The compositae revisited
- Arthur Cronquist
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Bentham’s treatment of the Compositae in the Genera Plantarum is still, after more than a century, the most important basic reference work on the family. The scholarly challenge to Bentham’s views by Small in 1917–1919 is severely compromised by Small’s reliance on the Age and Area hypothesis. In 1955 I published a comprehensive paper on the phylogeny and taxonomy of the Compositae. My outlook was highly compatible with that of Bentham, as it remains today.
A significant change in my views after 20 years is that I now take the woody habit to be primitive within the family, and the herbaceous habit derived, rather than the other way around. Many of the herbs have retained an active cambium, however, and some of these have reverted to a secondarily woody habit.
The fossil record does not connect the Compositae to any other group. Recog nizable members of the family can be traced back to the top of the Oligocène epoch. Some of the older fossils that have been referred to the Compositae, such as the Upper CretaceousPalaeanthus problematicus, clearly do not belong, and others are at best doubtful.
The ancestry of the Compositae remains in dispute. A long series of extinct forebears must be postulated in order to relate them to anything at all, and the chemical data are not in harmony with the morphological data. The most similar modern family is the Calyceraceae, but these can be no more than collateral rela tives. I still hold to the view that the ancestry of the Compositae probably lies in the vicinity of the Rubiaceae.
There is now a ferment about tribal classification in the Compositae, and several new tribes have recently been proposed. The least controversial of these is the Liabeae, which seems likely to become generally accepted. Application of recent chemical data may lead to further restriction of the Senecioneae, with several genera being transferred to the Heliantheae or elsewhere. It now seems to be generally agreed that Bentham’s tribe Helenieae must be dismembered, and that at least some of its components must be included in a more broadly defined tribe Heliantheae. Elevation of the Tagetinae to tribal status can be defended on both morphological and chemical grounds, but may not be necessary, since the rela tionship of the Tagetinae to the Heliantheae is clear.
Carlquist’s recent proposal to organize the tribes of Compositae into two sub families of 6 tribes each is interesting but faulty. It has the virtue of putting most of the radiate tribes into one subfamily, but it minimizes the significance of the Arctotideae as a group connecting the radiate tribes to the discoid ones. Furthermore, it ignores the most obvious dichotomy in the family, which separates the Lactuceae from all the remaining tribes.
- Adamson, R. S. (1934) Anomalous secondary thickening in Compositae. Ann. Bot. (London) 48: pp. 505-514
- Augier, J., DuMerac, M. (1951) La phylogénie des Composées. Rev. Sci 3311: pp. 167-182
- Baranova, M. (1972) Systematic anatomy of the leaf epidermis in the Magnoliaceae and some related families. Taxon 21: pp. 447-469 CrossRef
- Becker, H. F. (1969) Fossil plants of the Tertiary Beaverhead Basins in southwestern Montana. Palaeontographica, Abt. B, PalÄophytol 127: pp. 1-142
- Bentham, G. (1873) Compositae. Genera Plantarum 2: pp. 163-533
- Bentham, G. (1873) Notes on the classification, history, and geographic distribution of the Compositae. J. Linn. Soc., Bot 13: pp. 335-577 CrossRef
- Bremekamp, C. E. B. (1966) Remarks on the position, the delimitation and the subdivision of the Rubiaceae. Acta Bot. Neerl 15: pp. 1-33
- Carlquist, S. (1957) The genusFitchia (Compositae). Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot 29: pp. 1-144
- Carlquist, S. (1957) Wood anatomy of Mutisieae (Compositae). Trop. Woods 106: pp. 29-45
- Carlquist, S. (1958) Wood anatomy of Heliantheae (Compositae). Trop. Woods 108: pp. 1-30
- Carlquist, S. (1959) Wood anatomy of Helenieae (Compositae). Trop. Woods 111: pp. 19-39
- Carlquist, S. (1960) Wood anatomy of Cichorieae (Compositae). Trop. Woods 112: pp. 65-91
- Carlquist, S. (1960) Wood anatomy of Astereae (Compositae). Trop. Woods 113: pp. 54-84
- Carlquist, S. (1961) Wood anatomy of Inuleae (Compositae). Aliso 5: pp. 21-37
- Carlquist, S. (1962) Wood anatomy of Senecioneae (Compositae). Aliso 5: pp. 123-146
- Carlquist, S. (1964) Wood anatomy of Vernonieae (Compositae). Aliso 5: pp. 451-467
- Carlquist, S. (1965) Wood anatomy of Cynareae (Compositae). Aliso 6: pp. 13-24
- Carlquist, S. (1965) Wood anatomy of Eupatorieae (Compositae). Aliso 6: pp. 89-103
- Carlquist, S. (1966) Wood anatomy of Anthemideae, Ambrosieae, Calenduleae, and Arctotideae (Compositae). Aliso 6: pp. 1-23
- Carlquist, S. (1966) Wood anatomy of Compositae: A summary, with comments on factors controlling wood evolution. Aliso 6: pp. 25-44
- Carlquist, S. (1976) Tribal interrelationships and phylogeny of the Asteraceae. Aliso 8: pp. 465-492
- Cassini, H. In: King, R. M., Dawson, H. W. eds. (1975) Cassini on Compositae, collected from the Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles. Oriole Editions, New York
- Crété, R. (1956) Contribution à l’étude de l’albumen et de l’embryon chez les Campanulacées et les Lobéliacées. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 103: pp. 446-454
- Cronquist, A. (1955) Phylogeny and taxonomy of the Compositae. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 53: pp. 478-511 CrossRef
- DeCandolle, A. P. 1836, 1837, 1838. Prodromus Syst. Nat. Vol.5, 6, 7.
- Diettert, R. A. (1938) The morphology ofArtemisia tridentata Nutt. Lloydia 1: pp. 3-74
- Hegnauer, R. (1964) Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Band 3. BirkhÄuser Verlag, Basel and Stuttgart
- Hoffmann, O. (1894) Compositae. Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 4: pp. 87-394
- Leonhardt, R. (1949) Phylogenetisch-systematische Betrachtungen. I. Betrachtung zur Syste matik der Compositen. Oesterr. Bot. Z 96: pp. 293-324 CrossRef
- Newberry, J. 1896. Flora of the Amboy clays. Monog. U. S. Geol. Survey 26.
- Powell, A. M., Turner, B. L. (1974) A generic conspectus of the subtribe Peritylinae (As teraceae-Helenieae) and reassessment of its tribal position. Amer. J. Bot 61: pp. 87-93 CrossRef
- Raven, P. H., Axelrod, D. I. (1974) Angiosperm biogeography and past continental move ments. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard 61: pp. 539-673 CrossRef
- Rickett, H. W. (1944) The classification of inflorescences. Bot. Rev 10: pp. 187-231
- Robinson, H., Brettell, R. D. (1973) Tribal revisions in the Asteraceae. III. A new tribe, Liabeae. Phytologia 25: pp. 404-407
- Robinson, H., Brettell, R. D. (1973) Tribal revisions in the Asteraceae. VIII. A new tribe, Ursineae. Phytologia 26: pp. 76-85
- Robinson, H., Brettell, R. D. (1973) Tribal revisions in the Asteraceae. XI. A new tribe, Eremothamneae. Phytologia 26: pp. 163-166
- Rydberg, P. A. 1927. Liabeae.In: N. Amer. F1. 34: 289–301.
- Small, James (1919) The origin and development of the Compositae. New Phytol. Reprinted from vols 16-18: pp. 1917-1919
- Sporne, K. R. (1954) Statistics and the evolution of dicotyledons. Evolution 8: pp. 55-64 CrossRef
- Sporne, K. R. (1954) A note on nuclear endosperm as a primitive character among dico- tyledons. Phytomorphology 4: pp. 275-278
- Stebbins, G. L. (1953) A new classification of the tribe Cichorieae, family Compositae. Madroño 12: pp. 65-81
- Takhtajan, A. (1966) Sistema i filogenia tsvetkovykh rastenii (in Russian). Soviet Sciences Press, Moscow, Leningrad
- Willis, J. C. (1915) The endemic flora of Ceylon, with reference to geographical distribution and evolution in general. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 206: pp. 307-342 CrossRef
- The compositae revisited
Volume 29, Issue 2 , pp 137-153
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Arthur Cronquist (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. The New York Botanical Garden, 10458, NY, Bronx