Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SUMMARY A molecular approach was used to study the phylogeny of 12 genera of Prasinophyceae and two genera of Pedinophyceae (Chlorophyta). The study was based on maximum likelihood and LogDet transformation analyses of a 1094‐basepair fragment of the large subunit of ribulose‐l,5‐bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (rbcL), a chloroplast‐encoded gene. With the inclusion of homologous sequences from two cyanobacteria (Anabaena PCC 7120 and Anacystis nidulans (Richter) Drout et Daily) and a prochlorophyte(Prochlorothrix hollandica Burger‐Wiersma, Stal et Mur), the maximum likelihood reconstructions suggested that species referred to the family Mamiellaceae are secondarily reduced forms rather than the most ancestral eukaryotic green plants. The systematic position of Micromonas pusilla (Butcher) Manton et Parke based on morphology is ambiguous, but the rbcL‐based inferences indicated that it is related to the Mamiellaceae. In spite of being morphologically very different, Pycnococcus and Pseudoscourfieldia appear to be closely related, and it is suggested that Pseudoscourfieldia be included in the family Pycnococcaceae. The phylogenetic framework when based on first and second codon positions identifies the Mamiellaceae, Pycnococcaceae, Halosphaer‐aceae, and Mesostigmataceae as monophyletic families, whereas the Chlorodendraceae appears to be of polyphyletic origin. However, this branching pattern was not confirmed by bootstrap analyses. The analysts based on a LogDet transformation matrix also supported the close relationship among species belonging to the Mamiellaceae (including Micromonas pusiila) and that the pedinophytes form a separate group. The branching pattern among most of the prasinophyte genera was not resolved giving a tree topology similar to those obtained in the bootstrap analyses. A relative rate test showed that the rbcL gene in the Pedinophyceae has evolved at a slower speed relative to that in the Prasinophyceae.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daugbjerg et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: