1. Family: Fabaceae Lindl.
    1. Anthyllis L.

      1. This genus is accepted, and its native range is Europe to Medit., Macaronesia, NE. Tropical Africa.

    [LOWO]

    Legumes of the World. Edited by G. Lewis, B. Schrire, B. MacKinder & M. Lock. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. (2005)

    Note

    The Loteae have been usually considered as the closest relatives of other temperate tribes, especially of the astragaloid part of Galegeae (e.g., Polhill, 1981k: 371–374), and the monospecific genus Podolotus was either allied with Lotus, or merged with Astragalus. Recent molecular data, however, have revealed that Galegeae, Cicereae, Hedysareae, Trifolieae, Fabeae and Millettieae (in small part) lack the chloroplast-DNA inverted repeat (IR) which is present in the majority of Leguminosae including Loteae (Liston, 1995). A study of the chloroplast gene rbcL also placed Loteae and other temperate tribes in different clades (Doyle et al., 1997), the Loteae being in a robinioid clade and the temperate tribes in an Inverted Repeat Lacking clade (IRLC). In recent supertrees of the Hologalegina alliance (Wojciechowski et al., 2000, 2004), Loteae sens. lat. are sister to Sesbania, and the combined Loteae-Sesbanieae clade is itself sister to the Robinieae.

    Loteae differ from Robinieae in a suite of characters which were listed by Dormer (1945) for his ‘epulvinate series’, i.e., often herbaceous habit and leaves mostly distichous, usually without a pulvinus. These characters are now of less phylogenetic importance since the ‘epulvinate series’ is no longer considered to be a monophyletic group. An obvious synapomorphy of Loteae, shared by all extant members of the tribe, is stamen filaments dilated upwards. This is an adaptation for secondary pollen presentation. Another apomorphy shared by almost all Loteae is the capitate or umbellate partial inflorescence, while Robinieae possesses racemes. A most unusual (and possibly synapomorphic) morphological character of many Loteae is the presence of a foliage leaf on the peduncle. This leaf is often described as a bract, but it has neither a flower nor other structures in its axil. True bracts in Loteae usually lack a blade and are membranous or glandular. Phylogenetic evidence suggests the presence or absence of the foliage leaf on the peduncle is homoplastic within Loteae.

    The circumscription of Loteae has recently been expanded to include genera formerly placed in Coronilleae (Polhill, 1981k & l; 1994). These two tribes were previously distinguished by the lomentaceous fruits and branched root nodules in Coronilleae (fruits non-lomentaceous and root nodules unbranched in Loteae sens. strict.). The Coronilleae were earlier placed in tribe Hedysareae (Bentham, 1865) because of their lomentaceous fruits.

    The merging of Loteae sens. strict. and Coronilleae is supported by both morphological (Polhill, 1981k; Lassen, 1989; Díez & Ferguson, 1990, 1994, 1996; Tikhomirov & Sokoloff, 1996a) and molecular data (Doyle, 1995; Liston, 1995; Doyle et al., 1997; Allan, 1998; Allan & Porter, 2000; Allan et al., 2003). These data indicate that lomentaceous fruits have arisen independently in Coronilleae and Hedysareae, and perhaps even in different genera of Coronilleae. Allan & Porter (2000: Fig. 2A) suggested, however, that lomentaceous fruits were a plesiomorphic condition for Loteae sens. lat. In our opinion, an ancestor of Loteae might have had dehiscent fruits divided into regular compartments by thin transverse septa (as in Sesbania and Lotus sens. lat.). The genera formerly placed in Coronilleae do not form a natural taxonomic unit at any level. Regarding fruit anatomy, lomentaceous fruits of Securigera and Coronilla are related to dehiscent fruits in the Lotus group, while lomentaceous fruits of Ornithopus and Antopetitia share important features of pericarp structure with the indehiscent non-lomentaceous fruits of Anthyllis and Dorycnopsis.

    Recent publications have led to the removal of some groups from Lotus sens. lat. (Lassen, 1986; Tikhomirov & Sokoloff, 1997; Sokoloff, 1999, 2000), Coronilla sens. lat. (Lassen, 1989) and Anthyllis sens. lat. (Lassen, 1986; Tikhomirov & Sokoloff, 1996a, 1997). Morphological and molecular data relevant to the relationships between Old World and New World Loteae have recently been published (Díez & Ferguson, 1990, 1994, 1996; Kramina & Sokoloff, 1997a; Allan, 1998; Allan & Porter, 2000; Allan et al., 2000, 2002, 2003; Degtjareva et al., 2003). The placement of Podolotus in Loteae is now well supported by morphological data. Allan & Porter (2000) and Allan et al. (2003), using nuclear ribosomal ITS, concluded that Old World and New World Lotus sens. lat. belong to distinct clades. In the latter analysis, Old World Lotus forms a moderately supported monophyletic group if Tetragonolobus and Dorycnium are included, while New World Lotus is paraphyletic, also containing the Old World Ornithopus (although with 1 sp. in the New World) and Kebirita among others. In this treatment Loteae is considered to comprise 22 genera and c. 282 species (Fig. 51).

    Tripodion and Dorycnopsis are best excluded from Anthyllis (Tikhomirov & Sokoloff, 1996b); morphologically Dorycnopsis is close to Anthyllis, but also resembles Ornithopus in, e.g., fruit anatomy; A. vulneraria is very variable and 20-30 infraspecific taxa have been distinguished (Cullen, 1976)
    Habit
    Shrubs, suffrutices and herbs
    Ecology
    Mediterranean and temperate to montane tropical grassland and shrubland, sometimes in disturbed places
    Distribution
    Europe, mainly Mediterranean region (including N Africa) and Madeira east to Caucasus and Iran, south to Ethiopia; naturalised in some other countries
    [LOWO]

    Legumes of the World. Edited by G. Lewis, B. Schrire, B. MacKinder & M. Lock. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. (2005)

    Habit
    Herb
    Ecology
    Mediterranean grassland, shrubland and forest, often in disturbed places
    Distribution
    Mediterranean, W Asia
    Note
    The genus has usually been treated as monospecific; Lassen (1986) transferred the 3 spp. of Anthyllis subgen. Cornicina to Hymenocarpos, but Tikhomirov & Sokoloff (1996b) disagree and have returned these to Anthyllis; Allan et al. (2003) find strong support placing H. circinnatus (L.) Savi in a clade with Anthyllis lotoides L. The monospecific Hymenocarpos accepted here differs from Anthyllis in its broadly winged fruits, petal shape, and basic chromosome number (x = 8, not 6 or 7), however, it is close to Anthyllis; Akulova (1985) and Sokoloff (2003a) placed Hymenocarpos into synonymy under Anthyllis

    The Loteae have been usually considered as the closest relatives of other temperate tribes, especially of the astragaloid part of Galegeae (e.g., Polhill, 1981k: 371–374), and the monospecific genus Podolotus was either allied with Lotus, or merged with Astragalus. Recent molecular data, however, have revealed that Galegeae, Cicereae, Hedysareae, Trifolieae, Fabeae and Millettieae (in small part) lack the chloroplast-DNA inverted repeat (IR) which is present in the majority of Leguminosae including Loteae (Liston, 1995). A study of the chloroplast gene rbcL also placed Loteae and other temperate tribes in different clades (Doyle et al., 1997), the Loteae being in a robinioid clade and the temperate tribes in an Inverted Repeat Lacking clade (IRLC). In recent supertrees of the Hologalegina alliance (Wojciechowski et al., 2000, 2004), Loteae sens. lat. are sister to Sesbania, and the combined Loteae-Sesbanieae clade is itself sister to the Robinieae.

    Loteae differ from Robinieae in a suite of characters which were listed by Dormer (1945) for his ‘epulvinate series’, i.e., often herbaceous habit and leaves mostly distichous, usually without a pulvinus. These characters are now of less phylogenetic importance since the ‘epulvinate series’ is no longer considered to be a monophyletic group. An obvious synapomorphy of Loteae, shared by all extant members of the tribe, is stamen filaments dilated upwards. This is an adaptation for secondary pollen presentation. Another apomorphy shared by almost all Loteae is the capitate or umbellate partial inflorescence, while Robinieae possesses racemes. A most unusual (and possibly synapomorphic) morphological character of many Loteae is the presence of a foliage leaf on the peduncle. This leaf is often described as a bract, but it has neither a flower nor other structures in its axil. True bracts in Loteae usually lack a blade and are membranous or glandular. Phylogenetic evidence suggests the presence or absence of the foliage leaf on the peduncle is homoplastic within Loteae.

    The circumscription of Loteae has recently been expanded to include genera formerly placed in Coronilleae (Polhill, 1981k & l; 1994). These two tribes were previously distinguished by the lomentaceous fruits and branched root nodules in Coronilleae (fruits non-lomentaceous and root nodules unbranched in Loteae sens. strict.). The Coronilleae were earlier placed in tribe Hedysareae (Bentham, 1865) because of their lomentaceous fruits.

    The merging of Loteae sens. strict. and Coronilleae is supported by both morphological (Polhill, 1981k; Lassen, 1989; Díez & Ferguson, 1990, 1994, 1996; Tikhomirov & Sokoloff, 1996a) and molecular data (Doyle, 1995; Liston, 1995; Doyle et al., 1997; Allan, 1998; Allan & Porter, 2000; Allan et al., 2003). These data indicate that lomentaceous fruits have arisen independently in Coronilleae and Hedysareae, and perhaps even in different genera of Coronilleae. Allan & Porter (2000: Fig. 2A) suggested, however, that lomentaceous fruits were a plesiomorphic condition for Loteae sens. lat. In our opinion, an ancestor of Loteae might have had dehiscent fruits divided into regular compartments by thin transverse septa (as in Sesbania and Lotus sens. lat.). The genera formerly placed in Coronilleae do not form a natural taxonomic unit at any level. Regarding fruit anatomy, lomentaceous fruits of Securigera and Coronilla are related to dehiscent fruits in the Lotus group, while lomentaceous fruits of Ornithopus and Antopetitia share important features of pericarp structure with the indehiscent non-lomentaceous fruits of Anthyllis and Dorycnopsis.

    Recent publications have led to the removal of some groups from Lotus sens. lat. (Lassen, 1986; Tikhomirov & Sokoloff, 1997; Sokoloff, 1999, 2000), Coronilla sens. lat. (Lassen, 1989) and Anthyllis sens. lat. (Lassen, 1986; Tikhomirov & Sokoloff, 1996a, 1997). Morphological and molecular data relevant to the relationships between Old World and New World Loteae have recently been published (Díez & Ferguson, 1990, 1994, 1996; Kramina & Sokoloff, 1997a; Allan, 1998; Allan & Porter, 2000; Allan et al., 2000, 2002, 2003; Degtjareva et al., 2003). The placement of Podolotus in Loteae is now well supported by morphological data. Allan & Porter (2000) and Allan et al. (2003), using nuclear ribosomal ITS, concluded that Old World and New World Lotus sens. lat. belong to distinct clades. In the latter analysis, Old World Lotus forms a moderately supported monophyletic group if Tetragonolobus and Dorycnium are included, while New World Lotus is paraphyletic, also containing the Old World Ornithopus (although with 1 sp. in the New World) and Kebirita among others. In this treatment Loteae is considered to comprise 22 genera and c. 282 species (Fig. 51).

    [LOWO]
    Use
    Anthyllis vulneraria sens. lat. (sand clover, kidney vetch) is cultivated as fodder, forage (especially for goats and sheep), ground cover and as soil binders; also for medicine (with a wide range of uses, particularly skin care), as a tea substitute, a dye and as ornamentals

    Images

    Distribution

    Native to:

    Albania, Algeria, Austria, Baleares, Baltic States, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Central European Rus, Corse, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, East Aegean Is., East European Russia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Italy, Kriti, Krym, Lebanon-Syria, Libya, Madeira, Morocco, Netherlands, North Caucasus, North European Russi, Northwest European R, Norway, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sardegna, Saudi Arabia, Sicilia, Sinai, South European Russi, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Transcaucasus, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkey-in-Europe, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia

    Introduced into:

    California, Illinois, South Australia, Vermont, Victoria, West Siberia

    Anthyllis L. appears in other Kew resources:

    First published in Sp. Pl.: 719 (1753)

    Accepted by

    • Govaerts, R. (1995). World Checklist of Seed Plants 1(1, 2): 1-483, 529. MIM, Deurne.

    Sources

    Kew Backbone Distributions
    The International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families 2018. Published on the Internet at http://www.ipni.org and http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/
    © Copyright 2017 World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

    Kew Names and Taxonomic Backbone
    The International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families 2018. Published on the Internet at http://www.ipni.org and http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/
    © Copyright 2017 International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

    Legumes of the World Online
    Digital Image © Board of Trustees, RBG Kew http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0