Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42552743›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of botany2026

Phylogenomic insights into the genus Tulipa (Liliaceae): Taxonomy, evolution, and biogeography.

Brett Wilson, Maarten J M Christenhusz, Nathanael Walker-Hale, Natalya Beshko, Mariyo Boboev, Colin Clubbe, Davron Dekhkonov, Aibek Dolotbakov, Mehmet Firat, Thomas Freeth and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of botany, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Brett WilsonDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5181-2875
Maarten J M ChristenhuszRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1398-8743
Nathanael Walker-HaleDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1105-5069
Natalya BeshkoInstitute of Botany, Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, Durmon yuli str. 32, Tashkent, 100125, Uzbekistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7803-8525
Mariyo BoboevKulob Botanical Garden, Khatlon Scientific Center of the National Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan, Kulob, 735360, Tajikistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7044-8589
Colin ClubbeRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0532-1722
Davron DekhkonovNamangan State University, Boburshox str., 161, Namangan, 160107, Uzbekistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2762-5268
Aibek DolotbakovInstitute of Chemistry and Phytotechnology, National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Mehmet FiratFaculty of Education, Department of Biology, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, TR-65080, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5814-614X
Thomas FreethRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3977-4180
Sjaak de GrootBeeklaan 19, Lisse (de Zilk), 2191AA, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8677-4557
Avni HajdariDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, University of Prishtina "Hasan Prishtina", Prishtinë, Kosovo.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5688-9679
Georgy A LazkovInstitute of Biology, National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic.
Ormon SultangazievFauna & Flora International, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6713-3734
Komiljon S TojibaevInstitute of Botany, Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, Durmon yuli str. 32, Tashkent, 100125, Uzbekistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2846-5777
Ben J M ZonneveldNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Tropical Botany Section, Darwinweg 2, Leiden, 2333CR, The Netherlands.
Kaiyrkul T ShalpykovInstitute of Chemistry and Phytotechnology, National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4931-9384
Samuel F BrockingtonDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1216-219X

Funding

Natural Environment Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseTulips are one of the best-known geophytes, but their taxonomy remains convoluted and their evolutionary history poorly understood. Here, we used plastid genomes to identify some issues with current classification, understand the diversification history of the genus, and identify potential species linked to historical cultivation.

methodsWe gathered a large number of tulip specimens from living collections, herbaria, and online sources and through extensive fieldwork to infer maximum likelihood phylogenies of the plastid genomes of Tulipa (Liliaceae), representing ~86% of accepted species alongside a range of occasionally accepted synonyms. We used BEAST and secondary calibration points to date the tree, before assessing the biogeographical history of the genus using BioGeoBEARS.

resultsBased on our results, we described a fifth subgenus, Eduardoregelia, and identified a range of species where our results do not align with current taxonomy. Our data suggests the genus diverged from a clade containing Amana and Erythronium around 32.5 million years ago (Mya), with the most recent common ancestor existing around 22.8 Mya in the broader Central Asia region, a period that saw rapid uplift of mountain ranges and associated aridification in the region. The genus primarily diversified in Central Asia with rapid radiations within the last 10 My, possibly as a response to further orogenesis. Several migrations outside of the ancestral region have occurred, primarily via the steppes of Kazakhstan and Russia and along the Caucasus and Iranian and Anatolian Mountains to the eastern Mediterranean region. We also provide evidence that the maternal lineage of the garden tulip involved several species including T. scardica and T. suaveolens.

conclusionsMany tulip species present limited diagnostic characters, making their taxonomy difficult, compounded by their long use in horticulture and widespread hybridization, especially in gardens. We provide an up-to-date phylogenetic framework for this genus that may help resolve many taxonomic issues in the future, while highlighting further work to be done. We reinforce the importance of Central Asia in the evolutionary history of this genus and provide an important foundation for further study of Tulipa and more effective conservation of wild tulip species.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionGenome, PlastidPhylogenyTulipaPhylogeographybiogeographybulbous monocotsconservationgeophytesphylogeneticsplastometaxonomytulipsБиогеографиягеофитыоднодольные луковичныепластомсохранениетаксономиятюльпаныфилогенетика

Identifiers

PMID42552743
PMCPMC13496073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.