Systematics of Urostephanus: resurrection of a Mesoamerican taxon of Gonolobinae (Apocynaceae, Asclepiadoideae), with eight new combinations

Background and Aims: Recent studies have focused on resolving the systematics of the tribe Gonolobinae of the family Apocynaceae, as well as the controversial genus Matelea s.l. However, many species within Matelea s.l. have not been evaluated phylogenetically. This is the case of M. gonoloboides, previously recognized as the type species of Urostephanus, and other taxa with similar floral morphology. The aim of this study is to test the monophyly of Urostephanus, including some species with morphology similar to M. gonoloboides. Furthermore, we evaluate the taxonomic position of the Urostephanus clade within the subtribe Gonolobinae and compare morphology among related clades.Methods: To assess phylogenetic relationships within Gonolobinae, we downloaded sequences from four loci for 94 species of the subtribe from GenBank. We extracted DNA and sequenced the trnL-F intergenic spacer and rps16 intron from four species of Dictyanthus and six species of Matelea, which are considered to belong to Urostephanus. We reconstructed the phylogeny with Bayesian inference using the maximum clade credibility tree. Based on the phylogenetic pattern, we performed morphological comparisons between the clades Dictyanthus, Polystemma, and Urostephanus.Key results: Phylogenetic analysis recovered Urostephanus as monophyletic and sister to Dictyanthus. Based on this phylogenetic pattern and floral morphology, we resurrect the genus Urostephanus. We propose eight new combinations for the species included in the phylogeny, as well as for those that share floral morphological similarity. We designate two lectotypes. Finally, we discuss aspects of morphology between Urostephanus and closely related groups.Conclusions: The current circumscription of Matelea s.l. includes species with high morphological diversity. With the phylogenetic and morphological evidence among related taxa, we support the resurrection of Urostephanus, more than 120 years after its description. These results contribut