Advertisement

Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 200, Issue 1–2, pp 13–20 | Cite as

Phylogenetic analysis ofUlmaceae

  • Michael S. Zavada
  • Muyeol Kim
Article

Abstract

A phylogenetic analysis of theUlmaceae, Cannabaceae, Barbeyaceae, andBroussonetia of theMoraceae produced nine equally parsimonious trees with 127 steps. TheUlmoideae (Ulmaceae, sensuGrudzinskaya) are a monophyletic group and distinct from theCeltidoideae. The genusAmpelocera occupies an isolated taxonomic position among the celtidoids. The similarity ofAmpelocera to the fossil celtidoid flowerEoceltis of North America suggests thatAmpelocera posesses an archaic suite of characters, and occupies a primitive position among the celtidoids, theCannabaceae and theMoraceae. The relationships among the other celtidoid taxa,Cannabaceae, andBroussonetia are problematic. TheCannabaceae andBroussonetia of theMoraceae are nested within the celtidoids suggesting that this is a paraphyletic group. The close, but unresolved, relationship of the celtidoids to theMoraceae andCannabaceae observed in this analysis, and the appearance of the celtidoids in the fossil record prior to the ulmoids suggests that the evolutionary relationship of the ulmoids and celtidoids may be more distant than current taxonomic treatments reflect.

Key words

Ulmaceae Moraceae Barbeyaceae Cannabaceae Phylogenetic analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bate-Smith, E. C., Richens, R. E., 1973: Flavonoid chemistry and taxonomy inUlmus. — Biochem. Syst.1: 141–146.Google Scholar
  2. Behnke, H.-D., 1973: Sieve-tube plastids ofHamamelididae. — Taxon22: 205–210.Google Scholar
  3. —, 1989: Sieve element plastids, phloem proteins, and the evolution of flowering plants. IV.Hamamelidae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae. 1: Introduction and “Lower”Hamamelidae, pp. 105–128. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40A. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, C. C., 1977:Urticales, their differentiation and systematic position. — Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 349–374.Google Scholar
  5. —, 1989: Systematics and phylogeny of theUrticales. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 193–220. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bessey, C. E., 1915: The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.2: 109–164.Google Scholar
  7. Burger, W., 1977:Ulmaceae. — InBurger, W., (Ed.): Flora costaricensis. — Fieldiana Bot.40: 83–93.Google Scholar
  8. Chernik, V. V., 1975: Arrangement and reduction of perianth and androecium parts in representatives of theUlmaceae Mirbel andCeltidaceae Link. — Bot. Žurn.60: 1561–1573.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, D. J., 1978: Flavonoid chemistry and angiosperm evolution. — Bot. Rev.44: 431–456.Google Scholar
  10. Cronquist, A., 1968: The evolution and classification of flowering plants. — New York: New York Botanical Garden.Google Scholar
  11. —, 1981: An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. — New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fahn, A., 1982: Plant anatomy. — Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gentry, A. H., 1983:Plagioceltis (Ulmaceae) — A superfluous genus. — Taxon32: 460–461.Google Scholar
  14. Giannasi, D. E., 1978: Generic relationships in theUlmaceae based on flavonoid chemistry. — Taxon27: 331–344.Google Scholar
  15. —, 1986: Phytochemical aspects of phylogeny inHamamelidae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 417–437.Google Scholar
  16. Goldblatt, P., 1981: Index to plant chromosome numbers 1975–1978. — St. Louis: Missouri Bot. Gard.Google Scholar
  17. Gornall, R. J., Bohm, B. A., 1978: Angiosperm flavonoid evolution: a reappraisal. — Syst. Bot.3: 353–368.Google Scholar
  18. Grudzinskaya, I. A., 1967: TheUlmaceae and reasons for distinguishing theCeltidoideae as a separate familyCeltidaceae Link. — Bot. Žurn.52: 1723–1749.Google Scholar
  19. Harborne, J. B., 1977: Flavonoids and the evolution of angiosperms. — Biochem. Syst. Ecol.5: 722.Google Scholar
  20. Hickey, L. J., 1973: Classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves. — Amer. J. Bot.60: 17–33.Google Scholar
  21. —, 1979: A revised classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves. — InMetcalfe, C. R., Chalk, L., (Eds): Anatomy of dicotyledons 1, pp. 25–39. — 2nd edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. —, 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: vegetative morphology. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 538–589.Google Scholar
  23. —, 1991: The leaf architecture ofTicodendron and the application of foliar characters in discerning its relationships. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.78: 105–130.Google Scholar
  24. Hufford, L. D., Crane, P. R., 1989: A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the ‘lower’Hamamelidae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 1: introduction and ‘Lower’Hamamelidae, pp. 175–192. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40A. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Humphries, C. J., Blackmore, S., 1989: A review of the classification of theMoraceae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 267–277. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hutchinson, J., 1967: The genera of flowering plants.2. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Judd, W. S., Sanders, R. W., Donoghue, M. J., 1994: Angiosperm family pairs: preliminary phylogenetic analyses. — Harvard Papers Bot.5: 1–51.Google Scholar
  28. Leroy, J.-F., 1961: Un deuxièmeAphananthe (Ulmacee) du Mexique. — J. Agricult. Trop. Bot. Appl.8: 72–74.Google Scholar
  29. Manchester, S. R., 1989: Systematics and fossil history of theUlmaceae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 221–251. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mauseth, J. D., 1988: Plant anatomy. — Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  31. Mehra, P. N., Gill, B. S., 1974: Cytological studies inUlmaceae, Moraceae, andUrticaceae. — J. Arnold Arbor.55: 663–677.Google Scholar
  32. Morawetz, W., Samuel, M. R. A., 1989: Karyological patterns in theHamamelidae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 1: Introduction and ‘Lower’Hamamelidae, pp. 129–154. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40A. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Muller, J., 1981: Fossil pollen records of extant angiosperms. — Bot. Rev.47: 1–142.Google Scholar
  34. Oginuma, K., Raven, P. H., Tobe, H., 1990: Karyomorphology and relationships ofCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales). — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)103: 113–131.Google Scholar
  35. Polhill, R. M., 1966:Ulmaceae. — InHubbard, C. E., Milne-Redhead, E., (Eds): Flora of Tropical East Africa. — London: Whitefriars Press.Google Scholar
  36. Raven, P. H., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: cytology. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 724–764.Google Scholar
  37. Soepadmo, E., 1977:Ulmaceae. — Flora Malesiana, ser. 1,8: 31–76.Google Scholar
  38. Sweitzer, E. M., 1971: Comparative anatomy ofUlmaceae. — J. Arnold Arbor.52: 523–585.Google Scholar
  39. Swofford, D., 1989: PAUP — Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, Version 3.1. — Illinois: Illinois Natural History Survey.Google Scholar
  40. Takahashi, M., 1989: Pollen morphology ofCeltidaceae andUlmaceae: a reinvestigation. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics and fossil history of theHamamelidae. 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 253–265. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  41. Takaso, T., 1987: Ovule ontogeny and morphology inUlmaceae. — XIV Internat. Bot. Cong., Berlin, Abstracts, p. 220.Google Scholar
  42. —, 1990: Seed coat morphology and evolution inCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales). — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)103: 25–41.Google Scholar
  43. Terabayashi, S., 1991: Vernation patterns inCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales), and their evolutionary and systematic implications. — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)104: 1–13.Google Scholar
  44. Walker, J. W., Doyle, J. A., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: palynology. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 664–723.Google Scholar
  45. Wolfe, J. A., Doyle, J. A., Page, V. M., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: paleobotany. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 801–824.Google Scholar
  46. Zavada, M., 1983: Pollen morphology ofUlmaceae. — Grana22: 23–30.Google Scholar
  47. —, 1981: Investigations of angiosperms from the Middle Eocene of North America: flowers of theCeltidoideae. — Amer. J. Bot.68: 924–933.Google Scholar
  48. —, 1986: Comparative pollen morphology and its relationships to phylogeny of pollen in theHamamelididae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 348–381.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael S. Zavada
    • 1
  • Muyeol Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyProvidence CollegeProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology EducationChonbuk National UniversityChonjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations