Within many species, confusions occur between infraspecific taxa, recurrent ecotypic differentiation and phenotypic plasticity. Subspecies are often debated when they are supported only by slight morphological differentiation coupled to habitat variation. In this context we tested the evolutionary support of the four contested subspecies of Dianthus superbus. Based on 147 Eurasian accessions, our integrative study combines three complementary approaches: (i) Genetic differentiation, with neutral genetic markers, i.e. 326 AFLP markers, 25 nuclear microsatellites and nrDNA ITS ribotypes; (ii) morphological differentiation, with 20 morphometric characters measured in situ and ex situ to assess phenotypic variation; (iii) ecological differentiation, indirectly based on 128 floral volatile compounds under selection of habitat-specific pollinators. Phylogenetic, morphometric and biochemical analyses support the distinction between European and East Asian samples, with an intermediate position of Central Asian samples. However, in Europe, phylogenetic markers only slightly distinguish West from Central European samples, without support for subspecies. Morphometric differentiation was found for subsp. alpestris. This morphotype was stable ex situ under different climatic conditions, and also supported by slight differences in volatile scents and phenology. Infraspecific taxonomy still reveals interesting polymorphisms, but also calls for a revision toward refined taxa. Dianthus superbus subspecies highlighted three dissimilar cases: (i) the East Asian subsp. longicalycinus must be considered as a distinct species; (ii) the morphometric and ecological distinction of subsp. alpestris supports its ecotypic differentiation despite a lack of phylogenetic divergence; (iii) subsp. sylvestris was not supported by any markers, arguing for an artefact of phenotypic plasticity under different environmental conditions.

中文翻译：

---

石竹亚种的综合修订揭示了不同程度的分化，从可塑性到物种区分

在许多物种中，种下分类群、反复生态型分化和表型可塑性之间存在混淆。当亚种仅由与栖息地变化相结合的轻微形态分化支持时，它们经常受到争论。在这种情况下，我们测试了石竹属的四个有争议的亚种的进化支持。基于 147 个欧亚种质，我们的综合研究结合了三种互补方法：(i) 遗传分化，具有中性遗传标记，即 326 个 AFLP 标记、25 个核微卫星和 nrDNA ITS 核糖型；(ii) 形态分化，在原位和异位测量 20 个形态特征以评估表型变异；(iii) 生态分化，间接基于栖息地特定传粉者选择下的 128 种花卉挥发性化合物。系统发育、形态计量学和生化分析支持欧洲和东亚样本之间的区别，中亚样本处于中间位置。然而，在欧洲，系统发育标记仅将西欧样本与中欧样本区分开来，而没有对亚种的支持。发现亚种的形态学差异。阿尔卑斯山。这种形态型在不同的气候条件下在异地稳定，并且也受到挥发性气味和物候的轻微差异的支持。种下分类学仍然揭示了有趣的多态性，但也要求对精细分类群进行修订。石竹超级亚种突出了三个不同的情况：（i）东亚亚种。longicalycinus 必须被视为一个独特的物种；(ii) subsp. 的形态计量学和生态学区别。尽管缺乏系统发育差异，alpestris 支持其生态型分化；(iii) 亚种 sylvestris 没有得到任何标记的支持，认为这是在不同环境条件下表型可塑性的人工制品。