Laserpitium

Carpology of Laserpitium View in CoL s.l. taxa

The main carpological meta-analyses gathers fruit characteristics of 64 taxa belonging to Laserpitum s.l. taxa, 48 of which are included in the ITS analyses (see Table 4 and Table S2 for more detail on taxa and specific references). The ten ITS clades in which those 64 Laserpitium s.l. taxa are found to present the following carpological features:

A. Ekimia clade: Fruit with either 6 or 11 vittae and hairless primary ribs in the mericarps. Some species with mericarps with 9 “gyrose–plicate” or “moniliform” wings instead of the classic Laserpitium s.l. wings, that is, secondary ribs forming well-developed membranous dorsal and lateral wings with an almost similar length. Other species with 4 classic Laserpitium s.l. wings (width range: 0.5–1.0 mm). Fruit length ranges from 3.0–6.0 mm.

B. Laser clade: Fruit with 6 to 8 vittae and without hairs in primary ribs in the mericarps. Mericarps without wings or with dorsal wings scarcely developed when present ( 0.5 mm) and wider lateral wings (width range: 2.5–4.0 mm). Fruit <7.0 mm long.

C. Laserpitium s.s. clade: Fruit with 6 vittae, with or without hairs in the primary ribs of the mericarps. Mericarps dorsal wings are shorter than lateral wings or similar in size (width range: 0.5–4.0 mm), lateral wings with widths ranging from 1.5–4.0 mm. Fruit length ranges from 3.5–10.0 mm.

D. Laserocarpum clade: Fruit with 6 vittae and hairless in primary ribs. Mericarps dorsal wings (width range: 1.8–1.9 mm) are similar in size to lateral wings (width range: 1.8–1.9 mm). Fruit length ranges from 7.0–8.0 mm.

E. Portenschlagiella clade: Fruit with 11 vittae and hairy mericarp primary ribs. Mericarps with filiform dorsal and lateral wings. Unknown wings width ranges and fruit length range.

F. Siler clade: Fruit with 2 or 4 vittae and hairless primary ribs in the mericarps. Mericarps dorsal wings are either absent or well-developed (width range: 0.0–1.0 mm), shorter than lateral wings (width range: 0.4–3.0 mm). Fruit length ranges from 4.7–14.0 mm.

G. Silphiodaucus clade: Fruit with 6 vittae with hairs in primary ribs in the mericarps. Mericarps with dorsal wings scarcely developed (width range: 0.2–0.5mm) and wider lateral wings (width range: 1.0– 2.5 mm). Fruit length ranges from <5.0–7.0 mm.

H. Elaeoselinum clade: Fruit with 6, 8, 9 or 11 vittae. Mericarps can be either wingless and with hairs in the primary ribs or with classic wings and without hairs in the primary ribs of the mericarps. Mericarps dorsal wings are either shorter than lateral wings (width range: 0.1–2.6 mm) or not present, lateral wings with widths ranging from 1.5–7mm. Fruit length ranges from 4.0–33.0 mm.

I. Thapsia s.s. clade: Fruit with 11 vittae, with or without hairs in the primary ribs of the mericarps. Mericarps dorsal wings are either shorter than lateral wings (width range: 0.5–0.7 mm) or not present, lateral wings with widths ranging from 1.5–4.4 mm. Fruit length ranges from 6–17.5 mm.

J. Iberian Thapsia clade: Fruit with 6–11 vittae with hairless primary ribs in the mericarps. Mericarps with dorsal wings are shorter than (width range: 0.5–1.9 mm) than the lateral wings (width range: 0.7–2.5 mm). Fruit length ranges from 5.0–7.0 mm.

The members of these clades and subclades present overlapping features, affecting mainly all the length intervals, the number of vittae, and the presence of hairs in the primary ribs of the mericarp. Half of the clades ( Ekimia , Laser , Elaeoselinum , Thapsia s.s. and Iberian Thapsia ) are formed by taxa that present different numbers of vittae. The FADM analysis, which includes both qualitative and quantitative data, reveals similar results. Morphological data of a total of 60 different taxa (including 25 taxa currently recognized as subspecies) graphically represented using the two dimensions that better explained the data variance and accounted for 32.8% of the observed variance (dimension 1=19.5%; dimension 2=13.3%), generates closely overlapping groups formed by taxa belonging to the different clades (see Fig. 6A View FIGURE 6 ). Coherently, the clustering analysis of these Laserpitium s.l. taxa retrieved a topology in which all genera except for Silphiodaucus were paraphyletic (see Fig. 6B View FIGURE 6 ).