The pairs used in the analyses of phylogenetically independent contrasts. Most pairs comprise species within genera or within families, in which case traditional taxonomy, as used in Scandinavian floras (Krok & Almquist 1984), was assumed to reflect true phylogenetic relationships. Traditional taxonomy is more difficult to use among families, since it is doubtful whether it reflects phylogeny. To resolve relationships between families, Chase et al. (1993) was consulted. In a few cases, phylogenetic studies on particular groups were used. Some pairs are followed by a brief comment. For brevity only generic names were used in the list for species which are single representatives of their genus in this study.
Pair 1. Gnaphalium - Antennaria
Pair 2. Achillea - Leucanthemum
Pair 3. Gnaphalieae - Anthemideae
Comment (based on Bremer 1994). Gnaphalium and Antennaria are closely related, belonging to the tribe Gnaphalieae. Achillea and Leucanthemum belong to the tribe Anthemideae, which is the tribe most close to Gnaphalieae, represented in the data set.
Pair 4. Taraxacum Erytrospermum - Taraxacum vulgare
Pair 5. Hieracium - Hypochoeris
Pair 6. Centaurea - Lactuceae
Comment (based on Bremer 1994). Hieracium, Hypochoeris and Taraxacum belong to the tribe Lactuceae. Centaurea belongs to the tribe Cardueae, which is the most basal of the Asteraceae tribes included in this study. It is paired with representatives from the Lactuceae, which is more basal than Gnaphalieae and Anthemideae.
Pair 7. Knautia - Succisa
Pair 8. Dipsacaeceae - Campanula
Comment. Knautia and Succisa were the only representatives of the Dipsacaceae in the study. Dipsacaceae is included in a sister-group to a large group of families including Campanulaceae (Chase et al. 1993).
Pair 9. Ranunculus acris - Ranunculus bulbosus
Pair 10. Ranunculus - Anemone
Comment. These are the only representatives of the Ranunculaceae.
Pair 11. Carum - Pimpinella
Pair 12. (Carum + Pimpinella) - Anthriscus
Comment. The relationship between the genera Carum, Pimpinella and Anthriscus was obtained from Plunkett et al. (1996).
Pair 13. Rhinanthus - Euphrasia
Comment. These are two hemiparasitic representatives of the Scrophulariaceae.
Pair 14. Veronica officinalis - Veronica chamaedrys
Pair 15. Satureja - Prunella
Pair 16. Nepetoideae - Ajuga
Comment. Ajuga, Prunella and Satureja belong to the Lamiaceae. Prunella and Satureja belong to the same subfamily, Nepetoideae (Cantino & Sanders 1986). The relationship between Nepetoideae and Ajuga was derived from Wagstaff et al. (1997).
Pair 17. Plantago media - Plantago lanceolata
Pair 18. Vaccinium myrtillus - Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Pair 19. Vaccinium - Calluna
Pair 20. Primula - Ericaceae
Comment. Primulaceae belong to a group of families which is a sister-group to a clade centered around the Ericaeae (Asterid III, Chase et al. 1993).
Pair 21. Lathyrus linifolius - Lathyrus pratensis
Pair 22. Lathyrus - Vicia
Pair 23. Trifolium pratense - Trifolium repens
Pair 24. Trifolium - Lotus
Comment. From the Fabaceae it was possible to chose pairs with two within-genus comparisons (Lathyrus and Trifolium). Vicia is traditionally considered close to Lathyrus. Trifolium is traditionally considered close to Lotus.
Pair 25. Potentilla erecta - Potentilla argentea
Pair 26. Potentilla - Alchemilla
Pair 27. Geum - Filipendula
Pair 28. Agrimonia - Fragaria
Comment. All pairs from the Rosaceae are from the subfamily Rosoideae in which phylogeny is presently being analysed (T. Eriksson, unpublished data). The relationships within Potentilla-Alchemilla-Fragaria are uncertain, but it seems as though Alchemilla is a group which should be placed "within" Potentilla (as traditionally circumscribed). The pairs 25 and 26 were also chosen based on the preliminary analysis.
Pair 29. Arabidopsis - Erophila
Pair 30. Cerastium - Stellaria
Pair 31. Lychnis - Dianthus
Comment. Within the Caryophyllaceae, Stellaria and Cerastium are traditionally placed as close relatives, whereas Lychnis and Dianthus are closer to each other than to Stellaria/Cerastium.
Pair 32. Rumex - Caryophyllaceae
Comment. Rumex belongs to the Polygonaceae, which in turn belong to the same clade as Caryophyllaceae (Rosid III, Chase et al. 1993).
Pair 33. Polygala - Fabaceae
Comment. Polygalaceae is a likely sister-group to Fabaceae (Rosid I, Chase et al. 1993).
Pair 34. Viola - Saxifraga
Comment. Violaceae and Saxifragaceae belong to clades of families which are likely to be related as sister-groups (Rosid I, Chase et al. 1993).
Pair 35. Linum - Gentianella
Pair 36. Helianthemum - Hypericum
Comment. The last two pairs were based solely on traditional taxonomy. They comprise species which are the single representatives in their families in the data set. Cistaceae (Helianthemum) and Hypericaceae (Hypericum) are traditionally placed close to each other. Linaceae and Gentianaceae are more distantly related. However, it was considered as justified to include a comparison of these two biennial species, since none of them have confamilial species in the data set.
Pair 37. Arrhenatherum pratense - A. pubescens
Pair 38. Anthoxanthum - Alopecurus
Pair 39. Agrostis - Deschampsia
Pair 40. Briza - Danthonia
Pair 41. Festuca ovina - F. rubra
Pair 42. Poa - Festuca
Comment. The pairs from the Poaceae were based only on traditional taxonomy.
Pair 43. Carex - Luzula
Comment. This pair was chosen since these species were the only representatives of the two graminoid monocot families Cyperaceae (Carex) and Juncaceae (Luzula).
Cantino, P. D. & Sanders, R. W. (1986) Subfamilial classification of Labiatae. Systematic Botany, 11, 163-185.
Krok, T. O. B. N. & Almquist, S. (1984) Svensk flora. Esselte, Uppsala. (In Swedish).
Plunkett, G. M., Soltis, D. E. & Soltis, P. S. (1996) Evolutionary patterns in Apiaceae: inferences based on matK sequence data. Systematic Botany, 21, 477-495.
Wagstaff, S. J. & Olmstead, R. G. (1997) Phylogeny of Labiatae and Verbenaceae inferred from rbcL sequences. Systematic Botany, 22, 165-179.