Format: ORAL

Monique Romeiro Brito1 Lo-Paul Dagallier2 Marcelo Reginato3 Lucas F. Bacci1 Nico Cellinese1 Gudrun Kadereit4, 5 Renato Goldenberg6 Ling Liu7 Darin S. Penneys8 Marie Claire Veranso-Libalah4 Luo Chen4 Renchao Zhou7 Walter S. Judd1 Fabin A. Michelangeli2 Lucas C. Majure1

1 University of Florida Herbarium, Florida Museum, Gainesville, FL, USA 2 New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, USA 3 Universidade Federal de Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil 4 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany 5 Botanischer Garten München-Nymphenburg, Munich, Germany 6 Universidade Federal de Parana, Curitiba, PR, Brazil 7 Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 8 University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

Melastomataceae is a megadiverse family, harboring almost 6000 species and distributed worldwide, mostly in the tropics. The monophyly of the family has been supported based on morphological and anatomical data through the last century. However, the advent of molecular phylogenies has helped to clarify the identification of new major clades within the family. Additionally, molecular phylogenies have also proven a challenging task to uncover relationships among major clades when using only a few sets of plastid and nuclear regions. The use of phylogenomic datasets in the family using target sequencing and plastome data has been shown to be a promising tool for obtaining robust phylogenetic relationships within this family. However, thus far phylogenomic studies have been focused on a limited taxon sampling and presented weakly supported nodes. Here we aimed to reconstruct a phylogenetic tree for Melastomataceae comprising 21 out of 23 tribes and almost 80 percent of the generic diversity. For this we relied on a Hyb-Seq approach, joining efforts from nuclear target sequencing and plastid genome skimming datasets. We reconstructed plastid, mitochondrial, and nuclear phylogenies using concatenated and coalescent approaches. While we recover fairly robust phylogenies and tribal composition congruent with previous analyses, the relationships and support recovered at some of the deeper nodes vary across genomes and analytical methods. We discuss sources of phylogenetic conflicts between approaches and genetic compartments. We suggest that incongruences are linked to deep/ancient events of introgression/duplication/reticulate processes of evolution.