Revision of Passiflora Subgenus Decaloba ... - Passion Flowers

CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION
The morphological and molecular analyses presented here confirm the
monophyly of Passiflora supersection Cieca. In addition, both phenetic and
cladistic analyses have increased our understanding of some of the complex
biological issues influencing the evolution of the group. A revision of the
supersection, which incorporates information from both the morphological and
molecular phylogenetic hypotheses, is presented in Chapter 8.
Separate or Combined Analyses: A Comparison of the Molecular and
Morphological Cladistic Analyses
Congruence between phylogenetic hypotheses generated from independent
data sets, when subjected to reliable methods of phylogenetic analysis, is often
thought to be evidence for considering those hypotheses as representative of the
"true" phylogeny. Conflict may indicate theoretical or procedural problems in one
or both of the analyses, or that additional data are needed to resolve the
phylogenetic relationships in question (Hillis, 1987). There is a considerable
amount of incongruence between the molecular and morphological phylogenies
for Passiflora supersection Cieca presented in previous chapters. Sample size
has likely had an influence on this incongruity. For the morphological data set,
specimens for all the species of the supersection from throughout their
geographic ranges were carefully measured and examined in order to determine
the extent of variation of the characters. However, such a large sample size in
130