Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PhytoKeys logoLink to PhytoKeys
. 2023 Oct 18;234:145–165. doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.234.108841

Karyotype and genome size variation in Delphinium subg. Anthriscifolium (Ranunculaceae)

Xiao-Yu Luo 1,2, Tang-Jie Nie 1,3, Heng Liu 1,2, Xue-Fei Ding 1,2, Ying Huang 1,2, Chun-Ce Guo 1,2, Wen-Gen Zhang 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC10612113  PMID: 37901134

Abstract

Five taxa of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium have been karyologically studied through chromosome counting, chromosomal measurement, and karyotype symmetry. Each taxon that we investigated has a basic chromosome number of x = 8, D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, D.ecalcaratum, and D.callichromum were diploid with 2n = 16, while D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium was tetraploid with 2n = 32. Monoploid chromosome sets of the investigated diploid taxa contained 1 metacentric chromosome, 3 submetacentric chromosomes, and 4 subtelocentric chromosomes. Higher interchromosomal asymmetry (CVCL) was present in D.ecalcaratum and D.callichromum than in other taxa. The highest levels of intrachromosomal asymmetry (MCA) and heterogeneity in centromere position (CVCI) were found in D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus. Diploid and tetraploid genome sizes varied by 3.02–3.92 pg and 6.04–6.60 pg, respectively. Karyotype and genome size of D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, D.callichromum, and D.ecalcaratum were reported for the first time. Finally, based on cytological and morphological data, the classification of Delphiniumanthriscifolium was revised.

Key words: Columbines, Consolida , genome size, karyotype, ploidy, Ranunculales

Introduction

Delphinium L., ca. 385 species and 232 species in China (Ilarslan et al. 1997; Wang 2019; Hadidchi et al. 2020), is a species-abundant genus of tribe Delphinieae in the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae) with great economic importance in terms of both horticultural and pharmaceutical value (Ghimire et al. 2015; Wang 2019; Wang et al. 2020). It is usually characterised by the following key traits: (1) In the zygomorphic flower, there are 5 petaloid sepals, with the upper one spurred; (2) a pair of dorsal petals are sessile, free, and spurred in the upper sepal, while a couple of lateral petals (i.e., staminodes) are spurless, each with a slender claw and an expanded limb; (3) follicles 3 (Tamura 1993; Wang and Warnock 2001; Wang 2019). Except for a few species found in tropical Africa’s montane regions, the genus is widely distributed in northern temperate regions (Milne-Redhead and Turrill 1952; Chartier et al. 2016; Aleem et al. 2020; Kashin et al. 2021).

To date, the classification of subgenus or groups in Delphinium is still controversial. For example, Wang (2019, 2020) divided DelphiniumintosubgenusDelphinastrum (DC.) Peterm. comprising sections Aconitoides W.T.Wang, Elaopsis Huth, Delphinastrum DC. and OligophyllonDimitrova, andsubgenusDelphiniumwithsectionAnthriscifolium. However, molecular phylogenetic studies indicated at least four monophyletic subgenera [i.e., D.subg.Consolida (DC.) Huth, subg. Delphinium, subg. Anthriscifolium (W.T.Wang) Wei Wang] should be accepted (Jabbour and Renner 2011, 2012; Wang et al. 2013; Xiang et al. 2017; DuPasquier et al. 2021). Interestingly, the taxon, including D.anthriscifolium Hance, is a monoclade, either a subgenus of Delphinium (Xiang et al. 2017) or an independent group included in Delphinium (Jabbour and Renner 2012; Wang et al. 2013).

As a recently erected subgenus, Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium, including ca. 3 species [i.e., D.anthriscifolium Hance, D.ecalcaratum S.Y.Wang & K.F.Zhou, and D.callichromum Q.L.Gan & X.W.Li], is endemic to East Asia and mainly distributed in the south of Zhongtiao Mountain and Qinling Mountain in China (Ding et al. 1981; Gan and Li 2017; Wang 2019). Moreover, there are three varieties of D.anthriscifolium [i.e., D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus Pamp., and D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (Franch) Munz], among which there are obvious differences in flower size, colour, and shape, which cause disagreements in the taxonomic circumscription of this species and associated varieties.

Genome size refers to the amount of DNA contained in the gametes of a species, which is broadly constant within an organism and is primarily indicated by C-value (Pellicer et al. 2018; Twyman and Wisden 2018; Kocjan et al. 2022). C-value estimation is not only crucial for genomic sequencing and analysis (Gregory 2005) but also significant for the identification of species and taxonomic positions (Bourge et al. 2018; Sliwinska 2018). Furthermore, as an important character of genetic material, karyotype, including chromosome number, morphology, length, band type, and centromere position (de Resende 2017; Ning et al. 2018; Vimala et al. 2021; Mahmoudi and Mirzaghaderi 2023), was extensively used in the systematic and evolutionary study of plants (Baltisberger and Hörandl 2016; Peruzzi et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2020). So far, there are few reports on the genome size and karyotype of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium.

Here, we aim to: (1) determine the chromosome number, karyotype, and genome size of the above five taxa (i.e., D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.ecalcaratum, and D.callichromum); (2) evaluate the reliability of flow cytometry in genome size determination to infer ploidy levels in D.subg.Anthriscifolium; and (3) provide cytological evidence for the taxonomic revision of D.anthriscifolium.

Materials and methods

Sampling

Materials of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium, including D.ecalcaratum, D.callichromum, D.anthriscifolium and its varieties (Fig. 1), were collected by field investigations in China during 2017–2021 (see Table 1 in detail), of which representatives were transplanted to the garden of Jiangxi Agricultural University. All vouchers were deposited in the herbarium of the College of Forestry, Jiangxi Agricultural University, China (JXAU).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Five taxa of Delphiniumsubg.AnthriscifoliumAD.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifoliumBD.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieriCD.anthriscifoliumvar.majusDD.ecalcaratumED.callichromumF flower front view of the above five taxa. Scale bars: 5 mm.

Table 1.

Chromosome number, ploidy, and genome size of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium in the study.

Pop Taxa Voucher information 2n Ploidy 2C (pg) 1Cx (pg)
1 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Bamboo Culture Park, Yifeng County, Jiangxi, China, 28°24'31"N, 114°50'3"E, 24 Apr 2018, Liu 1824 32 4x 6.26 1.57
2 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Huacheng Temple, Yichun City, Jiangxi, China, 27°48'40"N, 114°22'44"E, 17 Apr 2019, Zhang 1917 32 4x 6.20 1.55
3 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Guling Town, Lushan City, Jiangxi, China, 29°34'28"N, 115°59'19"E, 17 Apr 2019, Zhang 1904 32 4x 6.33 1.58
4 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Miaofeng Mountain, Fuzhou City, Fujian, China, 26°4'53"N, 119°14'59"E, 2 May 2017, Luo 1705 32 4x 6.39 1.60
5 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Jiaoqiao Town, Nanchang City, Jiangxi, China, 28°46'6"N, 115°50'22"E, 16 Apr 2018, Liu 1816 32 4x* 6.13 1.53
6 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Fujia County, Fuzhou City, Jiangxi, China, 27°45'40"N, 116°26'17"E, 17 Apr 2019, Nie 1917 32 4x* 6.22 1.56
7 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Shangli County, Pingxiang City, Jiangxi, China, 27°50'37"N, 113°49'15"E, 17 Apr 2019, Zhang 1918 32 4x 6.04 1.51
8 D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium Guangxi Botanical Institute, Guangxi, China, 25°4'58"N, 110°18'45"E, 26 Mar 2020, Zhang 2026 32 4x 6.60 1.65
9 D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri Hanfeng, Liuyang County, Shaanxi, China, 33°20'26"N, 105°59'43"E, 11 Apr 2020, Gao 2011 16 2x 3.32 1.66
10 D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri Baisha River, Zhuxi County, Hubei, China, 32°5'27"N, 109°55'25"E, 18 Apr 2019, Zhang 1818 16 2x* 3.36 1.68
11 D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, Nanjing City, Jiangsu, China, 32°5'23"N, 118°52'28"E, 19 Apr 2019, Nie 1919 16 2x 3.40 1.70
12 D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri Baohua Mountain, Gourong City, Jiangsu, China, 32°8'8"N, 119°5'40"E, 19 Apr 2019, Nie 1920 16 2x* 3.43 1.72
13 D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri Nanjing Zhongshan Botanical Garden, Jiangsu, China, 32°3'38"N, 118°50'16"E, 19 Apr 2019, Nie 1921 16 2x* 3.36 1.68
14 D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri Zhongtiao Mountain, Yuncheng City, Shanxi, China, 32°46'44"N, 107°34'30"E, 21 May 2019, Ren 1921 16 2x 3.32 1.66
15 D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri Jiaoqiao Town, Nanchang City, Jiangxi, China, 28°46'6"N, 115°50'22"E, 15 May 2021, Luo 2115 16 2x 3.31 1.66
16 D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus Hefeng County, Enshi City, Hubei, China, 30°3'57"N, 110°8'45"E, 18 Apr 2019, Zhang 1919 16 2x 3.92 1.96
17 D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus Songbai Town, Shennongjia, Hubei, China, 31°45'11"N, 110°40'5"E, 18 Apr 2019, Zhang 1925 16 2x* 3.80 1.90
18 D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus Jiaoqiao Town, Nanchang City, Jiangxi, China, 28°46'6"N, 115°50'22"E, 15 May 2021, Luo 2116 16 2x 3.75 1.88
19 D.ecalcaratum Jiaoqiao Town, Nanchang City, Jiangxi, China, 28°46'6"N, 115°50'22"E, 15 May 2021, Luo 2117 16 2x 3.02 1.51
20 D.ecalcaratum Lingshan Mountain, Xinyang City, Henan, China, 31°54'46"N, 114°13'19"E, 19 Apr 2019, Luo 1919 16 2x* 3.03 1.52
21 D.callichromum Baisha River, Zhuxi County, Hubei, China, 32°5'27"N, 109°55'25"E, 18 Apr 2019, Luo 1918 16 2x 3.10 1.55
22 D.callichromum Jiaoqiao Town, Nanchang City, Jiangxi, China, 28°46'6"N, 115°50'22"E, 15 May 2021, Luo 2118 16 2x* 3.10 1.55
Open in a new tab

* Chromosome number and ploidy were validated by experimental analysis in the study, while others were inferred according to the genome size by flow cytometry. Pop = population.

Flow cytometry (FCM) analysis

Twenty-two populations of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium were gathered with silica gel-dried leaves for the assessment of genome size by using flow cytometry (FCM; Table 1). In a petri dish containing pre-chilled MGb dissociation solution, ca. 1 cm2 of leaf material was quickly chopped using a sharp blade. After 10 min on ice, the samples were filtered through a 40 μm filter into a tube with pre-chilled PI (50 μg/mL) and RNAase solution (50 μg/mL), which were then placed on ice and kept from light for 0.5 to 1 hour. Using BD FACSCalibur Flow Cytometer (USA), three replicates of each population of D.subg.Anthriscifolium were estimated with the internal standard (Solanumlycopersicum L., 900 M bp; The Tomato Genome Consortium 2012). According to Tian et al. (2011), the 2C-value of each sample was calculated as the fluorescence intensity ratio. To remove the effect of genome size resulting from recent polyploidisation, monoploid genome size value (1Cx; Greilhuber et al. 2005) was used and calculated through the 2C-value.

Karyotype analysis

Somatic chromosomes were studied from the root tip cells of young seedlings. About 1–2 cm long roots were first pretreated in a 0.1% colchicine solution at 15 °C for 2–3 hours, then fixed in Carnoy I (absolute ethyl alcohol and glacial acetic acid in the proportions 3:1) for 30 minutes. After cleaning in purified water, they were hydrolysed in a mixture of 1 M HCl and 45% acetic acid (1:1) at 60 °C for 3–5 min and then stained with improved phenol magenta for 2 h. Five mitotic cells per species were examined and photographed using an Axio Imager A.1 microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany) with ZEN software at 1000× magnification.

Short arm length (s) and long arm length (l) were measured using Image J (Collins 2007). Excel was used to determine additional chromosomal characteristics such as arm ratio (r = l/s), centromeric indices (CI), mean chromosome length (CL), relative chromosome length (RL), and total haploid length (THL). The coefficient of variation of chromosome length (CVCL) [(SCL / XCL)× 100, where SCL: standard deviation; XCL: mean chromosome length] (Lavania and Srivastava 1992; Paszko 2006), coefficient of variation of the centromeric index (CVCI) [(SCI / XCI) × 100, where SCI: standard deviation; XCI: mean centromeric index] (Paszko 2006), and mean centromeric asymmetry (MCA) (A × 100; the calculation of A is detailed in Watanabe et al. 1999) (Peruzzi and Eroğlu 2013) were calculated.

To infer the formulas of karyotype, the arm ratio (r), as defined by Levan et al. (1964), was used to categorise the chromosomes, and the homologous chromosome was allocated based on the similarity in length and centromere position using Photoshop CS6 software. The idiogram was constructed according to the arm ratio and relative length of the chromosomes. In order to illustrate karyotypic correlations between organisms, a bidimensional scatter plot was also created, in which the parameters CVCL and MCA are plotted on the x- and y-axes, respectively, and dots indicate each sample.

Results

Genome size of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium

In the FCM analysis, all studied taxa and the internal standards exhibited clear and sharp peaks (Fig. 2), and coefficients of variation were lower than 5%, supporting the reliability of the flow cytometric assessments. Twenty-two populations of D.subg.Anthriscifolium, including five taxa, i.e., D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium, D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, D.ecalcaratum, and D.callichromum, showed remarkable variation (3.02–6.60 pg) in genome size (Table 1). Nearly twice as large as the others, D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium had the greatest 2C-values (6.27 ± 0.17 pg). In contrast, D.ecalcaratum (3.03 pg) and D.callichromum (3.10 pg) had the lowest values (Fig. 3A). The 1Cx values were highest in D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus (1.91 ± 0.04 pg), while lower in D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (1.57 ± 0.04 pg), D.ecalcaratum (1.51 pg), and D.callichromum (1.55 pg) (Fig. 3B). Additionally, the monoploid genome sizes of tetraploids (mean 1Cx = 1.57 pg) are smaller than those of diploids (mean 1Cx = 1.69 pg). Thus, genome loss or duplication events have occurred in the evolution of D.subg.Anthriscifolium.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Flow cytometric histograms of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium was analysed simultaneously with the internal standard Solanumlycopersicum. In each histogram, the peaks are marked as follows: 1, nuclei of the internal standard at the G1 phase; 2, nuclei of the sample at the G1 phase. The mean channel number (PI fluorescence) and coefficient of variation value (CV, %) of each peak are also given; 3, nuclei of the internal standard at the G2 phase.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Comparison of the 2C and 1Cx mean values among Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium. The columns marked with different index letters are significantly different at P < 0.05; those marked with the same index letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05 (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test). Error bars represent standard deviation.

Karyotypes of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium

Eight representative populations of D.subg.Anthriscifolium, including the above five taxa, were karyologically studied. Karyomorphometric data, microphotographs of metaphase plates, and idiograms are presented here (Tables 1–3; Figs 4–6).

Table 3.

Karyotype parameters of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium in the study.

Taxa Pop Ploidy 2n Karyotype formula THL CVCL MCA CVCI
D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium 5 4x 32 2n = 4m + 16sm + 12st 51.30 60.13 40.32 22.07
6 4x 32 2n = 4m + 16sm + 12st 40.33 50.93 37.18 27.08
D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri 13 2x 16 2n = 2m + 6sm + 8st 27.18 62.81 46.58 34.01
12 2x 16 2n = 2m + 6sm + 8st 29.91 65.20 47.18 30.83
10 2x 16 2n = 2msat+ 6sm + 8st 34.37 68.27 46.05 33.27
D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus 17 2x 16 2n = 2m + 6sm + 8st 38.24 63.10 47.59 35.79
D.ecalcaratum 20 2x 16 2n = 2m + 6sm + 8st 26.35 68.87 44.65 29.84
D.callichromum 22 2x 16 2n = 2m + 6sm + 8st 32.42 69.63 40.11 29.09
Open in a new tab

CVCI = Coefficient of Variation of Centromeric Index; CVCL = Coefficient of Variation of Chromosome Length; m = metacentric chromosome; MCA = Mean Centromeric Asymmetry; Pop = population, numbers shown in Table 1; sat = satellite chromosome; sm = submetacentric chromosome; st = subtelocentric chromosome; THL = total haploid length, µm.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Somatic metaphases of Delphiniumsubg.AnthriscifoliumAD.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (5), 2n = 32 BD.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (6), 2n = 32 CD.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (13), 2n = 16 DD.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (12), 2n = 16 ED.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (10), 2n = 16 FD.anthriscifoliumvar.majus (17), 2n = 16 GD.ecalcaratum (20), 2n = 16 HD.callichromum (22), 2n = 16. Numbers in brackets represented populations shown in Table 1. Scale bars: 10 μm.

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

Haploid idiograms of Delphiniumsubg.AnthriscifoliumAD.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (5) BD.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (6) CD.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (13) DD.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (12) ED.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (10) FD.anthriscifoliumvar.majus (17) GD.ecalcaratum (20) HD.callichromum (22). Numbers in brackets represented populations shown in Table 1.

1. Delphiniumanthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium

In two populations (Pop 5 and Pop 6) of D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium from Jiangxi, China, the somatic and basic chromosome numbers were 2n = 32 and x = 8, respectively (Table 1; Fig. 4A, B). Two pairs of chromosomes (i.e., I–II) are metacentric, eight pairs (i.e., III–VI, XI–XII, and XV–XVI) are submetacentric, and six pairs (i.e., VII–X and XIII–XIV) are subtelocentric (Tables 2, 3; Figs 5A, B, 6A, B). Thus, the karyotype formula is 2n = 4x = 32 = 4m + 16sm + 12st.

Table 2.

Karyomorphological parameters of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium in the study.

Taxa Pop Chromosome pair CL (µm) r CI RL (%) Type
D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium 5 I 7.42 ± 0.72 1.28 ± 0.06 0.44 14.47 m
II 6.35 ± 0.48 1.59 ± 0.05 0.39 12.38 m
III 5.85 ± 0.12 2.10 ± 0.42 0.33 11.40 sm
IV 4.28 ± 0.25 2.45 ± 0.55 0.29 8.35 sm
V 3.25 ± 0.50 2.79 ± 0.26 0.26 6.34 sm
VI 2.76 ± 0.08 2.06 ± 0.42 0.33 5.38 sm
VII 2.54 ± 0.02 3.34 ± 0.21 0.23 4.95 st
VIII 2.41 ± 0.02 3.15 ± 0.00 0.24 4.71 st
IX 2.34 ± 0.03 3.38 ± 0.27 0.23 4.57 st
X 2.19 ± 0.01 3.26 ± 0.13 0.23 4.27 st
XI 2.06 ± 0.07 2.88 ± 0.19 0.26 4.01 sm
XII 1.95 ± 0.02 2.73 ± 0.76 0.20 3.79 sm
XIII 1.76 ± 0.08 3.02 ± 0.06 0.25 3.42 st
XIV 1.61 ± 0.09 3.08 ± 0.29 0.25 3.14 st
XV 1.40 ± 0.01 1.82 ± 0.14 0.30 2.72 sm
XVI 1.31 ± 0.06 1.88 ± 0.13 0.35 2.56 sm
6 I 5.60 ± 0.05 1.22 ± 0.09 0.45 13.90 m
II 4.14 ± 0.13 1.14 ± 0.13 0.47 10.27 m
III 4.62 ± 0.16 1.90 ± 0.02 0.35 11.45 sm
IV 3.43 ± 0.52 2.12 ± 0.03 0.32 8.50 sm
V 2.75 ± 0.20 1.90 ± 0.17 0.35 6.81 sm
VI 2.24 ± 0.23 2.33 ± 0.75 0.31 5.55 sm
VII 1.81 ± 0.08 3.09 ± 0.04 0.33 4.49 st
VIII 1.90 ± 0.04 3.01 ± 0.00 0.37 4.70 st
IX 1.78 ± 0.29 2.03 ± 0.43 0.24 4.42 sm
X 1.88 ± 0.04 1.73 ± 0.01 0.25 4.66 sm
XI 1.76 ± 0.25 3.25 ± 0.01 0.24 4.37 st
XII 1.56 ± 0.01 3.08 ± 0.07 0.24 3.86 st
XIII 1.76 ± 0.50 3.23 ± 0.24 0.26 4.37 st
XIV 1.32 ± 0.20 3.10 ± 0.02 0.28 3.28 st
XV 1.59 ± 0.20 2.91 ± 0.06 0.24 3.94 sm
XVI 1.68 ± 0.22 2.60 ± 0.12 0.24 4.16 sm
D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri 13 I 7.65 ± 0.53 1.05 ± 0.04 0.49 28.15 m
II 5.14 ± 0.43 2.71 ± 0.31 0.27 18.91 sm
III 2.87 ± 0.11 4.23 ± 0.91 0.19 10.54 st
IV 2.73 ± 0.03 3.36 ± 0.03 0.23 10.05 st
V 2.67 ± 0.03 3.60 ± 0.49 0.22 9.84 st
VI 2.15 ± 0.26 3.53 ± 0.14 0.22 7.90 st
VII 1.53 ± 0.08 2.90 ± 0.01 0.26 5.64 sm
VIII 1.39 ± 0.00 2.90 ± 0.13 0.26 5.12 sm
12 I 8.15 ± 1.58 1.24 ± 0.17 0.45 27.24 m
II 6.14 ± 0.20 2.04 ± 0.06 0.33 20.52 sm
III 3.13 ± 0.16 3.80 ± 0.01 0.21 10.45 st
IV 2.62 ± 0.08 4.47 ± 1.41 0.19 8.75 st
V 2.46 ± 0.09 3.75 ± 0.02 0.21 8.23 st
VI 2.37 ± 0.02 3.05 ± 0.02 0.25 7.93 st
VII 1.82 ± 0.00 2.82 ± 0.18 0.26 6.09 sm
VIII 1.55 ± 0.24 2.89 ± 0.14 0.26 5.20 sm
D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri 10 I 10.43 ± 0.11 1.13 ± 0.03 0.47 30.34 msat
II 6.77 ± 0.49 2.95 ± 0.01 0.25 19.70 sm
III 3.60 ± 0.16 4.31 ± 1.43 0.20 10.49 st
IV 3.30 ± 0.03 3.25 ± 0.32 0.24 9.59 st
V 2.89 ± 0.14 4.60 ± 0.23 0.18 8.40 st
VI 2.45 ± 0.10 3.23 ± 0.02 0.24 7.14 st
VII 2.18 ± 0.10 2.55 ± 0.40 0.28 6.36 sm
VIII 1.84 ± 0.15 2.64 ± 0.18 0.28 5.34 sm
D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus 17 I 11.08 ± 0.48 1.05 ± 0.05 0.49 28.96 m
II 7.10 ± 0.04 2.97 ± 0.01 0.25 18.58 sm
III 4.40 ± 0.06 3.43 ± 0.10 0.23 11.51 st
IV 3.75 ± 0.31 3.43 ± 0.34 0.23 9.81 st
V 3.26 ± 0.15 4.75 ± 1.40 0.18 8.53 st
VI 3.07 ± 0.00 4.03 ± 0.84 0.20 8.03 st
VII 2.67 ± 0.05 2.86 ± 0.01 0.26 6.97 sm
VIII 1.86 ± 0.31 2.84 ± 0.06 0.26 4.87 sm
D.ecalcaratum 20 I 8.17 ± 0.10 1.06 ± 0.05 0.49 30.99 m
II 5.39 ± 0.03 2.66 ± 0.26 0.27 20.45 sm
III 2.61 ± 0.02 3.14 ± 0.04 0.24 9.92 st
IV 2.51 ± 0.04 3.12 ± 0.10 0.24 9.53 st
V 2.27 ± 0.02 3.21 ± 0.09 0.24 8.62 st
VI 1.95 ± 0.07 3.65 ± 0.72 0.22 7.38 st
VII 1.70 ± 0.00 2.65 ± 0.31 0.28 6.43 sm
VIII 1.50 ± 0.09 2.73 ± 0.09 0.27 5.70 sm
D.callichromum 22 I 9.47 ± 1.40 1.20 ± 0.14 0.46 29.21 m
II 6.48 ± 0.12 2.50 ± 0.62 0.29 19.99 sm
III 3.36 ± 0.17 3.25 ± 0.33 0.24 10.36 st
IV 3.14 ± 0.10 3.45 ± 0.46 0.23 9.70 st
V 2.56 ± 0.45 3.23 ± 0.07 0.24 7.90 st
VI 2.07 ± 0.01 3.74 ± 0.25 0.21 6.38 st
VII 1.96 ± 0.09 2.01 ± 0.27 0.33 6.05 sm
VIII 1.66 ± 0.09 1.77 ± 0.01 0.36 5.11 sm
Open in a new tab

CI = centromeric index; CL = chromosome length, mean value ± standard deviation; m = metacentric chromosome; Pop = population, numbers shown in Table 1; r = arm ratio, mean value ± standard deviation; RL = relative chromosome length; sat = chromosome showing secondary constriction; sm = submetacentric chromosome; st = subtelocentric chromosome.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Karyotypes of Delphiniumsubg.AnthriscifoliumAD.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (5), 2n = 32 BD.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (6), 2n = 32 CD.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (13), 2n = 16 DD.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (12), 2n = 16 ED.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (10), 2n = 16 FD.anthriscifoliumvar.majus (17), 2n = 16 GD.ecalcaratum (20), 2n = 16 HD.callichromum (22), 2n = 16. Numbers in brackets represented populations shown in Table 1. m = metacentric chromosome; sat = satellite chromosome; sm = submetacentric chromosome; st = subtelocentric chromosome.

2. Delphiniumanthriscifoliumvar.savatieri

In three populations (i.e., Pop 10 from Hubei, Pop 12 and Pop 13 from Jiangsu), the somatic and basic chromosome numbers are 2n = 16 and x = 8, respectively (Table 1; Fig. 4C–E). Pop 12 and Pop 13 have more similar karyotypes: one pair of chromosomes (i.e., I) is metacentric, three pairs (i.e., II, VII, and VIII) are submetacentric, and four pairs (i.e., III–VI) are subtelocentric (Tables 2 and 3; Figs 5C, D, 6C, D). The karyotype formula is 2n = 2x = 16 = 2m + 6sm + 8st. However, Pop 10 differed from Pop 12 and Pop 13 in that it has a secondary constriction on the first pair of chromosomes (Figs 5E, 6E), so its karyotype formula is 2n = 2x = 16 = 2msat + 6sm + 8st.

3. Delphiniumanthriscifoliumvar.majus

In Pop 17, the somatic and basic chromosome numbers are 2n = 16 and x = 8, respectively (Table 1; Fig. 4F). Its chromosome set includes one pair of metacentric chromosomes (i.e., I), three submetacentric (i.e., II, VII, and VIII), and four subtelocentric chromosomes (i.e., III–VI; Tables 2, 3; Figs 5F, 6F). Hence, the karyotype formula is 2n = 2x = 16 = 2m + 6sm + 8st.

4. Delphiniumecalcaratum

In Pop 20 from Xinyang City of Henan, China, the somatic and basic chromosome numbers are 2n = 16 and x = 8, respectively (Table 1; Fig. 4G). One pair of metacentric chromosomes (i.e., I), three pairs of submetacentric chromosomes (i.e., II, VII, and VIII), and four subtelocentric chromosomes (i.e., III–VI) make up the chromosome set of D.ecalcaratum (Tables 2, 3; Figs 5G, 6G). Therefore, the karyotype formula is 2n = 2x = 16 = 2m + 6sm + 8st.

5. Delphiniumcallichromum

In Pop 22 collected from the type locality of Zhuxi County, Hubei, China, the somatic and basic chromosome numbers are 2n = 16 and x = 8, respectively (Table 1; Fig. 4H). Its chromosome set includes one pair of metacentric chromosomes (i.e., I), three submetacentric (i.e., II, VII, and VIII), and four subtelocentric chromosomes (i.e., III–VI) (Tables 2, 3; Figs 5H, 6H). Accordingly, the karyotype formula is 2n = 2x = 16 = 2m + 6sm + 8st.

Karyotype asymmetry analysis

In all five taxa of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium, the total haploid length (THL) of D.ecalcaratum was probably the shortest (26.35), while that of D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus was the longest (up to 38.24). The highest level of interchromosomal asymmetry, estimated via CVCL, was found in D.callichromum (69.63). In contrast, the lowest level of CVCL was found in D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium (its mean value was 55.53). The highest values of both the heterogeneity in centromere position (CVCI) and intrachromosomal asymmetry (MCA) were found in D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus (47.59 and 35.79, respectively; Table 3). As seen in the scatter diagram (Fig. 7) drawn based on the parameter CVCL vs MCA, compared to D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium and D.callichromum, D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, and D.ecalcaratum gathered together, indicating that they might be more closely related.

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Open in a new tab

Scatter diagram of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium based on karyotype parameters CVCL vs. MCA. CVCL = Coefficient of Variation of Chromosome Length; MCA = Mean Centromeric Asymmetry.

Discussion

In Ranunculaceae, taxonomic position and evolutionary history were generally inferred by using chromosomal data (Tamura 1993; Yang 2001; Cires et al. 2010; Soza et al. 2013; Orooji et al. 2022). So far, nearly 60 species of Delphinium have been karyologically studied (Tjebbes 1927; Kolar et al. 2012; Gupta et al. 2018; Bosch et al. 2019; see www.iaptglobal.org/chromosome-data). The basic number of haploid chromosomes in Delphinium was typically 8 (Legro 1961; Orellana et al. 2007; Yuan and Yang 2008), with 9 (Blanché and Molero 1983; Bosch 1999; Bosch et al. 2002) and 10 (Sarkar et al. 1982) occasionally occurring in some circumstances. The chromosome number of most Delphinium plants was 2n = 16, while a few were 2n = 32, such as D.denudatum (Al-Kelidar and Richards 1981), D.chrysotrichum (Yuan 2006), and D.spirocentrum (Yuan and Yang 2008). Here, chromosome numbers of five taxa in D.subg.Anthriscifolium (i.e., D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.ecalcaratum, and D.callichromum) are reported. All studied taxa have a basic chromosome number of x = 8, D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, D.ecalcaratum, and D.callichromum are diploid with 2n = 16, while D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium is tetraploid with 2n = 32.

Furthermore, the karyotypes of Delphinium taxa were very consistent, typically consisting of one pair of large metacentric, one pair of large submetacentric, five pairs of medium-sized subtelocentric, and one pair of smaller submetacentric (rarely subtelocentric) chromosomes (Lewis et al. 1951; Yang 2001; Yuan and Yang 2008; Kolar et al. 2012). In the study, we found that the karyotype of the diploid cytotype in D.subg.Anthriscifolium shared the traits listed below: (1) the first pair (metacentric chromosomes) and the second pair (submetacentric chromosomes) of chromosomes are significantly larger than the remaining six pairs; (2) the proportion of subtelocentric chromosomes is relatively high; and (3) intrachromosomal asymmetry and interchromosomal asymmetry are both high. Two pairs of large metacentric, eight pairs of submetacentric, and six pairs of subtelocentric chromosomes make up the tetraploid cytotype in D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium. The karyotype formula of D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium is 2n = 4m + 16sm + 12st, consistent with the results of Yuan and Yang (2008). The karyotype formulas of D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus, D.ecalcaratum, and D.callichromum are 2n = 2m + 6sm + 8st, consistent with the karyotype formulas of D.caeruleum, D.maximowiczii, D.kamaoensevar.glabrescens, D.nangchienense, and D.candelabrumvar.monanthum (Yang 1996; Liu and Ho 1999).

On the genome size of Ranunculaceae, few related studies involving ten genera (i.e., Ranunculus, Eranthis, Helleborus, Hepatica, Thalictrum, Delphinium, Anemone, Ficaria, Adonis, and Trollius), showed that the 2C-value of diploid taxa significantly ranged from 0.5 to 57.3 pg and from 14.8 to 89.2 pg for tetraploid taxa (Zonneveld 2001; Mabuchi et al. 2005; Cires et al. 2009; Cires et al. 2010; Zonneveld 2010; Soza et al. 2013; Zonneveld 2015; Mitrenina et al. 2020; Mitrenina et al. 2021; Salvado et al. 2022; Seidl et al. 2022). According to Salvado et al.’s (2022) report on the genome size of Delphinium, the tetraploid D.montanum had a 1C value of 10.32 pg. Here, the 2C-value of D.subg.Anthriscifolium was 3.02–3.92 pg for diploids and 6.04–6.60 pg for tetraploids, respectively. Chromosome counts were completed for selected taxa to confirm ploidy and further calibrate the flow cytometry results. However, the above data lacks comparability due to the difference in experimental conditions and reference genome species.

Interestingly, in the study, the monoploid genome sizes of tetraploids (mean 1Cx = 1.57 pg) are less than those of diploids (mean 1Cx = 1.69 pg; see Fig. 3B), maybe showing a general tendency toward genome downsizing in the evolution of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium. Following polyploidisation, chromosome counts and genome size may change independently or dependently due to sequence loss and gain, chromosomal elimination, or chromosome fusions and fissions (Heslop-Harrison et al. 2023). Typically, the loss of repetitive DNA, such as retroelements or retrotransposons, caused the decline in monoploid genomes (Leitch and Bennett 2004; Bennetzen et al. 2005; Simonin and Roddy 2018). In addition, genome size data can be used to estimate ploidy in closely related taxa when properly calibrated with known cytological standards (Shearer and Ranney 2013; Lattier et al. 2014; Hembree et al. 2019). Delphiniumanthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium is tetraploid with a genome size of about 6.28 pg. In comparison, the remaining diploid taxa have a genome size of approximately 3.38 pg, meaning that polyploidisation occurred in the D.subg.Anthriscifolium.

Taxonomic treatment

1. Delphinium anthriscifolium

Hance. In J. Bot. 5: 207. 1868.

716559F8-2FFF-564E-B792-251DD7A37673

  • = D.calleryi Franch. in Bull. Mens. De la Soc. Linn. De Paris, 1: 329. 1882. ≡ D.anthriscifoliumvar.calleryi (Franch.) Fin. & Gagnep. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 51: 471. 1904. syn. nov. Type: China: Aomen (Macao), 1841, Callery 6 (Holotype P!); Aomen, 1844, Callery 51 (Isotypes P!).

  • = D.cavaleriense Lévl. et Vant. in Bull. Acad. Géog. Bot. 11: 49. 1902., syn. nov. Type: China: Guizhou (Kweichow), “environs de Tou-chan, belles fleurs bleues”, 2 June 1898, J. Cavalerie 2344 (Holotype E!; Isotypes K!).

  • = D.cerefolium Lévl. et Vant. in Bull. Acad. Géog. Bot. 11: 49. 1902., syn. nov. Type: China: Guizhou (Kouy-Tcheou), Guiyang (Kouy-Yang), “mont du College”, 2 June 1898, Chaffanjon s.n. (Holotype E!).

Type material.

Lecotype: China: Guangdong (Kwantung), “necnon prope rupem calcaream kai-kun-shek, secus eundem fluvium”, June 1867, Sampson, Hance no. 10125 (Holotype K!; Isotypes BM! NY! P! JE! GH).

2. Delphinium savatieri

Franch. In Bull. Mens. De la Soc. Linn. De Paris 1: 330. 1882.

EF7AAEC6-7A1B-5FF2-8DE6-0DAD46FA781B

  • ≡ D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri (Franchet) Munz., J. Armold Arbor. 48: 261. 1967. Type: China: Zhejiang (Tche-kiang/Chekiang), “in siccis ad pedem montium Shao-Shin, prope Ning-po”, May 1863, Lud. Savatier (Holotype P!; Isotype P!).

  • = D.robertianum Lévl. et Vant. in Bull. Acad. Géog. Bot. 11: 49. 1902., syn. nov. Type: China: Guizhou (Kouy-tcheou), Guiyang (Kouy-yang), 9 Dec 1897, no. 2025 (Holotype E!).

  • = D.minutum Lévl. et Vant. in Bull. Herb. Boiss. sér. 2, 6: 505. 1906., syn. nov. Type: China: Guizhou, 2 Mar 1904, Jos. Esquirol no. 23 (Holotype E!).

  • = D.kweichowense W.T.Wang in Acta Bot. Sin., 10: 283. 1962., syn. nov. Type: China: Guizhou, Huishui, 18 July 1930, Y. Jiang 8571 (PE!).

Note.

Morphologically, D.savatieri differs from D.anthriscifolium in that the staminode limb is ovate (vs. dolabriform), 2-lobed (vs. 2-parted), and its base is broadly cuneate (vs. subtruncate). Cytologically, D.savatieri also differs from D.anthriscifolium in that its karyotype formula is 2n = 2x = 16 = 2m + 6sm + 8st (vs. 2n = 4x = 32 = 4m + 16sm + 12st).

3. Delphinium zanlanscianense

W.G.Zhang & X.Y.Luo nom. nov.

206A1250-92B9-5DD2-BA68-6CAA0D945E11

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77328947-1

  • ≡ Delphiniumanthriscifoliumvar.majus Pamp. in Nuovo Giorn. Bot. Ital., n.s., 20: 288. 1915.

  • = D.anthriscifoliumf.latilobulatum W.T.Wang in Acta Bot. Sin., 10: 279. 1962., syn. nov. Type: China: Hunan, Xue-Feng-Shan, 1954, Z. T. Li 2371 (Holotype PE!; Isotype PE!).

Type material.

Lecotype: China: Hubei (Hu-peh), Zhanglang County (Zan-lan-scian), 1913, P. C. Silvestri no. 3917 (Holotype FI!).

Note.

Morphologically, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus differs from D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium in that the flowers are 2.3–3.4 cm long (vs. 1.0–1.8 cm), spur 1.7–2.2 cm (vs. 0.5–2.2 cm) and its base 3.0–4.0 mm (vs. 1.5–4.0 mm) in diam., other sepals 1.2–1.6 cm (vs. 0.6–1.6 cm), staminode limb broadly ovate (vs. dolabriform or ovate). Cytologically, D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus differs from D.anthriscifoliumvar.anthriscifolium in that its karyotype formula is 2n = 2x = 16 = 2m + 6sm + 8st (vs. 2n = 4x = 32 = 4m + 16sm + 12st).

When elevating D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus to the rank of species, the name is already occupied by D.majus (W.T.Wang) W.T.Wang (Wang and Hsiao 1965), making it necessary to propose a replacement name. Thus, we propose the name ‘zanlanscianense’ based on the locality of its lectotype.

Conclusions

In the present study, comparative karyomorphological analyses and genome size determinations of five taxa of Delphiniumsubg.Anthriscifolium have been carried out. The chromosome numbers of D.savatieri, D.zanlanscianense, D.callichromum, and D.ecalcaratum were determined for the first time. Karyotypes of D.subg.Anthriscifolium were shown to have both common and species-specific features related to chromosome number, size, and morphology. All studied taxa have the basic chromosome numbers x = 8, diploid, or polyploid cytotypes, and the monoploid genome size (C-value) determined by flow cytometry varies more than twice. Additionally, the monoploid genome sizes of tetraploids (mean 1Cx = 1.57 pg) are smaller than those of diploids (mean 1Cx = 1.69 pg). Thus, genome loss or duplication events have occurred in the evolution of D.subg.Anthriscifolium. Finally, based on cytological and morphological evidence, D.anthriscifoliumvar.savatieri was restored to species rank, and D.anthriscifoliumvar.majus was elevated and renamed as D.zanlanscianense.

Supplementary Material

XML Treatment for Delphinium anthriscifolium
XML Treatment for Delphinium savatieri
XML Treatment for Delphinium zanlanscianense

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Yu-Cai Luo (South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences), Shao-Dong Wu (Lushan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences), and Qiang Zhang (Guangxi Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences) for the work in field surveys and sampling. We thank the editor (Marco Pellegrini), Dr. José Ignacio Márquez-Corro and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments and suggestions.

Citation

Luo X-Y, Nie T-J, Liu H, Ding X-F, Huang Y, Guo C-C, Zhang W-G (2023) Karyotype and genome size variation in Delphinium subg. Anthriscifolium (Ranunculaceae). PhytoKeys 234: 145–165. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.234.108841

Additional information

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethical statement

No ethical statement was reported.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 31500189). The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft: XYL. Methodology, Visualization: TJN. Data curation, Visualization: HL, YH, XFD. Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing: WGZ, CCG.

Author ORCIDs

Xiao-Yu Luo https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8153-7348

Tang-Jie Nie https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2405-8904

Heng Liu https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4900-4025

Xue-Fei Ding https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2034-5459

Ying Huang https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7731-6916

Chun-Ce Guo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3376-1116

Wen-Gen Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0946-8614

Data availability

All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.

References

  1. Al-Kelidar RK, Richards AJ. (1981) Chromosomal indications of evolutionary trends in the genus Delphinium L. Cytologia 46(3): 623–633. 10.1508/cytologia.46.623 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aleem M, Ahmad E, Anis M. (2020) Botany, phytochemistry, pharmacology and Unani traditional uses of Jadwar (Delphiniumdenudatum Wall.): A review. The Journal of Phytopharmacology 9(5): 378–383. 10.31254/phyto.2020.9516 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baltisberger M, Hörandl E. (2016) Karyotype evolution supports the molecular phylogeny in the genus Ranunculus (Ranunculaceae). Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 18: 1–14. 10.1016/j.ppees.2015.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennetzen JL, Ma J, Devos KM. (2005) Mechanisms of recent genome size variation in flowering plants. Annals of Botany 95(1): 127–132. 10.1093/aob/mci008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blanché C, Molero J. (1983) Delphiniumbolosii C. Blanché and J. Molero spec. nova—Etude de sa position systématique dans la série Fissa B. Pawl. Candollea 38(2): 709–716. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bosch M. (1999) Biologia de la reproducció de la tribu Delphinieae a la Mediterrània occidental. Arxius de la Secció de Ciències de l’Institut d’Estudis Catalans 120: 1–375. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bosch M, Simon J, Blanché C. (2002) Reports 1305–1311. In: Kamari G, Blanché C, Garbari F. (Eds) Mediterranean chromosome number reports.Flora Mediterranea 12: 470–475.
  8. Bosch M, Herrando-Moraira S, del Hoyo A, López-Pujol J, Massó S, Rosselló JA, Simon J, Blanché C. (2019) New conservation viewpoints when plants are viewed at one level higher. Integration of phylogeographic structure, niche modelling and genetic diversity in conservation planning of W Mediterranean larkspurs. Global Ecology and Conservation 18: e00580. 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00580 [DOI]
  9. Bourge M, Brown SC, Siljak-Yakovlev S. (2018) Flow cytometry as tool in plant sciences, with emphasis on genome size and ploidy level assessment. Genetics and Applications 2(2): 1–12. 10.31383/ga.vol2iss2pp1-12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chartier M, Dressler S, Schönenberger J, Mora AR, Sarthou C, Wang W, Jabbour F. (2016) The evolution of afro‐montane Delphinium (Ranunculaceae): Morphospecies, phylogenetics and biogeography. Taxon 65(6): 1313–1327. 10.12705/656.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cires E, Cuesta C, Peredo EL, Revilla MÁ, Prieto JAF. (2009) Genome size variation and morphological differentiation within Ranunculusparnassifolius group (Ranunculaceae) from calcareous screes in the Northwest of Spain. Plant Systematics and Evolution 281(1–4): 193–208. 10.1007/s00606-009-0201-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cires E, Cuesta C, Revilla MÁ, Prieto JAF. (2010) Intraspecific genome size variation and morphological differentiation of Ranunculusparnassifolius (Ranunculaceae), an Alpine–Pyrenean–Cantabrian polyploid group. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 101(2): 251–271. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01517.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Collins TJ. (2007) ImageJ for microscopy. BioTechniques 43(1S): S25–S30. 10.2144/000112517 [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. de Resende KFM. (2017) Karyotype evolution: concepts and applications. In: Bhat TA, Wani AA. (Eds) Chromosome Structure and Aberrations.Springer, New Delhi, 181–200. 10.1007/978-81-322-3673-3_9 [DOI]
  15. Ding BZ, Wang SY, Gao ZY. (1981) Delphinium L. In: Ding BZ, Wang SY, Gao ZY. (Eds) Flora Henanensis (Vol.1). Henan People’s Publishing House, Zhengzhou, 431–436.
  16. DuPasquier PE, Andro-Durand V, Batory L, Wang W, Jabbour F. (2021) Nomenclatural revision of Delphiniumsubg.Consolida (DC.) Huth (Ranunculaceae). PhytoKeys 180: 81–110. 10.3897/phytokeys.180.67126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gan QL, Li XW. (2017) A new species of Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) from Hubei, China. Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature 25(4): 430–432. 10.3417/D-17-00001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ghimire B, Jeong MJ, Choi GE, Lee H, Suh GU, Heo K, Ku JJ. (2015) Seed morphology of the subfamily Helleboroideae (Ranunculaceae) and its systematic implication. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 216: 6–25. 10.1016/j.flora.2015.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gregory TR. (2005) Genome size evolution in animals. In: Gregory TR. (Ed.) The Evolution of the Genome.Elsevier, San Diego, 4–71. 10.1016/B978-012301463-4/50003-6 [DOI]
  20. Greilhuber J, Doležel J, Lysák MA, Bennett MD. (2005) The origin, evolution and proposed stabilisation of the terms ‘genome size’ and ‘C-value’ to describe nuclear DNA contents. Annals of Botany 95(1): 255–260. 10.1093/aob/mci019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gupta H, Kumar R, Gupta RC, Singhal VK. (2018) New chromosome counts and evolutionary tendencies in some dicots analysed from Parvati Valley, Kullu district, Himachal Pradesh. Caryologia 71(3): 238–262. 10.1080/00087114.2018.1460983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hadidchi A, Attar F, Ullah F. (2020) Using microscopic techniques for taxonomic implications of seed and fruits of Delphinium L. (sensu lato) (Ranunculaceae). Microscopy Research and Technique 83(2): 99–117. 10.1002/jemt.23393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hembree WG, Ranney TG, Jackson BE, Weathington M. (2019) Cytogenetics, ploidy, and genome sizes of Camellia and related genera. HortScience 54(7): 1124–1142. 10.21273/HORTSCI13923-19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Heslop-Harrison JS, Schwarzacher T, Liu Q. (2023) Polyploidy: Its consequences and enabling role in plant diversification and evolution. Annals of Botany 131(1): 1–10. 10.1093/aob/mcac132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ilarslan H, Ilarslan R, Blanché C. (1997) Seed morphology of the genus Delphinium L. (Ranunculaceae) in Turkey. Collectanea Botanica 23: 79–95. 10.3989/collectbot.1997.v23.68 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jabbour F, Renner SS. (2011) Consolida and Aconitella are an annual clade of Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) that diversified in the Mediterranean basin and the Irano‐Turanian region. Taxon 60(4): 1029–1040. 10.1002/tax.604007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jabbour F, Renner SS. (2012) A phylogeny of Delphinieae (Ranunculaceae) shows that Aconitum is nested within Delphinium and that Late Miocene transitions to long life cycles in the Himalayas and Southwest China coincide with bursts in diversification. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62(3): 928–942. 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kashin AS, Kritskaya TA, Bogoslov AV, Shilova IV, Parkhomenko AS, Ishmuratova MM, Fedorov NI. (2021) Taxonomic revision of Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) in the South-East of European Russia. Plant Systematics and Evolution 307(5): 1–59. 10.1007/s00606-021-01783-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kocjan D, Dolenc Koce J, Etl F, Dermastia M. (2022) Genome size of life forms of Araceae—A new piece in the C-value puzzle. Plants 11(3): e334. 10.3390/plants11030334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Kolar FR, Gosavi KVC, Chandore AN, Yadav SR, Dixit GB. (2012) Comparative karyotype analysis of Delphiniummalabaricumvar.malabaricum (Huth) Munz. and Delphiniummalabaricumvar.ghaticum Billore. Cytologia 77(1): 113–119. 10.1508/cytologia.77.113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lattier JD, Ranney TG, Fantz PR, Avent T. (2014) Identification, nomenclature, genome sizes, and ploidy levels of Liriope and Ophiopogon Taxa. HortScience 49(2): 145–151. 10.21273/HORTSCI.49.2.145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lavania UC, Srivastava S. (1992) A simple parameter of dispersion index that serves as an adjunct to karyotype asymmetry. Journal of Biosciences 17(2): 179–182. 10.1007/BF02703503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Legro RAH. (1961) Species hybrids in Delphinium. Euphytica 10(1): 1–23. 10.1007/BF00037200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Leitch IJ, Bennett MD. (2004) Genome downsizing in polyploid plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 82(4): 651–663. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00349.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Levan A, Fredga K, Sandberg AA. (1964) Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes. Hereditas 52(2): 201–220. 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1964.tb01953.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewis H, Epling C, Mehlquist GAL, Wyckoff CG. (1951) Chromosome numbers of Californian Delphiniums and their geographical occurrence. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 38(2): 101–117. 10.2307/2394432 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Liu JQ, Ho TN. (1999) Karyotypes of seven taxa of Delphinium from southern Qinghai. Acta Botanica Yunnanica 21: 471–476. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mabuchi T, Kokubun H, Mii M, Ando T. (2005) Nuclear DNA content in the genus Hepatica (Ranunculaceae). Journal of Plant Research 118(1): 37–41. 10.1007/s10265-005-0191-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mahmoudi S, Mirzaghaderi G. (2023) Tools for drawing informative idiograms. In: Heitkam T, Garcia S. (Eds) Plant Cytogenetics and Cytogenomics: Methods and Protocols Methods in Molecular Biology (Vol.2672). Humana, New York, 515–527. 10.1007/978-1-0716-3226-0_31 [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Milne-Redhead E, Turrill WB. (1952) Delphinium. In: Turrill WB, Milne-Redhead E. (Eds) Flora of Tropical East Africa: Ranunculaceae.Crown Agents for the Colonies, London, 19–22.
  41. Mitrenina EY, Erst AS, Skaptsov MV, Veklich TN, Chernysheva OA, Kutsev MG, Kuznetsov AA. (2020) Cytogenetic characteristics of some Trollius L. species (Ranunculaceae) from Asian Russia. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology 10(6): 321–328. 10.15421/2020_300 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mitrenina EY, Erst AS, Peruzzi L, Skaptsov MV, Ikeda H, Nikulin VY, Wang W. (2021) Karyotype and genome size variation in white-flowered Eranthissect.Shibateranthis (Ranunculaceae). PhytoKeys 187: 207–227. 10.3897/phytokeys.187.75715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ning HJ, Ao SY, Fan YR, Fu JX, Xu CM. (2018) Correlation analysis between the karyotypes and phenotypic traits of Chinese cymbidium cultivars. Horticulture, Environment and Biotechnology 59(1): 93–103. 10.1007/s13580-018-0010-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Orellana MR, Lopez-Pujol J, Blanche C, Bosch M. (2007) Genetic diversity in the endangered dysploid larkspur Delphiniumbolosii and its close diploid relatives in the series Fissa of the Western Mediterranean area. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 92(4): 773–784. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00910.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Orooji F, Mirzaghaderi G, Kuo Y-T, Fuchs J. (2022) Variation in the number and position of rDNA loci contributes to the diversification and speciation in Nigella (Ranunculaceae). Frontiers in Plant Science 13: e917310. 10.3389/fpls.2022.917310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  46. Paszko B. (2006) A critical review and a new proposal of karyotype asymmetry indices. Plant Systematics and Evolution 258(1–2): 39–48. 10.1007/s00606-005-0389-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pellicer J, Hidalgo O, Dodsworth S, Leitch IJ. (2018) Genome size diversity and its impact on the evolution of land plants. Genes 9(2): 1–88. 10.3390/genes9020088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Peruzzi L, Eroğlu HE. (2013) Karyotype asymmetry: Again, how to measure and what to measure? Comparative Cytogenetics 7(1): 1–9. 10.3897/compcytogen.v7i1.4431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. Peruzzi L, Carta A, Altinordu F. (2017) Chromosome diversity and evolution in Allium (Allioideae, Amaryllidaceae). Plant Biosystems – An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 151(2): 212–220. 10.1080/11263504.2016.1149123 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Salvado P, Aymerich Boixader P, Parera J, Vila Bonfill A, Martin M, Quélennec C, Lewin J-M, Delorme-Hinoux V, Bertrand JAM. (2022) Little hope for the polyploid endemic Pyrenean Larkspur (Delphiniummontanum): Evidences from population genomics and Ecological Niche Modeling. Ecology and Evolution 12(3): e8711. 10.1002/ece3.8711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  51. Sarkar AK, Datta N, Chatterjee U, Hazra D. (1982) Ranunculaceae. In: Löve A (Ed.) IOPB chromosome number reports LXXVI. Taxon 31: e578. 10.1002/j.1996-8175.1982.tb03560.x [DOI]
  52. Seidl A, Tremetsberger K, Pfanzelt S, Lindhuber L, Kropf M, Neuffer B, Blattner FR, Király G, Smirnov SV, Friesen N, Shmakov AI, Plenk K, Batlai O, Hurka H, Bernhardt K-G. (2022) Genotyping-by-sequencing reveals range expansion of Adonisvernalis (Ranunculaceae) from Southeastern Europe into the zonal Euro-Siberian steppe. Scientific Reports 12(1): e19074. 10.1038/s41598-022-23542-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Shearer K, Ranney TG. (2013) Ploidy levels and relative genome sizes of species, hybrids, and cultivars of dogwood (Cornus spp.). HortScience 48(7): 825–830. 10.21273/HORTSCI.48.7.825 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Simonin KA, Roddy AB. (2018) Genome downsizing, physiological novelty, and the global dominance of flowering plants. PLoS Biology 16(1): e2003706. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Sliwinska E. (2018) Flow cytometry–a modern method for exploring genome size and nuclear DNA synthesis in horticultural and medicinal plant species. Folia Horticulturae 30(1): 103–128. 10.2478/fhort-2018-0011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Soza VL, Haworth KL, Di Stilio VS. (2013) Timing and consequences of recurrent polyploidy in meadow-rues (Thalictrum, Ranunculaceae). Molecular Biology and Evolution 30(8): 1940–1954. 10.1093/molbev/mst101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Tamura M. (1993) Ranunculaceae. In: Kubitzki K, Rohwer JG, Bittrich V. (Eds) The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants (Vol.2). Springer, Berlin, 563–583. 10.1007/978-3-662-02899-5_67 [DOI]
  58. The Tomato Genome Consortium (2012) The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature 485(7400): 635–641. 10.1038/nature11119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Tian XM, Zhou XY, Gong N. (2011) Applications of flow cytometry in plant research: Analysis of nuclear DNA content and ploidy level in plant cells. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin 27(9): 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  60. Tjebbes K. (1927) The chromosomes of three Delphinium species. Hereditas 10(1–2): 160–164. 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1927.tb02468.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Twyman RM, Wisden W. (2018) Genomes and mapping. In: Twyman RM, Driever WJ, Jaussi R, Rapley R. (Eds) Advanced Molecular Biology.Garland Science, United States of America, 133–164. 10.1201/9780203345085 [DOI]
  62. Vimala Y, Lavania S, Lavania UC. (2021) Chromosome change and karyotype differentiation–implications in speciation and plant systematics. The Nucleus : an International Journal of Cytology and Allied Topics 64(1): 33–54. 10.1007/s13237-020-00343-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang WT. (2019) A revision of the genus Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) of China (I). Guihaia 39(11): 1425–1469. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wang WT. (2020) A revision of the genus Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) of China (II). Guihaia 40(suppl.): 1–254.
  65. Wang WT, Hsiao PK. (1965) Notulae de Ranunculaceissinensibus II. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 10(suppl.): 49–110.
  66. Wang WC, Warnock MJ. (2001) Delphinium L. In: Wu ZY, Raven PH. (Eds) Flora of China (Vol.6). Science Press and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, Beijing and Saint Louis, 223–237.
  67. Wang W, Liu Y, Yu SX, Gao TG, Chen ZD. (2013) Gymnaconitum, a new genus of Ranunculaceae endemic to the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. Taxon 62(4): 713–722. 10.12705/624.10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wang LJ, Gao MD, Sheng MY, Yin J. (2020) Cluster analysis of karyotype similarity coefficients in Epimedium (Berberidaceae): Insights in the systematics and evolution. PhytoKeys 161: 11–26. 10.3897/phytokeys.161.51046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Watanabe K, Yahara T, Denda T, Kosuge K. (1999) Chromosomal evolution in the genus Brachyscome (Asteraceae, Astereae): Statistical tests regarding correlation between changes in karyotype and habit using phylogenetic information. Journal of Plant Research 112(2): 145–161. 10.1007/PL00013869 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Xiang KL, Aytaç Z, Liu Y, Espinosa F, Jabbour F, Byng JW, Zhang CF, Erst AS, Wang W. (2017) Recircumscription of Delphiniumsubg.Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) and implications for its biogeography. Taxon 66(3): 554–566. 10.12705/663.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Yang QE. (1996) A karyotype study of 15 species in the tribe Delphinieae (Ranunculaceae) from China. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 34: 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  72. Yang QE. (2001) Cytology of 12 species in Aconitum L. and of 18 species in Delphinium L. of the tribe Delphinieae (Ranunculaceae) from China. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 39: 502–514. [Google Scholar]
  73. Yuan Q. (2006) The genus Delphinium L. from the Hengduan Mountains region in southwestern China: taxonomy and cytology. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Botany, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
  74. Yuan Q, Yang QE. (2008) Low incidence of polyploids and high uniformity of karyotypes displayed by Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) in the Hengduan Mountains region of southwest China. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 158(1): 172–188. 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00849.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Zonneveld BJM. (2001) Nuclear DNA contents of all species of Helleborus (Ranunculaceae) discriminate between species and sectional divisions. Plant Systematics and Evolution 229(1–2): 125–130. 10.1007/s006060170022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Zonneveld BJM. (2010) Genome sizes in Hepatica Mill: (Ranunculaceae) show a loss of DNA, not a gain, in polyploids. Journal of Botany 2010: 1–7. 10.1155/2010/758260 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Zonneveld BJM. (2015) Genome sizes of Ficaria Huds. (Ranunculaceae) indicate eight separate species. Gorteria 37: 118–139. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

XML Treatment for Delphinium anthriscifolium
phytokeys.234.108841-treatment1.xml (5.5KB, xml)
XML Treatment for Delphinium savatieri
phytokeys.234.108841-treatment2.xml (6.8KB, xml)
XML Treatment for Delphinium zanlanscianense
phytokeys.234.108841-treatment3.xml (8.7KB, xml)

Data Availability Statement

All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.

Articles from PhytoKeys are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES