ArticleBotanical studies2026
Integrative taxonomic revision of three Camellia species from section Tuberculata (Camellia, Theaceae) by morphological, anatomical, palynological, and molecular evidence.
Article in Botanical studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe section Tuberculata (Camellia L.) comprises 18 species, forming a monophyletic group with unique “tuberculate-wrinkled fruit pericarp” morphological characteristics. However, the interspecific relationships within this section remain poorly resolved. A notable taxonomic controversy involves Camellia lipingensis, C. zengii, and C. rhytidocarpa, which were previously considered conspecific. On the basis of extensive population surveys conducted in their type localities, we identified significant morphological disparities among these three taxa. To comprehensively clarify their taxonomic status and relationships, we conducted an integrated study incorporating morphology, micromorphology (leaf epidermis and pollen), and molecular systematics (cpDNA and nrDNA ITS).
resultsEvidence from morphology, anatomy, palynology, and molecular systematics consistently supports the treatment of Camellia zengii as a heterotypic synonym of C. lipingensis, while confirming the distinct species status of C. rhytidocarpa. Morphological analysis revealed continuous variation in key traits: Leaves lanceolate (6.42–12.50 × 2.16–4.45 cm); floral parts with 6–9 rounded sepals, 3–5 hairy styles, and 2.2–4.1 cm long filaments; fruit subglobose (diameter 2.24–3.18 cm), ovary 3-4-loculed (1 seed per locule). Anatomical and pollen characteristics are conservative: The leaf epidermal stomata are elliptical (39.9–41.2 × 31.4–36.7 μm), with a density of 62–86 per mm², and the pollen is nearly spherical (polar axis 36.7–37.8 μm/equatorial axis 40.3–41.3 μm, P/E ratio 0.87–0.91). Molecular phylogenetic analyses confirmed that Camellia lipingensis and Camellia zengii form a strongly supported monophyletic group (ML/PP = 100/1.00; clade Ⅰ), with Camellia rhytidocarpa forming a separate clade sister to it. The chloroplast genomes of the three taxa are conserved in structure, with consistent chloroplast genome structures (157,029, 157,029, 157,048 bp; GC 37.3%; containing 87 protein-coding genes, 37 tRNA genes, and 8 rRNA genes).
conclusionsThis study conclusively resolved the taxonomic delimitation among these closely related species within sect. Tuberculata. We propose the synonymization of Camellia zengii with C. lipingensis and confirm that C. rhytidocarpa is a distinct species, a conclusion robustly supported by congruent evidence from multiple disciplines. Our research provides a practical framework for reconstructing phylogenies in morphologically complex plant groups, informs conservation prioritization, and contributes to the development of standardized species delimitation protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.