately.

J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 313

Table 3P values from partition-homogeneity tests.

Data set P value

trnH-psbA vs. trnS-trnfM 0.090trnH-psbA vs. atpI-atpH 0.100trnH-psbA vs. trnL intron 0.020trnH-psbA vs. trnL-F spacer 0.570trnS-trnfM vs. atpI-atpH 0.120trnS-trnfM vs. trnL intron 0.170trnS-trnfM vs. trnL-F spacer 0.690atpI-atpH vs. rnL intron 0.100atpI-atpH vs. trnL-F spacer 0.080trnL intron vs. trnL-F spacer 0.610ITS vs. cpDNA 0.01ITS vs. cpDNA (conflict taxa excluded) 0.06

314 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320

appeared monophyletic with strong support values. Within thegenus Cypripedium, the first divergent lineage consisted of C. ira-peanum and C. molle (endemic to Mesoamerica) with strong sup-port (BP100/PP100), and subsequently the C. debile lineage fromeastern Asia (BP100/PP100) was split. The remaining taxa whichwere distributed in eastern Asia and North America formed oneclade with a support of BP73/PP100. Cypripedium arietinum (NorthAmerica) and Cypripedium pletrochilum (eastern Asia) in the sectionArietinum (BP100/PP100) were sister species. Within monophyleticsection Subtropica from eastern Asia (BP100/PP100), C. subtropicumand its sister species, C. singchii, were the collective sister of Cypri-pedium wardii. Obviously, section Subtropica (eastern Asia) was notallied to the first divergent lineage composing of two Mesoameri-can species. Within monophyletic section Obtusipetala (BP100/PP100), all three variants of Cypripedium flavum (eastern Asia) weresister to the two color forms of the North American species, Cypri-pedium reginae. Two species found through Asia into the Alaskanpanhandle (Cypripedium guttatum and Cypripedium yatabeanum)comprised the monophyletic section Bifolia (BP100/PP100). Theeastern Asian Cypripedium palangshanense and North AmericanCypripedium fasciculatum (section Enantiopedilum) formed a cladewith weak support (BP50/PP77). Two eastern Asian monophyleticsections, consisting of Trigonopedia (BP97/PP100) with five taxaand Sinopedilum (BP100/PP100) with four taxa, were sister cladeswith strong support (BP100/PP100). Within section Trigonopedia,Cypripdium fargesii and Cypripedium sichuanense formed one clade(BP100/PP100). The second clade (BP100/PP100) was comprisedof Cypripdium lichiangense and Cypripdium wumengense as sisters(BP100/PP100) and Cypripdium lentiginosum. Within section Sino-pedilum, both variants of Cypripdium bardolphianum were includedin the same clade (BP100/PP100). The second clade (BP62/PP77)consisted of Cypripdium forrestii and Cypripdium micranthum. Twoeastern Asian species, Cypripdium formosanum and Cypripdiumjaponicum, formed the monophyletic section Bifolia (BP100/PP100).

Section Cypripedium including five North American taxa and 14Eurasian taxa was the most species rich section and representedthe most diversification in the genus. This lineage split into a dis-tinct North American vs. Eurasian group with a support of BP100/PP100 and BP68/PP97, respectively. Within North American taxa,Cypripedium kentuckiense and two variants of Cypripedium parviflo-rum were in the same clade with a support of BP94/PP100. Withinthe Eurasian species, Cypripedium segawai was sister to Cypripediumhenryi with a support of BP100/PP100, and C. shanxiense (easternAsian) was the sister species of Cypripedium calceolus (broadly Eur-asian) with a support of BP100/PP100. Cypripedium himalaicum wassister to the rest of the taxa with a support of BP85/PP99. Among therest of taxa, Cypripedium franchetii was sister to Cypripediumyunnanense with a support of BP96/PP100; Cypripedium froschii,Cypripedium rubintinctum and the three variants of Cypripediumtibeticum, formed a clade with a support of BP96/PP100.

4. Discussion

4.1. An updated phylogeny of the genus Cypripedium

In this study an updated phylogeny of Cypripedium was pro-posed with a more comprehensive sampling of taxa and a largerdataset of nrDNA ITS and five cpDNA fragments combined. As inprevious molecular and morphological phylogenies (Cox et al.,1997; Cribb, 1997; Eccarius, 2009), we reconfirmed that the genusCypripedium is monophyletic. Moreover, our results suggested thatthe sections within this genus require some reinterpretation andreorganization.

4.1.1. Section Irapeana CribbThe clade comprising two Mesoamerican species, C. irapeanum

and C. molle, is sister to the rest taxa of the genus Cypripedium(Fig. 1–3). The two taxa share the same vegetative habit, flowerlip morphology, purple spots on the involute lip margin andmultiple-flower inflorescences found in the slipper orchid genus,Selenipedium (Rosso, 1966; Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997). At-wood (1984) suggested that Selenipedium graded into Cypripediumvia C. irapeanum, and postulated that reduction in the sheer sizeand number of vegetative organs and flower number was a recur-rent trend in the evolution of the subfamily Cypripediodeae due,most probably, to differences in latitude, elevation and climateover time. However, section Irapeana sensu Atwood (1984) is para-phyletic in this study, which is in accordance with two previousmolecular treatments based on nrDNA ITS sequences (Cox et al.,1997; Eccarius, 2009). C. californicum did not share the same cladewith C. irapeanum and C. molle as previous morphological studiesimplied (Cribb, 1997; Eccarius, 2009).

C. californicum is one of the most restricted species in its distri-bution, confined to the mountains of southwestern Oregon andnorthern California (Cribb, 1997). This species is far closer to sec-tion Cypripedium in our BI analysis (Fig. 3) and shares some recur-rent morphological features with many Eurasian and NorthAmerican species in section Cypripedium. This includes pubescenceon the outer surfaces of its sepals, tapering petals, and a convexand broad staminode (Perner, unpubl. data). Compared to thetwo, large, Mesoamerican species, C. californicum (North America)remains readily distinguishable by its multi-flowered raceme,much smaller flowers, complete absence of any yellow pigmenta-tion on any floral organ and synchronous flowering (Cribb, 1997)(see Plate 1).

C. dickinsonianum, a member of section Irapeana (Cribb, 1997),was not available for this study. This species is known from fiveor six small populations and is distinguished from both C. irapea-num and C. molle by its much smaller, mechanically self-pollinating(autogamous) flowers. The fact that C. dickinsonianum is found onlyin two disjunctive areas at the northern and southern limits of thedistribution of C. irapeanum (with which it is marginally sympatric)strongly suggests it may represent an autogamous form or variantof C. irapeanum (Soto and Solano, 2007). Once again, specimenmaterial must be obtained to elucidate relationships.

4.1.2. Sections Retinervia S.C. Chen and Enantiopedilum Pfitzer vs.section Irapeana Cribb

Three samples representing C. debile formed a clade (withBP100/PP100), which was a sister to all the other taxa from easternAsia and North America with strong support in this study (Fig. 3).In contrast, the topology provided by Eccarius (2009) found thatthe lineage including only species C. debile was firstly split fromthe genus Cypripedium with a support of BP74. C. debile is a locallycommon species in mainland China, Taiwan, and Japan (Cribb,1997). It occurs in shaded, montane sites under conifers but in

Fig. 2. Phylogram obtained from Bayesian inference analysis of the cpDNA data. Numbers at the nodes are bootstrap percentages and Bayesian posterior probabilities (>50%),respectively. ‘‘–’’ indicates that the node was not supported in MP analysis. The section names in bold are indicated as monophyletic while two section names in gray areimplied as paraphyletic. Within section Cypripedium, the taxa with an asterisk (�) represent subsection Cypripedium while the remaining taxa are members of subsectionMacrantha. EA, NA, and MA represent eastern Asia, North America and Mesoamerica separately.

J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 315

Fig. 3. Phylogram obtained from Bayesian inference analysis of the combined nrDNA ITS and cpDNA data excluded the conflict taxa. Numbers at the nodes are bootstrappercentages and Bayesian posterior probabilities (>50%), respectively. ‘‘–’’ indicates that the node was not supported in MP analysis. The section names in bolds are indicatedas monophyletic while two section names in gray are implied as paraphyletic. Within section Cypripedium, the taxa with an asterisk (�) represent subsection Cypripediumwhile the remaining taxa are members of subsection Macrantha. EA, NA, and MA represent eastern Asia, North America and Mesoamerica separately.

316 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320

Plate 1. The pictures of Cypripedium.

J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 317

mainland China it may also be found in deciduous forests (Li, un-publ. data). Considering the highly disjunctive distribution of C. de-bile, Dressler (1993) would have classified it as a ‘‘Middle AgedHopper’’ indicative of long-distance dispersal in the mid-Tertiaryas this species is shared by three entirely, land-locked provinces(Gansu, Hubei and Sichuan) in China but is also relatively commonon the island of Taiwan, and the Japanese archipelago (Chen et al.,1999; Cribb, 1997). This species may be pivotal to understandingthe origin and colonization of the genus Cypripedium as C. debile(eastern Asia) split off from the rest of the North American (non-Mesoamerican) and eastern Asian Cypripedium species. As an earlydivergent lineage, C. debile failed to fit the evolutionary trendwithin the genus Cypripedium as stated by Atwood (1984) and

confirmed by Cox et al. (1997). These authors argued that evolutionin the genus Cypripedium proceeded from multi-flowered andmulti-leafed plants with tall stems to reduced stems with much re-duced leaf and flower numbers. C. debile lacks all of these ancestralcharacters, which still expressed in the two Mesoamerican species,C. irapeanum and C. molle, assigned to section Irapeana. Instead, C.debile has the derived short-stem, two-leaved condition with asmall, solitary flower terminating each scape. Based on morpholog-ical characters, C. debile more closely resembles taxa with reducedvegetative and reproductive characters as in sections Enantiopedi-lum, Trigonopedia, Sinopedilum and Arietinum.

In fact, while the lineage consisted of two Mesoamerican spe-cies (C. irapeanum and C. molle) and the C. debile lineage were both

318 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320

recovered as ‘‘primitive’’ lineages in this study neither lineage con-formed to earlier interpretations of the systematics of the genusCypripedium based solely on morphological/morphometric traits(see Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997). We suspect that, part ofthe problem with interpretations based on morphological traits isthat many familiar floral traits, in particular, may be unsuitablein phylogenetic reconstructions because they may reflect littlemore than recent, short-term, shifts driven by pollinator-mediatedselection (Bateman et al., 1997; Cozzolino et al., 2001). Previousontogenetic studies (Tucker, 1997; Tucker and Bernhardt, 2000;Luo and Chen, 2000) showed repeatedly that floral traits associatedwith floral attractants (pigmentation patterns), rewards (nectarglands), anther dehiscence and stigmatic receptivity were the lastto develop in floral buds in large lineages. That is the most proba-ble reason why, as usual, some of the most frequently adoptedmorphological characters used in orchid taxonomy failed to paral-lel our molecular analyses throughout this study.

Note also that C. palangshanense (eastern Asia) and C. fascicula-tum (North America) formed a clade. Although this clade had weaksupport, the two species distributed on separate continents sharedsimilarities in the shapes of their labella, sepals, petals and stami-nodia (Cribb, 1997). Both C. fasciculatum and C. palangshanense lifttheir paired leaves above the ground. Their floral colors are similar,even though those of C. palangshanense are usually darker andmore reddish. In addition, C. palangshanense has a smaller habitwith a shorter, pubescent stem fewer flowers perinflorescence. C.elegans (eastern Asia), another tiny species placed previously with-in section Retinervia, shares similar traits in ovary, bract and leafwith C. palangshanense (Perner, unpubl. data). It was unfortunatethat live specimens of C. elegans were unavailable for this molecu-lar analysis as its position needs further exploration.

4.1.3. Section Arietinum C. MorrenThe monophyletic section Arietinum is nested within the Cypri-

pedium genus in this study. Therefore, we disagree with the earliertreatment by Atwood (1984) who promoted the two species totheir own genus based, in part, on pollen characters. The ratherthick imperforate lectum and granulate infratectal layer found inthe exine wall of C. arietinum is not unique and is also found inother Cypripedium species (Xi and Chen, 1991). Our molecular datasupport the section classification of Arietinum within Cypripediumas suggested by previous morphological analysis of Chen (1983).Despite their highly isolated distributions, C. arietinum (NorthAmerica) and Cypripedium plectrochilum (eastern Asia) sharedmany important traits. These include keeled labella. In addition,the lateral sepals of both species fail to fuse together, as in themajority of Cypripedium species. This lack of floral connation wasinterpreted as an ancestral character by Atwood (1984). Further-more, comparative photos or illustrations of these two vicariantspecies (Chen, 1983; Cribb, 1997) show only minor differences infloral characters such as pigmentation pattern and staminodeshape. Finally, it is interesting to note that both species appear tobe pollinated exclusively by bees in the same huge (c. 1100 spe-cies) and pandemic genus, Lasioglossum (Li et al., 2008).

4.1.4. Section Subtropica S.C. Chen and K.Y. LangThe so-called enigmatic C. subtropicum was not a sister taxon to

section Obtusipetala in this study. Neither was it closely allied tothe two Mesoamerican species in section Irapeana despite sharedmorphological traits (Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997; Eccarius,2009). C. subtropicum also resembles in habit, inflorescence andcolumn structures such ‘‘primitive’’ slipper orchid genera as Mexip-edium and Selenipedium (Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb, 1997), butthese plesiomorphic characters did not support its basal positionin the genus Cypripedium in our molecular analysis. Unlike thesetwo Neotropical genera, C. subtropicum has a unilocular ovary,

fruits that lack a vanilla-like scent and produces seeds that arefusiform and have a ‘‘tin’’ testa (Chen and Lang, 1986; Cribb,1997). C. subtropicum and its close relative C. singchii, were sisterto C. wardii in our analysis. In fact, all three exclusively easternAsian species in our section Subtropica share the most unusualcharacter of a vestigial and hooked staminode that is smaller thanthe stigma in the same flower (Cribb, 1997; Chen and Cribb, 2005).

4.1.5. Section Obtusipetala CribbC. passerinum was sister to C. flavum with strong support based

on the nrDNA ITS data (Fig. 1). In turn, C. flavum was sister toC. reginae with well support values inferred from the cpDNA data(Fig. 2). Therefore, it is questionable whether we should continueto regard C. flavum (eastern Asia) and C. reginae (North America)as a second example of an eastern Asian/North American, vicariantspecies pair, as in section Arietinum (see above), despite sharedvegetative and reproductive traits (Chen, 1983; Cribb, 1997). Basedon our unpublished field observations, we found specimens ofC. flavum with short-stems and small, whitish flowers reminiscentof C. passerinum. Its only the large-stemmed and large floweredvariants of C. flavum that resemble C. reginae.

4.1.6. Section Trigonopedia FranchWithin the monophyletic section Trigonopedia the species have

dramatic hairy-dark spots on their leaves and larger flowers thanthose found in section Sinopedilum (below). C. fargesii has longwhite hairs on its petals, and C. sichuanense is distinguished fromC. fargesii by its entirely glabrous sepals and petals and its smallerlip. C. sichuanense is discriminated, in turn, from C. wumengense,C. lentiginosum and C. lichiangense by its elongated staminode, itsnarrower and acuminate petals and the darker color of its flowers(Perner, 2002). Similar, overlapping modes of foliage and floral pre-sentation in this section may be related to recent studies on sexualreproduction in C. fargesii. The species mentioned above in this sec-tion may employ the same mode of pollination-by-deceit in whichleaf and floral characters combine to lure flies that feed on the exu-dates of fungus infected foliage (Ren et al., 2011).

4.1.7. Section Sinopedilum Perner vs. section Trigonopedia FranchAs a monophyletic section, our results confirmed the establish-

ment of section Sinopedilum by Perner (2008). These three Asianspecies (C. micranthum, C. forrestii and Cypripedium bardophianum)were assigned previously to section Trigonopedia. While all mem-bers of sections Sinopedilum and Trigonopedia are endemic to wes-tern China, we must make important morphological distinctionsbetween species in these two sections and between species in Sin-opedilum and other sections in the genus Cypripedium. First, the an-thers of most Cypripedium spp. release amorphous pollen masses(massulae) that are collected or raked off insect bodies by stigmaswith hook-like papillae (Dressler, 1993). In contrast, the species insection Sinopedilum (sensu Perner, 2008) have anther sacs that re-lease entire club-shaped pollinia terminating in a viscid ‘‘plug’’composed of a rubbery material, probably pollenkitt (Perner,2008). The stigmas of species placed in section Sinopedilum alsohave a median stigma lobe that is partly detached from the othertwo lobes and forms a stigmatic cavity for whole pollinium depo-sition instead of the usual hooked surface. The pollinia and stigmalobe characters present in Sinopedilum are completely absent inspecies of the section Trigonopedia (Perner, 2008).

4.1.8. Section Bifolia C. Morren and section Flabelinervia CribbThe two monophyletic sections, Bifolia and Flabelinervia, are

reconfirmed here. The two species in section Bifolia have spottedlips and lateral petals. These lip petals are urn-shaped without anincurved apical margin (Cribb, 1997; Chen and Cribb, 2005).C. guttatum remains one of the most widespread species in the

J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320 319

genus as it is distributed from the Urals across Asia to Siberia, Kor-ea and Manchuria, south through China to the Himalayas andacross the Pacific onto the Alaskan panhandle (Cribb, 1997; Chenand Cribb, 2005). C. yatabeanum is much more restricted in its dis-tribution than C. guttatum but C. yatabeanum is also found in theWestern Hemisphere on the Kodiak Islands off Alaska, as well asin Asia.

Section Flabelinervia from eastern Asia exclusively is distin-guished by opposite, fan-shaped leaves with radiating venation.The two, insular (Japan and Taiwan) species in this section alsoshare the distinctive ‘‘L-shaped’’ lip (in profile) which has narrowlypandurate dorsal entrance, crimped apex, and lacks side lobes(Cribb, 1997; Chen and Cribb, 2005).

4.1.9. Section Cypripedium LThis section contains most of the species in the genus Cypripe-

dium. Our study supported the monophyletic grouping of this sec-tion previously based on morphological traits and ITS sequences(Cribb, 1997; Cox et al., 1997; Eccarius, 2009). However, our resultssuggested that two subsections Cypripedium and Macrantha as pro-posed by Cribb (1997) were paraphyletic within this section. In thisstudy, segregation between two groups of species appears to bebased on distribution (North America vs. Eurasia) rather than ontraits of flower color and the shapes of lips and lateral petals asused by Cribb (1997). In addition, C. himalaicum is now linked toformer ‘‘subsection’’ Cypripedium (narrow, often twisted petals,usually yellow staminodes, narrower lips, yellow–brown-greenishcolor patterns) with the species in former ‘‘subsection’’ Macrantha(shorter and broader petals, globose to subglobose lips, whitestaminodes and flowers reddish).

Sister species C. henryi and C. segawai share the same pubescentovary, staminode structure, and linear, not twisted or scarcelytwisted petals and small lip. Most members of this section sharesuch morphological characters as a parallel-veined, ovoid or obo-void lip with marked side lobes, flat staminode (Cribb, 1997; Chenand Cribb, 2005), especially in the C. tibeticum complex. This com-plex consists currently of five taxa that remain notoriously difficultto distinguish by morphological characters; C. tibeticum var. tibeti-cum, C. tibeticum var. tibeticum aff., C. tibeticum var. corrugatum,Cypripedium rubitinctum, and C. froschii. Based on shared floral pre-sentation members of this complex may depend exclusively oninfrequent visits from large bumblebee (Bombus spp.) gynes and/or workers to effect pollination (see Bernhardt and Edens-Meier,2010). We also acknowledge parallel evolution within section Cyp-ripedium as several highly isolated species all reflected the sametrend towards pollination by a broad range of small-bodied, soli-tary bees (see Bernhardt and Edens-Meier, 2010). Unfortunately,this study lacked access to specimens of C. cordigerum and C. lud-lowii for clarification.

4.2. Conclusions and future work in phylogeny of the genusCypripedium

With a larger dataset of nrDNA ITS and five cpDNA regions andcomprehensive species sampling, this study was able to update thephylogeny of the genus Cypripedium. Within this present phylog-eny two early lineages, the first comprising two Mesoamericanspecies, and the second including three C. debile samples, havebeen clarified and resolved well, but evolutionary relationshipsamong sections representing Asian and North American species re-main unresolved or unclear. In particular, additional work remainswithin section Cypripedium at the upper part of our topology.Choosing additional gene regions with suitable evolutionary ratesis desirable for further work to better resolve phylogenetic rela-tionships. For the monotypic section Enantiopedilum we must findand include C. elegans in any future studies. We acknowledge that

rapid rates of extinction and/or rapid and comparatively recentperiods of diversification may help explain the unresolved phylo-genetic relationships among these clades. Nevertheless, additionof new datasets by sampling missing species unavailable for thisstudy should permit further progress clarifying sectional delimita-tion within the genus Cypripedium. The benefit of resolving theseproblems will permit us to map the evolution of such traits as pol-lination syndromes, pollinia structure, and flower and inflores-cence architecture with far greater confidence.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drs. Retha Edens-Meier, Peter Kevan,Nan Vance, Yu Zhang, Douglas E. Gill, Sandra L. Taylor, and DarcyGunnlaugson, Bill Steele, Mark Frystak, Ross Kouzes, Jay Vannini,Toshiharu Mitsuhashi, Marcin Górniak, Chun-ying Ling, and mem-bers of the national orchid conservation center of China for theirhelp with sample collection and good suggestions. The first authorthanks particularly Darcy Gunnlaugson for his great help in provid-ing kindly leaf samples of more than 20 taxa and improving theEnglish of this manuscript. We are grateful to Drs. Xiao-guo Xiang,Qiang Zhang, and Yan-yan Guo for assistance in analyzing data. Weare particularly grateful to Dr. Phillip Cribb for providing the pho-tos of C. irapeanum and C. molle, and Drs. Jan Barber and Hong Liufor updating scientific terminology with grammatical usage withinthe manuscript. We are indebted to anonymous reviewers for theircomments and suggestions. The present study was supported bythe National Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 30970203,30770379).

References

Atwood, J.T., 1984. The relationship of the slipper orchids (SubfamilyCypripediodeae), Orchidaceae. Selbyana 7, 129–247.

Averyanov, L.V., 2000. The genus Cypripedium (Orchidaceae) in Russia. Lindleyana15, 197–221.

Baldwin, B.G., 1992. Phylogenetic utility of the internal transcribed spacers ofnuclear ribosomal DNA in plant: an example from the Compositae. Mol.Phylogenet. Evol. 1, 3–16.

Bateman, R.M., Pridgeon, A.M., Chase, M.W., 1997. Phylogenetics of subtribeOrchidinae (Orchidoideae, Orchideceae) based on nuclear ITS sequences II:infrageneric relationships and reclassification to achieve monophyly of Orchissensu stricto. Lindleyana 12, 113–141.

Bernhardt, P., Edens-Meier, R., 2010. What we think we know vs. what we need toknow about orchid pollination and conservation: Cypripedium L. as a modellineage. Bot. Rev. 76, 204–219.

Cameron, K.M., Chase, M.W., Whitten, W.M., Kores, P.J., Jarrell, D.C., Albert, V.A.,Yukawa, T., Hills, H.G., Goldman, D.H., 1999. A phylogenetic analysis of theOrchidaceae: evidence from rbcL nucleotide sequences. Am. J. Bot. 86, 208–224.

Chase, M.W., Freudenstein, J.V., Cameron, K.M., Barrett, R.L., 2003. DNA data andOrchidaceae systematics: a new phylogenetic classification. In: Dixon, K.W.,Kell, S.P., Barrett, R.L., Cribb, P.J. (Eds.), Orchid Conservation. Natural HistoryPublications, Kota Kinabalu, pp. 69–89.

Chen, S.C., 1983. Two pairs of vicariant species of Cypripedium (Orchidaceae) fromeastern Asian and eastern North America. Brittonia 35, 159–163.

Chen, S.C., Cribb, P.J., 2005. Cypripedium. In: Wu, Z.Y., Raven, P.H., Hong, D.Y. (Eds.),Flora of China, vol. 25. Science Press/Missouri Botanical Garden Press, Beijing/St.Louis., pp. 22–33.

Chen, S.C., Lang, K.Y., 1986. Cypripedium subtropicum sp. nov. — a new speciesrelated closely to Selenipedium. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 24, 317–322.

Chen, S.C., Tsi, Z.H., Luo, Y.B., 1999. Native Orchids of China in Colour. Science Press,Beijing, China.

Cox, A.V., Pridgeon, A.M., Albert, V.A., Chase, M.W., 1997. Phylogenetics of theslipper orchids (Cypripedioideae, Orchidaceae): nuclear rDNA ITS sequences.Plant Syst. Evol. 208, 197–223.

Cozzolino, S., Aceto, S., Caputo, P., Widmer, A., Dafni, A., 2001. Speciation processesin eastern Mediterranean Orchis s. l. species: molecular evidence and the role ofpollination biology. Israel J. Plant Sci. 49, 91–103.

Cribb, P.J., 1997. The Genus Cypripedium. Timber Press, Portland.Cunningham, C.W., 1997. Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be

combined? Mol. Biol. Evol. 14, 733–740.Demesure, B., Sodzi, N., Petit, R.J., 1995. A set of universal primers for amplification

of polymorphic non-coding regions of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA inplants. Mol. Ecol. 4, 129–131.

Dressler, R.L., 1993. Phylogeny and Classification of the Orchid Family. DioscoridesPress, Portland.

320 J.-h. Li et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 308–320

Eccarius, W., 2009. Die Orchideengattung Cypripedium. Echinomedia publishers,Buergel, Germany.

Farris, J.S., Källersjö, M., Kluge, A., Bult, G.C., 1995. Constructing a significance testfor incongruence. Syst. Biol. 44, 570–572.

Górniak, M., Paun, O., Chase, M.W., 2010. Phylogenetic relationships withinOrchidaceae based on a low-copy nuclear coding gene, Xdh: congruence withorganellar and nuclear ribosomal DNA results. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 56, 784–795.

Hall, T.A., 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor andprogram for Window 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acid Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98.

Li, P., Luo, Y.B., Bernhardt, P., Kou, Y., Perner, H., 2008. Pollination of Cypripediumplectrochilum (Orchidaceae) by Lasioglossum spp. (Halictidae): the roles ofgeneralist attractants versus restrictive floral architecture. Plant Biol. 10, 220–230.

Liu, Z.J., Chen, L.J., 2009. Cypripedium singchii, a new species of Orchidaceae fromChina. J. Fariylake Bot. Gard. 8, 1–3.

Luo, Y.B., Chen, S.C., 2000. The floral morphology and ontogeny of some Chineserepresentatives of orchid subtribe Orchidinae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 134, 529–548.

Norup, M.V., Dransfield, J., Chase, M.W., Barfod, A.S., Fernando, E.S., Baker, W.J.,2006. Homoplasious character combinations and generic delimitation: a casestudy from the Indo-Pacific arecoid palms (Arecaceae: Areaceae). Am. J. Bot. 93,1065–1080.

Perner, H., 2002. Cypripedium sichuanense Perner. Die Orchidee 53, 89–94.Perner, H., 2008. Sinopedilum — a new section of the genus Cypripedium. Die

Orchidee 59, 35–51.Posada, D., Crandall, K.A., 1998. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution.

Bioinformatics 14, 817–818.Ren, Z.X., Li, D.Z., Bernhardt, P., Wang, H., 2011. Flowers of Cypripedium fargesii

(Orchidaceae) fool flat-footed flies (Platypezidae) by faking fungus-infectedfoliate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 478–7480.

Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J.P., 2003. MrBaye: Bayesian phylogenetic inferenceunder mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1972–1974.

Rosso, S.W., 1996. The vegetative anatomy of the Cypripedioideae (Orchidaceae). J.Linn. Soc. Bot. 59, 309–341.

Sang, T., Crawford, D.J., Stuessy, T.F., 1997. Chloroplast DNA phylogeny, reticulateevolution, and biogeography of Paeonia (Paeniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 84, 1120–1136.

Shaw, J., Lickey, E.B., Schillng, E.E., Small, R.L., 2007. Comparison of wholechloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogeneticstudies in Angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. Am. J. Bot. 94, 275–288.

Soto, M.A., Solano, R., 2007. Ficha técnica de Cypripedium dickinsonianum. Informaciónactualizada sobre las especies del PROY-NOM-059-ECOL-2000 <http://www.conabio.gob.mx/conocimiento/ise/fichasnom/Cypripediumdickinsonianu>.

Swofford, D.L., 2003. Paup� Phylogenetic Analysis using Parisimony (and othermehods). Version 4, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Taberlet, P., Gielly, L., Pautou, G., Bouvet, J., 1991. Universal primers foramplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol. Biol.17, 1105–1109.

Tate, J.A., Simpson, B.B., 2003. Paraphyly of Tarasa (Malvaceae) and diverse originsof polyploidy species. Syst. Bot. 28, 723–737.

Thompson, J.D., Gibson, T.J., Plewniak, F., Jeanmougin, F., Higgins, D.G., 1997. TheClustal X windows interface. Flexible strategies for multiple sequencealignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 4876–4882.

Tucker, S., 1997. Floral evolution, development and convergence: the hierarchical-significance hypothesis. Int. J. Plant Sci. 158, 143–161.

Tucker, S., Bernhardt, P., 2000. Floral ontogeny, pattern formation and evolution inHibbertia and Adrastaea (Dilleniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 87, 1915–1936.

Van der Pijl, L., Dodson, C.H., 1966. Orchid Flowers: Their Pollination and Evolution.University of Miami Press, Miami, FL.

Wiens, J.J., 1998. Combining data sets with different phylogenetic histories. Syst.Biol. 47, 568–581.

Xi, Y.Z., Chen, S.C., 1991. A palynological study of the genus Cypripedium(Orchidaceae). Cathaya 3, 73–91.