Phylogenetic analysis suggests early divergence followed by convergent morphological evolution in the Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae (Caryophyllaceae)

123 Phylogenetic analysis suggests early divergence followed by convergent morphological evolution in the Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae (Caryophyllaceae) Zeynep Toprak1 1 DepartmentofMolecularBiologyandGenetics,FacultyofSciences,UniversityofDicle,Diyarbakır,Turkiye Correspondingauthor:ZeynepToprak([email protected]) Copyright: © Zeynep Toprak. This is an open access article distributed under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International – CC BY 4.0). Research Article Abstract The genus Silene presents significant taxonomic challenges, particularly for groups such as S. sect. Odontopetalae and the monotypic S. sect. Sordidae. This study investigates the evolutionary relationship between the narrowly endemic Silene sordida and the widespread S. odontopetala to resolve these ambiguities. Using a multispecies coalescent framework with five genetic markers and expanded taxon sampling, the species tree and divergence times were estimated. The results revealed a moderately supported sister relationship between S. sordida and S. sect. Odontopetalae, with their divergence estimated at approximately 5.5 million years ago, following the Messinian salinity crisis. Despite their profound morphological and ecological differences, the results suggest a shared evolutionary origin. This study underscores the limitations of morphology-based classification in Silene and highlights the critical roles of ecological divergence, historical biogeography, and convergent evolution in shaping the genus’s diversity. The results provide a clearer understanding of the evolutionary processes driving diversification in these complex lineages. Key words: Convergent evolution, phylogeny, Silene, Silene odontopetala, Silene sordida, StarBeast3 Introduction Silene L. (Caryophyllaceae) comprises approximately 870 species, predominantly distributed across temperate and alpine regions of the Northern Hemisphere (Oxelman and Lidén 1995; Eggens et al. 2007; Jafari et al. 2020). The genus is most diverse in the eastern Mediterranean Basin and southwestern Asia (Ghazanfar 1983; Jeanmonod 1984; Greuter 1995; Oxelman et al. 2001; Yıldız 2024). Turkiye and Greece, home to many endemic Silene species, rank among the regions richest in Silene diversity (Coode and Cullen 1967; Meikle 1977; Greuter 1997; Yıldız and Çırpıcı 2013; Aydin et al. 2014a). Inferring phylogenies within Silene is challenging and often conflicts with morphology-based classifications (Oxelman et al. 1997; Popp et al. 2005; Đurović et al. 2017; Naciri et al. 2017). While several global taxonomic revisions have been proposed (Otth 1824; Rohrbach 1869; Chowdhuri 1957; Lazkov 2003; Jafari et al. 2020), key morphological traits used for classification—such as life habit, style Academic editor: Gian Pietro Giusso del Galdo Received: 22 July 2025 Accepted: 5 October 2025 Published: 24 October 2025 Citation: Toprak Z (2025) Phylogenetic analysis suggests early divergence followed by convergent morphological evolution in the Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae (Caryophyllaceae). PhytoKeys 265: 123–145. https://doi.org/10.3897/ phytokeys.265.165998 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025) DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 124 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae number, petal shape, seed and pollen structure, indumentum, and anthophore length—often exhibit significant homoplasy. This complicates both generic and infrageneric classification. Molecular studies have addressed several uncertainties at subgeneric and sectional levels (Popp and Oxelman 2004, 2007; Frajman et al. 2009; Petri and Oxelman 2011; Rautenberg et al. 2012; Aydin et al. 2014b; Moiloa et al. 2021). The most recent global revision of the genus (Jafari et al. 2020) recognized 33 sections within Silene, grouped into three well-supported subgenera: S. subg. Silene, S. subg. Behenantha (Otth) Endl., and S. subg. Lychnis (L.) Greuter. Other research has focused on delineating section boundaries (Gholipour and Sheidai 2010a, 2010b; Rautenberg et al. 2010; Naciri et al. 2017; Eggens et al. 2020), as well as exploring relationships within species complexes (Peruzzi and Carta 2013; Toprak et al. 2016; Du Pasquier et al. 2017). Nevertheless, the genus remains taxonomically complex, with unresolved ambiguities at lower taxonomic levels and unclear phylogenetic relationships among groups such as S. sect. Odontopetalae Chowdhuri and S. sect. Sordidae K. Yıldız & Toprak. Silene odontopetala Fenzl, the type of S. sect. Odontopetalae, is a widely distributed perennial found in high-altitude regions of southwestern (e.g., Iran, Turkiye, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Sinai, and the Caucasus) and Central Asia (e.g., Uzbekistan) (GBIF 2025; POWO 2025). Phylogenetically, S. odontopetala and several closely related species, including S. joerstadii Wendelbo and S. auriculata Sibthorp & Smith, share strong genetic ties with a number of Asian taxa classified within S. sect. Physolychnis (Benth.) Bocquet, a group significantly shaped by both ancient and recent hybridization events that have influenced its evolutionary history (Petri and Oxelman 2011; Petri et al. 2013; Frajman et al. 2018). In contrast, Silene sordida Huber-Morath & Reese is an annual species with a restricted range, endemic to Anatolia and found only in Muğla Province, southwestern Turkiye (Coode and Cullen 1967). Despite being studied in several phylogenetic analyses (Erixon and Oxelman 2008; Jafari et al. 2020; Toprak and Yıldız 2022), the taxonomy of S. sordida remains poorly understood. Historically, it was assigned to S. sect. Atocion Otth (Coode and Cullen 1967), a group with an uncertain phylogenetic position within Silene. However, molecular and morphological analyses later demonstrated this classification to be erroneous, and the species was reassigned to the newly described monotypic section S. sect. Sordidae (Toprak and Yıldız 2022). Taxonomically, both S. sect. Sordidae and S. sect. Odontopetalae are classified within S. subg. Behenantha, the clade encompassing 18 of the 33 recently revised sections by Jafari et al. (2020). The evolutionary history of S. sordida and S. odontopetala is largely unknown. Morphologically, these two species are highly divergent in terms of their habitat, plant size, branching pattern, floral characteristics, seed structure, and life cycle, among other traits. Nevertheless, recent molecular studies (Jafari et al. 2020; Toprak and Yıldız 2022) have reported close relationships between S. sordida and members of S. sect. Odontopetalae, raising the possibility of an ancient or recent hybridization event between the taxa. However, studies including both species have been limited to independent gene tree analyses based on very few loci, with sequencing conducted on a small number of samples of S. odontopetala. Recent developments in phylogenetic methods, particularly those based on the multispecies coalescent (MSC) model (e.g., Nordborg 2003; Degnan and Salter 2005; Liu et al. 2008; Heled and Drummond 2010; Jones et al. 2015), have greatly enhanced our ability to study species relationships. 125 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Consequently, a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis that incorporates advanced species tree approaches (e.g., Pamilo and Nei 1988; Maddison 1997; Kubatko et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2018), accounting for both topological incongruences and evolutionary timescales, may provide new insights into complex relationships such as those among the sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae (Luo et al. 2023). In particular, sufficient sampling of S. odontopetala, S. sordida, and members of S. sect. Cryptoneurae Aydın & Oxelman and S. sect. Physolychnis, their potential closest relatives, could help resolve key uncertainties. Moreover, divergence time estimates could further enrich our understanding of their historical dynamics (dos Reis et al. 2016). However, estimating divergence dates for Silene remains challenging due to complications such as the lack of informative fossils, limited phylogenetic resolution, and variations in substitution rates. Despite methodological challenges, previous studies utilized a 34–45 Ma (million years ago) caryophyllaceous fossil (Jordan and Macphail 2003) for calibration. This allowed them to estimate the root age of Silene at approximately 11.6 Ma (95% highest posterior density [HPD] interval: 9.177–12.17; Frajman et al. 2009; Rautenberg et al. 2010, 2012). This mid-Miocene (ca. 5.3–23 Ma) divergence serves as a key calibration point for evaluating the dispersal and colonization history of some major lineages within the genus (Moiloa et al. 2021). This study aims to elucidate the phylogenetic relationships between S. sordida and S. odontopetala. To achieve this, taxon sampling was expanded to cover a wider distribution range of S. odontopetala in Turkiye, including two samples from Iran, and additional samples of S. sordida together with its Mediterranean and South Aegean allies from S. sect. Cryptoneurae were incorporated. Sequence data from five loci were generated and combined with previously published data for the corresponding taxa. Using an MSC-based Bayesian approach to species tree estimation and incorporating the available dating information, the relationships of the focal taxa, S. sordida, S. odontopetala, and S. sect. Cryptoneurae were investigated. Materials and methods Taxon sampling The plant material used in this study includes Silene species from the following sections, as classified by Jafari et al. (2020) and Toprak and Yıldız (2022): Odontopetalae, Sordidae, Cryptoneurae, Physolychnis, Siphonomorpha Otth, and Auriculatae (Boiss.) Schischk. Based on Jafari et al. (2020), we focused on sampling species from sections Odontopetalae, Physolychnis, and Cryptoneurae, which could potentially be sister groups to Sordidae. To represent S. subg. Silene, S. italica (L.) Pers., S. nemoralis Waldst. & Kit., and S. schafta J.G.Gmel. ex Hohen., belonging to sections Siphonomorpha and Auriculatae, respectively, were included. In total, 16 Silene species sampled from a wide geographic range, including Alaska, Greenland, Russia, China, and Korea, were investigated. Most of the plant material was obtained from herbarium specimens collected during field surveys conducted in Turkiye between 2005 and 2020. These materials are preserved in the herbaria GB, UPS, and CBAH. Herbarium codes follow Index Herbariorum (Thiers 2023). For species occurring outside Turkiye (e.g., Russia, 126 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Alaska, Iran, Afghanistan), sequence data were sourced from GenBank. Details of the specimens are provided in Suppl. material 1: table S1. Notably, 11 samples were sequenced for the first time, including five of S. odontopetala, two of S. sordida, three of S. cryptoneura, and one of S. ertekinii, across five loci. Molecular data In total, 216 sequences (GenBank IDs are provided in Suppl. material 1: table S1), including 24 for S. sordida and 33 for S. odontopetala, were used. Sequence data were generated from the nuclear DNA (nrDNA) regions RPA2 (47 sequences), RPB2 (46 sequences), EST04 (26 sequences), ITS (49 sequences), and the chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) region rps16 (48 sequences). These markers have been commonly used in recent phylogenetic studies of the Caryophyllaceae family (Fior et al. 2006) and the genus Silene (Oxelman and Lidén 1995; Popp and Oxelman 2004; Popp et al. 2005; Petri et al. 2013; Aydin et al. 2014b; Toprak et al. 2016; Naciri et al. 2017; Jafari et al. 2020; Moiloa et al. 2021). The final dataset comprised 216 sequences from 16 species, with S. italica, S. nemoralis, and S. schafta used as outgroups, as they are distantly related to the remaining taxa. Total DNA was extracted from 25 mg of dried leaf material using a tissue lyser, following the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germany) protocol. Considering the manufacturer’s recommendations, the final PCR reaction volume was adjusted to 25 μl, containing 8 μl of kit components, 2 μl of each primer, 1 μl of the sample, and 12 μl of nuclease-free water. Amplifications of the rps16 and ITS regions were performed using the Vivantis DNA amplification kit (Vivantis, Lithuania) on a TC512 PCR instrument (Techne, Staffordshire, UK) with custom programs. The remaining loci were amplified using the iTaq Universal Supermix kit (Bio-Rad, USA) on a CFX Connect Real-Time PCR machine (Bio-Rad, USA). Primer sequences and PCR programs are listed in Suppl. material 1: table S2. All PCR products were analysed on a 1.25% agarose gel to verify approximate amplicon sizes. Positive samples were purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. Cleaned products were outsourced to Atlas Biotechnologies (Ankara, Turkiye) for cycle sequencing. Phylogenetic analyses Contigs were visually inspected and edited using Geneious Prime 2022.1.1 (Biomatters, USA). Sequences obtained from GenBank were manually added to the datasets. The contigs were aligned using the MUSCLE alignment tool in Geneious Prime 2022.1.1, with alignment positions visually checked and adjusted as needed. Parsimony statistics for each dataset were calculated using PAUP* 4.0a.169 (Swofford 2002, 2021). All loci, including the cpDNA rps16 locus, were tested for recombination detection using RDP v4.101 (Martin et al. 2015) under the methods RDP, GENECONV, Chimaera, MaxChi, and 3Seq at a significance level of 0.1. Substitution models were selected based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AICc) using the automated model selection function implemented in PAUP* v4.0a.169. Species and gene trees were estimated simultaneously using StarBEAST3 v1.2.1 (Douglas et al. 2022) in BEAST v2.7.7 (Bouckaert et al. 2014, 2019). 127 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae StarBEAST3 is a Bayesian software for species tree inference under the MSC model, jointly estimating species and gene trees while accounting for gene tree–species tree discordance. It uses adaptive parallelized MCMC algorithms to improve computational efficiency. Input files were prepared in BEAUti 2.7.7, and several preliminary analyses were conducted with alternative settings for fixed-locus rates, prior distributions, and clock models. All StarBEAST3 analyses were also run with data files sampled from priors. The analyses were performed on the CIPRES portal (Miller et al. 2010). Species trees were estimated under both relaxed and strict clock models. The ploidy level for the rps16 region was set to half that of the nuclear loci, as the plants are hermaphroditic. One set of analyses was conducted in which the relative clock rate of each partition was checked against the RPA2 locus (since it has the largest fraction of segregating sites) with a mean mutation rate of 1.0. However, the final species trees were generated independently under both clock models, where each locus had its own rate estimated. In the analyses performed under each clock model separately, gene tree clock rates followed a lognormal prior with standard settings. A Yule prior was applied to the species tree, with the speciation rate drawn from a lognormal prior (mean = 1.0, standard deviation = 1.25). Additionally, a lognormal prior (mean = −6.0, SD = 2.0) was used for the mean population size. For the species tree generated under the strict clock model, the clock rate was assigned a normal prior with default values. In the species tree estimated under the relaxed clock model, the clock rate followed a lognormal prior (mean = 1.0, standard deviation = 1.25) with the mean parameter set in real space. The species tree was calibrated by defining the prior age of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of S. subg. Silene and S. subg. Behenantha, with a root height set to a mean of 11.6 million years as reported in previous studies (Frajman et al. 2009; Rautenberg et al. 2012; Moiloa et al. 2021), under a normal distribution and a standard deviation of 0.8. This was done by defining an MRCA prior encompassing all samples belonging to both subgenera. Three independent analyses were run for 300 million generations each, with samples taken every 20,000 generations and discarding the first 25% as burn-in. Mixing and convergence were assessed using Tracer v1.7.1 (Rambaut et al. 2018). Maximum clade credibility trees were generated using TreeAnnotator v2.7.7 (Bouckaert et al. 2014, 2019), after discarding 25% of the trees as burn-in. The final species and gene trees were visualized with FigTree v1.4.4 (Rambaut 2018). To illustrate the compatibility of the gene trees with the species tree estimated under the strict clock model, tree files were uploaded to UglyTrees (Douglas 2021) and processed accordingly. To interpret node conflicts observed in the species trees, ASTRAL-III v5.7.8 (Mirarab and Warnow 2015) was used to estimate quartet scores (Sayyari and Mirarab 2016) for the tree branches. This method calculates the fraction of sampled gene-tree quartets that match the species-tree topology, using unrooted gene trees of the analysed loci (Sayyari et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2018). As input for ASTRAL-III, maximum likelihood gene trees for the five loci were estimated via RAxML (Stamatakis 2014) as implemented in Geneious Prime 2022.1.1, using rapid bootstrapping and the search for the best-scoring ML tree option. The resulting gene trees were then processed in ASTRAL-III in comparison with a reference species tree (each species tree estimated under different clock models 128 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae using StarBEAST3), following the documentation at https://github.com/smirarab/ASTRAL. The analysis was run with the “-q reference_species.tre” flag to score the existing tree, the full set of gene trees (-i all_gene_trees.tre), and the required species map (-a 16_species_map.txt). The branch annotation level was set to “-t 2,” instructing ASTRAL to output raw fractional quartet support values (q1, q2, and q3) for every internal split, thereby directly quantifying the proportion of gene tree agreement for the reference topology relative to the two alternatives. To further compare the estimated species trees under different clock models statistically, a model selection test was performed based on marginal likelihoods (MLE) using the nested-sampling approach of Russel et al. (2018). For this purpose, the StarBEAST3.xml files for each clock model were manually edited to generate a nested-sampling run with a chain length of 10 million, 10 particles, a sub-chain length of 100,000, and a single thread. Analyses were conducted with the Nested Sampling package v1.2.2 in BEAST v2.7.7. Due to time constraints, the marginal likelihood of each clock model was estimated from the combination of 10 independent runs using the same settings. The combined log files were processed with the Nested Sampling Log Analyzer to obtain the MLE. Results Characteristics of the dataset, including statistical results from the parsimony analysis, are presented in Suppl. material 1: table S3. Recombination testing using RDP v4.101 showed no evidence of recombination events in any of the loci. The estimated Bayesian and ML gene trees are presented in Suppl. material 1: fig. S1, Suppl. material 2, respectively. Strict clock model The estimated QS values from ASTRAL-III are presented in Suppl. material 3. For the placement of S. sordida within the gene trees, the QS metric (q1) was observed as 1.0 under both reference species tree topologies, with the remaining metrics (q2, q3, f1,…, pp3) consistent with this result (see Suppl. material 3 for details). Specifically, under the strict clock phylogeny, the q1 value for the position of S. sordida was 0.11 (q2 = 0.41, q3 = 0.48). Nested sampling analysis showed an MLE of −11652.1489 log units (SD = 1.06) for the assumption of the strict clock model. Parallel runs of the Bayesian phylogenetic analysis successfully converged on the same parameter space, with effective sample size (ESS) values exceeding 1000 for most parameters. A few parameters related to population sizes (popSize) and tree distances in gene trees exhibited lower ESS values (<200). The estimated root height of the species tree (mrca.age(SpeciestreerootHeight)) had a mean of 11.38 Ma (95% HPD interval: 9.79–12.95). At the phylogenetic level, the species tree (Fig. 1A) was poorly resolved at deeper nodes, but the main sections were recovered as monophyletic with good support. Members of S. subg. Behenantha clustered together, diverging from members of S. subg. Silene approximately 9.80–12.91 Ma (95% HPD interval). Silene sect. Cryptoneurae was placed as sister to the rest of S. subg. Behenantha, albeit with poor support. Meanwhile, S. sect. Physolychnis was recovered as sister to S. sect. Odontopetalae and S. sordida with limited support (PP = 0.76). 129 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae S. sordida and S. sect. Odontopetalae were inferred as sister lineages with moderate support (PP = 0.84), diverging approximately 5.5 Ma (95% HPD interval: 2.95–8.27). Importantly, S. sordida showed no direct sister relationship with any specific member of S. sect. Odontopetalae. Gene tree comparisons revealed that ITS and RPA2 supported a sister relationship between S. sordida and S. sect. Odontopetalae. The rps16 locus also supported this relationship (PP = 0.97). The RPB2 locus instead strongly supported S. sordida as sister to S. sect. Cryptoneurae (PP = 0.99/1.0). The EST04 locus placed S. sordida differently, at a well-supported position (PP = 0.96) with S. schafta. None of the loci suggested a direct sister relationship between S. sordida and any sampled individuals of S. odontopetala. The overall compatibility of the five gene trees (Suppl. material 1: fig. S1) with the species tree (Fig. 1A) is illustrated in Fig. 2. Relaxed clock model Nested sampling analysis produced an MLE of −11655.9935 log units with a standard deviation of 0.65 for the relaxed clock model. For the placement of S. sordida, the QS value (Suppl. material 3) of q1 was 0.40 (q2 = 0.41, q3 = 0.48). Figure 1. A. Maximum clade credibility species tree estimated from alignments of four nuclear and one chloroplast (cpDNA) region across 16 Silene species under a strict molecular clock. This model was preferred according to a model selection procedure based on marginal likelihood estimates of competing models. Phylogenetic analysis was conducted using the multispecies coalescent model in StarBEAST3. Branches are annotated with posterior probabilities, and blue bars at nodes indicate 95% highest posterior density (HPD) intervals for node heights, reflecting uncertainty in divergence times. Tip labels are coloured by sectional assignment within Silene. The scale bar represents substitutions per site, and the time axis (in Ma, million years ago) shows estimated divergence times, including the split between S. subg. Behenantha and S. subg. Silene and their respective lineages. Photographs show (B, C) calyx and petal morphology of S. odontopetala and (D, E) calyx and petal morphology of S. sordida grown under greenhouse conditions. Photo credits: (B, C) Kemal Yıldız; (D, E) Zeynep Toprak. Figures were generated using FigTree v1.4.4 and Inkscape v1.1.1. A B C D E 130 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae The mean relative clock rates for each partition against the RPA2 locus ranged from 0.7001 to 0.8644, showing no significant differences from the scenario where each locus had an independent rate. The mean species coefficient of variation (RateStatLogger.Species.coefficientOfVariation) was below 1.0, with a mean of 0.5217 (95% HPD interval: 0.3257–0.7362) and a standard deviation of 0.109. The estimated root height of the species tree was 11.28 Ma (95% HPD interval: 9.67–12.85). The species tree (Suppl. material 4) provided well-supported relationships at deeper levels. However, sectional relationships among Odontopetalae, Cryptoneurae, and Sordidae lacked support. Each section was recovered as monophyletic with high posterior probabilities (PP > 0.90) along the ancestral branches. S. schafta was placed apart from other members of S. subg. Silene, diverging early from the rest of S. subg. Behenantha. In this phylogeny, S. sordida was recovered as sister to S. sect. Cryptoneurae, diverging around 5 Ma (95% HPD interval: 3.05–7.57), but this relationship was unsupported (PP = 0.41). Silene sect. Odontopetalae was positioned as sister to the clade containing S. sect. Cryptoneurae and S. sordida, but again without support (PP = 0.31). Discussion Species tree, clock model, and time calibration There were substantial differences among the topologies estimated under both clock models. The phylogeny inferred under the strict clock model (Fig. 1A) aligns with the recent revision by Jafari et al. (2020), which is based on combined ITS and rps16 data from thousands of samples across the entire genus. In contrast, the species tree generated under the relaxed clock model (Suppl. material 4) was highly unresolved because of poor support for the placement of the focal species. Nested sampling analysis provided a statistical basis for comFigure 2. Schematic representation of the compatibility of the five gene trees with their species tree, obtained using UglyTrees (Douglas 2021). Coloured circles represent sampled sequences for 16 species and their inferred coalescent events traced backward in time, as estimated by StarBEAST3 under the multispecies coalescent model. Gray bars delineate species boundaries and the most recent common ancestors of those species. For visualization purposes, the widths of the species branches are not scaled to reflect the effective population sizes of the corresponding lineages. 131 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae paring the two clock models, yielding MLE scores that favored the strict clock over the relaxed clock by 3.84 log units [RC_MLE (−11655.9935) vs. SC_MLE (−11652.1489)]. Based on the criterion of Kass and Raftery (1995), this difference represents only modest support for the strict clock model, with the standard deviations (SD_SC = 1.06; SD_RC = 0.65) further highlighting the tentative nature of this result. Under the strict clock topology, S. sordida and S. sect. Odontopetalae appear as the most likely sister groups (PP = 0.84) among the lineages emphasized in the global revision of the genus by Jafari et al. (2020), though this interpretation remains cautious given the weak statistical foundation and limited support. The estimates of the species tree root age are consistent with previous dating studies of Silene (Frajman et al. 2009; Rautenberg et al. 2010; Moiloa et al. 2021), despite the unsatisfactory phylogenetic resolution observed both here and in earlier work. Previous studies (Frajman et al. 2009; Rautenberg et al. 2012) based on the 34–45 Ma caryophyllaceous fossil (Jordan and Macphail 2003) revealed the root age of Silene at approximately 11.6 Ma (95% HPD: 9.18– 12.17). Using the same calibration data, Moiloa et al. (2021) estimated the root age as 10.7 Ma (95% HPD: 9.02–12.19). The analysis in this study produced a mean root age of 11.3 Ma (95% HPD: 9.79–12.95) under the strict clock model, with slightly lower but comparable estimates under the relaxed clock model. Both strict and relaxed clock models can yield robust divergence time estimates, particularly when evolutionary rates are relatively homogeneous (Ho et al. 2005). However, although the sampling included representatives from the two main subgenera, the number of analysed samples was rather limited given the vast diversity within Silene, which may have affected estimated rates. There is substantial diversity in rate evolution models and their implementations, and previous studies have shown that these can influence divergence time estimates as much as calibration information (Mello and Schrago 2024). While multiple relaxed clock models may offer a more biologically realistic approach to modelling rate variation among lineages, their use must be balanced against the risk of overparameterization, which can pose a significant challenge when analysing uninformative datasets (Ho and Lanfear 2010). In relaxed clock models, additional parameters such as the coefficient of rate variation and covariance between branch rates help assess model fit, though empirical evidence for autocorrelated rates remains weak (Drummond et al. 2006). In this study, the mean coefficient of variation of species tree branch rates was 0.5, lower than 1.0 (values > 1.0 indicate increasing rate heterogeneity among branches; Drummond et al. 2006). Additionally, the strict clock model yielded narrower HPD interval widths (3.16), consistent with findings by Ho et al. (2005), suggesting reduced uncertainty compared with the relaxed clock model (3.18), although the difference is likely not significant in this case. All these factors may help explain the higher PP values observed in the upper branches of the species tree estimated under the strict clock model (Fig. 1A). The many evolutionary questions requiring a time-calibrated phylogeny highlight the need for precise and accurate divergence time methods. Bayesian and full-likelihood methods (e.g., those based on the MSC) have become prominent tools for estimating divergence times. Although computationally intensive, these methods account for uncertainty in gene tree topologies and coalescent times and have improved with advancements in MCMC proposal algorithms (Rannala and Yang 2003; Ogilvie et al. 2017; Rannala and Yang 2017; Douglas et 138 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae NF, Ogilvie HA, du Plessis L, Popinga A, Rambaut A, Rasmussen D, Siveroni I, Suchard MA, Wu C-H, Xie D, Zhang C, Stadler T, Drummond AJ (2019) BEAST 2.5: An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Computational Biology 15(4): e1006650. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006650 Carlson SE, Linder HP, Donoghue MJ (2012) The historical biogeography of Scabiosa (Dipsacaceae): Implications for Old World plant disjunctions. Journal of Biogeography 39(6): 1086–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02671.x Chowdhuri PK (1957) Studies in the genus Silene. Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 22: 221–278. https://doi.org/10.24823/nrbge.1957.2498 Coode MJE, Cullen J (1967) Silene L. In: Davis PH (Ed.) Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 2. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 179–222. Costa GJ, Nunes VL, Marabuto E, Mendes R, Silva DN, Pons P, Bas JM, Hertach T, Paulo OS, Simões PC (2022) The effect of the Messinian salinity crisis on the early diversification of Tettigettalna cicadas. Zoologica Scripta 52(1): 100–116. https://doi. org/10.1111/zsc.12571 Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Davis PH (1965) Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol.1. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA (2006) Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLOS Genetics 2(5): e68. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020068 Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA (2009) Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(6): 332–340. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.009 Degnan JH, Salter LA (2005) Gene tree distributions under the coalescent process. Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 59(1): 24–37. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb00925.x dos Reis M, Donoghue PCJ, Yang Z (2016) Bayesian molecular clock dating of species divergences in the genomics era. Nature Reviews. Genetics 17: 71–80. https://doi. org/10.1038/nrg.2015.8 Douglas J (2021) UglyTrees: A browser-based multispecies coalescent tree visualizer. Bioinformatics 37(2): 268–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa679 Douglas J, Jiménez-Silva CL, Bouckaert R (2022) StarBeast3: Adaptive parallelized Bayesian inference under the multispecies coalescent. Systematic Biology 71(4): 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syac010 Drummond AJ, Ho SYW, Phillips MJ, Rambaut A (2006) Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biology 4(5): e88. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pbio.0040088 Du Pasquier P-E, Jeanmonod D, Naciri Y (2017) Morphological convergence in the recently diversified Silene gigantea complex (Caryophyllaceae) in the Balkan Peninsula and south-western Turkey, with the description of a new subspecies. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 183(3): 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/bow014 Đurović S, Schönswetter P, Niketić M, Tomović G, Frajman B (2017) Disentangling relationships among the members of the Silene saxifraga alliance (Caryophyllaceae): Phylogenetic structure is geographically rather than taxonomically segregated. Taxon 66(2): 343–364. https://doi.org/10.12705/662.4 Eggens F (2006) Systematics in Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae) – Taxonomy and phylogenetic patterns. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 251. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-7380 139 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Eggens F, Popp M, Nepokroeff M, Wagner WL, Oxelman B (2007) The origin and number of introductions of the Hawaiian endemic Silene species (Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 94(2): 210–218. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.94.2.210 Eggens F, Jafari F, Thollesson M, Crameri S, Zarre S, Oxelman B (2020) Phylogeny and species delimitation in Silene sect. Arenosae (Caryophyllaceae): A new section. PhytoKeys 159: 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.159.51500 Erixon P, Oxelman B (2008) Reticulate or tree-like chloroplast DNA evolution in Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae)? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48(1): 313–325. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.04.015 Fior S, Karis PO, Casazza G, Minuto L, Sala F (2006) Molecular phylogeny of the Caryophyllaceae (Caryophyllales) inferred from chloroplast matK and nuclear rDNA ITS sequences. American Journal of Botany 93(3): 399–411. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.93.3.399 Frajman B, Eggens F, Oxelman B (2009) Hybrid origins and homoploid reticulate evolution within Heliosperma (Sileneae, Caryophyllaceae)–A multigene phylogenetic approach with relative dating. Systematic Biology 58: 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syp030 Frajman B, Schönswetter P, Weiss-Schneeweiss H, Oxelman B (2018) Origin and diversification of South American polyploid Silene sect. Physolychnis (Caryophyllaceae) in the Andes and Patagonia. Frontiers in Genetics 9: 639. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00639 Garcia-Castellanos D, Villaseñor A (2011) Messinian salinity crisis regulated by competing tectonics and erosion at the Gibraltar arc. Nature 480(7377): 359–363. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nature10651 GBIF Secretariat (2025) GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist dataset https://doi. org/10.15468/39omei [Accessed 1 May 2025] Ghazanfar SA (1983) Cytological studies in the genus Silene L. The New Phytologist 93(1): 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1983.tb02697.x Gholipour A, Maroofi H (2011) Silene odontopetala subsp. congesta (Caryophyllaceae), a new record for the flora of Iran. Iranian Journal of Botany 17(1): 78–80. Gholipour A, Sheidai M (2010a) Further contribution to cytotaxonomy of the genus Silene L. (Sect. Auriculatae, Caryophyllaceae). Acta Biologica Szegediensis 54(2): 111–115. Gholipour A, Sheidai M (2010b) Karyotype analysis and new chromosome number reports in Silene species (sect. Auriculatae, Caryophyllaceae). Biologia 65(1): 23–27. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-009-0215-3 Gillespie JH, Langley CH (1979) Are evolutionary rates really variable? Journal of Molecular Evolution 13(1): 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01732594 Greuter W (1995) Silene (Caryophyllaceae) in Greece: A subgeneric and sectional classification. Taxon 44: 543–581. https://doi.org/10.2307/1223499 Greuter W (1997) Silene L. In: Strid A, Tan K (Eds) Flora Hellenica, Vol. 1. Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein, 239–323. Guirao-Rico S, Sánchez-Gracia A, Charlesworth D (2017) Sequence diversity patterns suggesting balancing selection in partially sex-linked genes of the plant Silene latifolia are not generated by demographic history or gene flow. Molecular Ecology 26(5): 1357–1370. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13969 Heled J, Drummond AJ (2010) Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Molecular Biology and Evolution 27(3): 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msp274 Ho SYW, Lanfear R (2010) Improved characterisation of among-lineage rate variation in cetacean mitogenomes using codon-partitioned relaxed clocks. Mitochondrial DNA 21(3–4): 138–146. https://doi.org/10.3109/19401736.2010.494727 140 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Ho SYW, Phillips MJ, Drummond AJ, Cooper A (2005) Accuracy of rate estimation using relaxed-clock models with a critical focus on the early metazoan radiation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22(5): 1355–1363. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msi125 Holland BR, Benthin S, Lockhart PJ, Moulton V, Huber KT (2008) Using supernetworks to distinguish hybridization from incomplete lineage sorting. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 202. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-8-202 Jafari F, Zarre S, Gholipour A, Eggens F, Rabeler RK, Oxelman B (2020) A new taxonomic backbone for the infrageneric classification of the species-rich genus Silene (Caryophyllaceae). Taxon 69(2): 337–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12230 Jeanmonod D (1984) Révision de la section Siphonomorpha Otth du genre Silene L. (Caryophyllaceae) en Méditerranée occidentale. III: Aggrégat italica et espèces affines. Candollea 39(2): 549–639. Jones G, Aydin Z, Oxelman B (2015) DISSECT: An assignment-free Bayesian discovery method for species delimitation under the multispecies coalescent. Bioinformatics 31(7): 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu799 Jordan GJ, Macphail MK (2003) A middle-late Eocene inflorescence of Caryophyllaceae from Tasmania, Australia. American Journal of Botany 90(5): 761–768. https://doi. org/10.3732/ajb.90.5.761 Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90(430): 773–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 Krijgsman W (2002) The Mediterranean: Mare Nostrum of earth sciences. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 205(1–2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(02)01003-7 Kubatko LS, Carstens BC, Knowles LL (2009) STEM: Species tree estimation using maximum likelihood for gene trees under coalescence. Bioinformatics 25(7): 971–973. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp079 Lazkov GA (2003) The genus Silene (Caryophyllaceae) in the flora of Eurasia (systematics, distribution, history). PhD Thesis. Komarov Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia. Liu L, Pearl DK, Brumfield RT, Edwards SV (2008) Estimating species trees using multiple-allele DNA sequence data. Evolution 62(8): 2080–2091. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1558-5646.2008.00414.x Luo A, Trewick SA, Morgan-Richards M, Heled J, Paterson AM (2023) Impacts of taxon-sampling schemes on Bayesian tip dating under the fossilized birth-death process. Systematic Biology 72(4): 781–801. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syad011 Maddison WP (1997) Gene trees in species trees. Systematic Biology 46(3): 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/46.3.523 Martin DP, Murrell B, Golden M, Khoosal A, Muhire B (2015) RDP4: Detection and analysis of recombination patterns in virus genomes. Virus Evolution 1(1): vev003. https:// doi.org/10.1093/ve/vev003 Meikle RD (1977) Flora of Cyprus. The Bentham-Moxon Trust, Kew Royal Botanic Gardens. Mello B, Schrago CG (2024) Modeling substitution rate evolution across lineages and relaxing the molecular clock. Genome Biology and Evolution 16(9): evae199. https:// doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evae199 Meulenkamp JE, Sissingh W (2003) Tertiary palaeogeography and tectonostratigraphic evolution of the Northern and Southern Peri-Tethys platforms and the intermediate domains of the African-Eurasian convergent plate boundary zone. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 196(1–2): 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0031-0182(03)00319-5 Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES science gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proceedings of the Gateway Computing 141 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Environments Workshop (GCE), New Orleans, LA, 14 November: 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1109/GCE.2010.5676129 Mirarab S, Warnow T (2015) ASTRAL-II: Coalescent-based species tree estimation with many hundreds of taxa and thousands of genes. Bioinformatics 31(12): i44–i52. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv234 Moiloa NA, Mesbah M, Nylinder S, Manning J, Forest F, de Boer HJ, Bacon CD, Oxelman B (2021) Biogeographic origins of southern African Silene (Caryophyllaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 156: 107038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ympev.2020.107038 Muir G, Dixon CJ, Harper AJ, Filatov DA (2012) Dynamics of drift, gene flow and selection during speciation in Silene. Evolution 66(5): 1447–1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1558-5646.2011.01529.x Naciri Y, Du Pasquier P-E, Lundberg M, Jeanmonod D, Oxelman B (2017) A phylogenetic circumscription of Silene sect. Siphonomorpha (Caryophyllaceae) in the Mediterranean basin. Taxon 66(1): 91–108. https://doi.org/10.12705/661.6 Naciri Y, Toprak Z, Prentice HC, Hugot L, Troia A, Burgarella C, Jeanmonod D (2022) Convergent morphological evolution in the Italicae section of Silene in the Mediterranean Basin. Frontiers in Plant Science 13: 695958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.695958 Naqinezhad A, Esmailpoor A (2017) Flora and vegetation of rocky outcrops/cliffs near the Hyrcanian forest timberline in the Mazandaran mountains, northern Iran. Nordic Journal of Botany 35(1): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/njb.01053 NASA Earth Observatory (2011) Rhodes, Greece. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/77079/rhodes-greece [Accessed: 2 July 2025] Nordborg M (2003) Coalescent theory. In: Balding DJ, Bishop M, Cannings C (Eds) Handbook of Statistical Genetics. 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, 602–635. https://doi. org/10.1002/0470022620.bbc21 Nosil P, Egan SP, Funk DJ (2008) Heterogeneous genomic differentiation between walking-stick ecotypes: “isolation by adaptation” and multiple roles for divergent selection. Evolution 62(2): 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00299.x Ogilvie HA, Bouckaert RR, Drummond AJ (2017) StarBEAST2 brings faster species tree inference and accurate estimates of substitution rates. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34(8): 2101–2114. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx126 Otth CA (1824) Silene L. In: Candolle AP de (Ed.) Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis, Vol. 1. Treuttel et Würtz, Paris, 374–385. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.286 Oxelman B, Lidén M (1995) Generic boundaries in the tribe Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae) as inferred from nuclear rDNA sequences. Taxon 44(4): 525–542. https://doi. org/10.2307/1223498 Oxelman B, Lidén M, Berglund D (1997) Chloroplast rps16 intron phylogeny of the tribe Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 206: 393–410. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF00987959 Oxelman B, Lidén M, Rabeler RK, Popp M (2001) A revised generic classification of the tribe Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany 20(6): 743–748. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2000.tb00760.x Özüdoğru B, Akaydın G, Erik S, Al-Shehbaz IA, Mummenhoff K (2015) Phylogeny, diversification and biogeographic implications of the eastern Mediterranean endemic genus Ricotia (Brassicaceae). Taxon 64(4): 727–740. https://doi.org/10.12705/644.5 Pamilo P, Nei M (1988) Relationships between gene trees and species trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 5(5): 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040517 142 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Pease JB, Brown JW, Walker JF, Hinchliff CE, Smith SA (2018) Quartet Sampling distinguishes lack of support from conflicting support in the green plant tree of life. American Journal of Botany 105(3): 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1016 Penzo E, Gandolfi G, Bargelloni L, Colombo L, Patarnello T (1998) Messinian salinity crisis and the origin of freshwater lifestyle in western Mediterranean gobies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(10): 1472–1480. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals. molbev.a025874 Peruzzi L, Carta A (2013) A taxonomic revision of Silene nocturna complex (Caryophyllaceae) in Italy. Phytotaxa 88(3): 38–48. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.88.3.1 Petri A, Oxelman B (2011) Phylogenetic relationships within Silene (Caryophyllaceae) section Physolychnis. Taxon 60(4): 953–968. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.604001 Petri A, Pfeil BE, Oxelman B (2013) Introgressive hybridization between anciently diverged lineages of Silene (Caryophyllaceae). PLoS ONE 8(7): e67729. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067729 Pfeil BE, Toprak Z, Oxelman B (2017) Recombination provides evidence for ancient hybridisation in the Silene aegyptiaca (Caryophyllaceae) complex. Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 17(3): 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-017-0331-9 Popp M, Oxelman B (2004) Evolution of a RNA polymerase gene family in Silene (Caryophyllaceae): Incomplete concerted evolution and topological congruence among paralogues. Systematic Biology 53(6): 914–932. https://doi. org/10.1080/10635150490888840 Popp M, Oxelman B (2007) Origin and evolution of North American polyploid Silene (Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 94(3): 330–349. https://doi. org/10.3732/ajb.94.3.330 Popp M, Erixon P, Eggens F, Oxelman B, Ranker TA (2005) Origin and evolution of a circumpolar polyploid species complex in Silene (Caryophyllaceae) inferred from low copy nuclear RNA polymerase introns, rDNA, and chloroplast DNA. Systematic Botany 30(2): 302–313. https://doi.org/10.1600/0363644054223648 POWO (Plants of the World Online) (2025) Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. https://powo. science.kew.org/ [Accessed: 25 February 2025] Rambaut A (2018) FigTree v1.4.4. Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA (2018) Posterior summarisation in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Systematic Biology 67(5): 901–904. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032 Rannala B, Yang Z (2003) Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164(4): 1645– 1656. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/164.4.1645 Rannala B, Yang Z (2017) Efficient Bayesian species tree inference under the multispecies coalescent. Systematic Biology 66(5): 823–842. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw119 Rautenberg A, Tredway L, Wenne V, Linder CR, Meller A, Keeley SC, Oxelman B (2010) Geographic and phylogenetic patterns in Silene section Melandrium (Caryophyllaceae) as inferred from chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57(3): 978–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2010.08.026 Rautenberg A, Sloan DB, Aldén V, Oxelman B (2012) Phylogenetic relationships of Silene multinervia and Silene section Conoimorpha (Caryophyllaceae). Systematic Botany 37(1): 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1600/036364412X616792 Rohrbach P (1869) Monographie der Gattung Silene. Engelmann, Leipzig. https://doi. org/10.5962/bhl.title.15462 143 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Russel PM, Brewer BJ, Klaere S, Bouckaert RR (2018) Model selection and parameter inference in phylogenetics using nested sampling. Systematic Biology 68(2): 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy050 Sanmartín I (2003) Dispersal vs. vicariance in the Mediterranean: Historical biogeography of the Palearctic Pachydeminae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Journal of Biogeography 30(12): 1883–1897. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2003.00939.x Şaroğlu F, Yilmaz Y (1986) Geological evolution and basin models during neotectonic episode in the eastern Anatolia. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration 107: 73–94. https://dergi.mta.gov.tr/article/show/488 Sayyari E, Mirarab S (2016) Fast coalescent-based computation of local branch support from quartet frequencies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33: 1654–1668. https:// doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw079 Sayyari E, Whitfield JB, Mirarab S (2018) DiscoVista: Interpretable visualizations of gene tree discordance. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 122: 110–115. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.01.019 Schumer M, Rosenthal GG, Andolfatto P (2014) How common is homoploid hybrid speciation? Evolution 68(6): 1553–1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12399 Seehausen O (2004) Hybridization and adaptive radiation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(4): 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.01.003 Seehausen O, Butlin RK, Keller I, Wagner CE, Boughman JW, Hohenlohe PA, Peichel CL, Saetre G-P, Brannstrom A, Brelsford A, Clarkson CS, Eroukhmanoff F, Feder JL, Fischer MC, Foote AD, Franchini P, Jiggins CD, Jones FC, Lindholm AK, Lucek K, Maan ME, Marques DA, Martin SH, Matthews B, Meier JI, Most M, Nachman MW, Nonaka E, Rennison DJ, Schwarzer J, Watson ET, Westram AM, Widmer A (2014) Genomics and the origin of species. Nature Reviews. Genetics 15: 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3644 Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30(9): 1312–1313. https://doi.org/10.1093/ bioinformatics/btu033 Swofford DL (2002) PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods), version 4.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. https://doi. org/10.1002/0471650129.dob0522 Swofford DL (2021) Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (PAUP) Version 4.0a169. http://phylosolutions.com/paup-test/ [Accessed: 2 April 2025] Thiers B (2023) Index Herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. Continuously updated. http:// sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/ [Accessed: 25 June 2025] Thompson JD (2005) Plant Evolution in the Mediterranean. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Toprak Z, Yıldız K (2022) Conflicting signals in phylogenetic relationships and taxonomy of Anatolian endemic Silene sordida (Caryophyllaceae). Phytotaxa 548(2): 199–222. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.548.2.5 Toprak Z, Pfeil BE, Jones G, Marcussen T, Ertekin AS, Oxelman B (2016) Species delimitation with DISSECT: Evidence of high species diversity in the Silene aegyptiaca complex (Caryophyllaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 102: 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.05.024 Tsigenopoulos CS, Durand JD, Ünlü E, Berrebi P (2003) Rapid radiation of the Mediterranean Luciobarbus species (Cyprinidae) after the Messinian salinity crisis of the Mediterranean Sea, inferred from mitochondrial phylogenetic analysis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London 80(2): 207–222. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00237.x 144 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Yıldız K (2024) Silene. In: Güner A, Yıldız K, Vural M, Kandemir A, Menemen Y, Yıldırım H, Aslan S, Çimen AÖ, Güner I, Bona GE, Gökmen FŞ (Eds) Illustrated Flora of Turkey, 17c. Istanbul: ANG Foundation Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanical Garden Publications, 130–463. [In Turkish] Yıldız K, Çırpıcı AH (2013) Taxonomic revision of Silene (Caryophyllaceae) sections Siphonomorpha, Lasiostemones, Sclerocalycinae, Chloranthae, Tataricae and Otites in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Botany 37: 191–218. https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1112-25 Zhang C, Rabiee M, Sayyari E, Mirarab S (2018) ASTRAL-III: Polynomial time species tree reconstruction from partially resolved gene trees. BMC Bioinformatics 19(Suppl 6): 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2129-y Supplementary material 1 Supplementary information Author: Zeynep Toprak Data type: docx Explanation note: table S1. List of analysed specimens. table S2. Details of primer sequences and applied PCR programs. table S3. Statistics of the parsimony analysis for the used loci. figure S1. Bayesian gene trees inferred from five loci. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998.suppl1 Supplementary material 2 Maximum likelihood gene trees inferred from five loci Author: Zeynep Toprak Data type: txt Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998.suppl2 145 PhytoKeys 265: 123–145 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998 Zeynep Toprak: Evolutionary relationships of Silene sections Odontopetalae and Sordidae Supplementary material 3 Quartet sampling (QS) values obtained from ASTRAL-III Author: Zeynep Toprak Data type: docx Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998.suppl3 Supplementary material 4 Species phylogeny inferred under a relaxed clock model Author: Zeynep Toprak Data type: png Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998.suppl4 Supplementary material 5 Species tree estimated under a strict clock model Author: Zeynep Toprak Data type: tre Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.265.165998.suppl5