Advertisement

Brittonia

, 53:490 | Cite as

Morphology, anatomy, and taxonomic position of Pagameopsis (Rubiaceae-Rubioideae)

  • Frederic Piesschaert
  • Steven Jansen
  • Ivan Jaimes
  • Elmar Robbrecht
  • Erik Smets
Articles

Abstract

Morphological and anatomical features (including wood anatomy and pollen morphology) of the small neotropical genusPagameopsis (Rubiaceae-Rubioideae) are discussed and illustrated. The fused ovaries, fenestrate corolla tube, basally attached anther filaments, and absence of raphides are especially noteworthy.Pagameopsis is definitely not a member of the Psychotrieae because of significant differences in wood anatomy and gynoecial and fruit structure. A close affinity with Gaertnereae seems doubtful for similar reasons. The taxonomic affinities ofPagameopsis remain obscure. The genus shows similarities with several taxa of the Rubioideae, such as Coccocypseleae, Morindeae, Hedyotideae, andMetabolos. The absence of raphides, on the other hand, makes a position in the Rubioideae doubtful.

Key words

anatomy morphology Pagamea Pagameopsis Psychotrieae Rubiaceae taxonomy 

Literature Cited

  1. Andersson, L. 1996. Circumscription of the tribe Isertieae (Rubiaceae). Opera Bot. Belg. 7: 139–164.Google Scholar
  2. — 1997. A new revision ofJoosia (Rubiaceae-Cinchoneae), Brittonia 49: 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. — &J. H. E. Rova. 1999. Therps16 intron and the phylogeny of the Rubioideae (Rubiaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 214: 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremekamp, C. E. B. 1939.Pleiocraterium genus novum Rubiacearum Hedyotidearum. Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl. 36: 438–445.Google Scholar
  5. — 1952. The African species ofOldenlandia L. sensu Hiern et K. Schumann. Verh. Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Afd. Natuurk., ser. 2, 18: 1–297.Google Scholar
  6. — 1966. Remarks on the position, the delimitation and the subdivision of the Rubiaceae. Acta Bot. Neerl. 15: 1–33.Google Scholar
  7. Bremer, B. 1987. The sister-group of the paleotropical tribe Argostemmateae: a redefined neotropical tribe Hamelieae (Rubiaceae, Rubioideae). Cladistics 3: 35–51.Google Scholar
  8. — 1992. Phylogeny of the Rubiaceae (Chiococceae) based on molecular and morphological data—useful approaches for classification and comparative ecology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 79: 380–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. — 1996. Phylogenetic studies within Rubiaceae and relationships to other families based on molecular data. Opera Bot. Belg. 7: 33–50.Google Scholar
  10. — &O. Eriksson. 1992. Evolution of fruit characters and dispersal modes in the tropical family Rubiaceae. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 47: 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. — &R. K. Jansen. 1991. Comparative restriction site mapping of chloroplast DNA implies new phylogenetic relationships within Rubiaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 78: 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. — &M. Thulin. 1998. Collapse of Isertieae, reestablishment of Mussaendeae, and a new genus of Sabiceeae (Rubiaceae); phylogenetic relationships based onrbcL data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 211: 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. —,K. Andreasen &D. Olsson. 1995. Subfamilial and tribal relationships in the Rubiaceae based onrbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 82: 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchner, R. &C. Puff. 1993. The genus complexDanais-Schismatoclada-Payera (Rubiaceae). Character states, generic delimitation and taxonomic position. Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., Paris, 4e sér., 15, sect. B, Adansonia: 23–74.Google Scholar
  15. Chenery, E. M. 1946. AreHydrangea flowers unique? Nature 158: 240–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. — 1948. Aluminium in the plant world. Part I. General survey in dicotyledons. Kew Bull. 1948: 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delprete, P. G. 1996. Evaluation of the tribes Chiococceae, Condamineeae and Catesbaeeae (Rubiaceae) based on morphological characters. Opera Bot. Belg. 7: 165–192.Google Scholar
  18. Fay, M. F., B. Bremer, G. T. Prance, M. van der Bank, D. Bridson &M. W. Chase. 2000. PlastidrbcL sequence data showDialypetalanthus to be a member of Rubiaceae. Kew Bull. 55: 853–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hallé, N. 1966. Flore du Gabon 12. Rubiacées (1re partie). Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.Google Scholar
  20. Huber, O. 1995. Vegetation. Pages. 97–160.In: J. A. Steyermark, P. E. Berry & B. K. Holst, editors. Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana. Vol. 1. Introduction. Timber Press, Portland.Google Scholar
  21. IACA Committee. 1989. IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood identification. IAWA Bull. 10: 219–332.Google Scholar
  22. Igersheim, A. 1993. The character states of the Caribbean monotypic endemicStrumpfia (Rubiaceae). Nordic J. Bot. 13: 545–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. — &E. Robbrecht. 1994. The character states and relationships of the Prismatomerideae (Rubiaceae-Rubioideae). Comparisons withMorinda and comments on the circumscription of the Morindeae s.str. Opera Bot. Belg. 6: 61–79.Google Scholar
  24. —,C. Puff, P. Leins &C. Erbar. 1994. Gynoecial development ofGaertnera Lam. and of presumably allied taxa of the Psychotrieae (Rubiaceae): secondarily “superior” vs. inferior ovaries. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 116: 401–414.Google Scholar
  25. Jansen, S., E. Robbrecht, H. Beeckman &E. Smets. 1996a.Gaertnera andPagamea: genera within the Psychotrieae or constituting the tribe Gaertnereae? A wood anatomical and palynological approach. Bot. Acta 109: 466–476.Google Scholar
  26. —— &E. Smets. 1996b. The systematic value of endexine ornamentation in some Psychotrieae pollen (Rubiaceae-Rubioideae). Grana 35: 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ——,H. Beeckman &E. Smets. 1997. Wood anatomy of the predominantly African representatives of the tribe Psychotrieae (Rubiaceae-Rubioideae). IAWA J. 18: 169–196.Google Scholar
  28. —,P. Kitin, H. De Pauw, M. Idris, H. Beeckman &E. Smets. 1998. Preparation of wood specimens for transmitted light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Belg. J. Bot. 131: 41–49.Google Scholar
  29. —,S. Dessein, F. Piesschaert, E. Robbrecht &E. Smets. 2000. Aluminum accumulation in leaves of Rubiaceae: systematic and phylogenetic implications. Ann. Bot. 85: 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johansson, J. T. 1994. The genusMorinda (Morindeae, Rubioideae, Rubiaceae) in New Caledonia: taxonomy and phylogeny. Opera Bot. 122: 1–67.Google Scholar
  31. Kirkbride, J. H. &E. Robbrecht. 1984. Documentation of two recent new generic names in the Rubiaceae. Taxon 33: 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kukachka, B. F. &R. B. Miller. 1980. A chemical spot-test for aluminum and its value in wood identification. IAWA Bull. 1: 104–109.Google Scholar
  33. Nepokroeff, M., B. Bremer &K. J. Sytsma. 1999. Reorganization of the genusPsychotria and tribe Psychotrieae (Rubiaceae) inferred from ITS andrbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 24: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piesschaert, F., E. Robbrecht &E. Smets. 1997.Dialypetalanthus fuscescens Kuhlm. (Dialypetalanthaceae): the problematic taxonomic position of an amazonian endemic. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 84: 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. —,L. Andersson, S. Jansen, S. Dessein, E. Robbrecht &E. Smets. 2000a. Searching for the taxonomic position of the African genusColletoecema (Rubiaceae): morphology and anatomy compared with anrps16-intron analysis of the Rubioideae. Canad. J. Bot. 78: 288–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. —,S. Huysmans, I. Jaimes, E. Robbrecht &E. Smets. 2000b. Morphological evidence for an extended tribe Coccocypseleae (Rubiaceae-Rubioideae). Pl. Biol. 2: 536–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pire, S. M. 1997. GéneroGalianthe subg.Ebelia (Rubiaceae: Spermacoceae): estudio palinológico. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 84: 878–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Puff, C., L. Andersson, U. Rohrhofer &A. Igersheim. 1993. The tirbe Schradereae (Rubiaceae) reexamined. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 114: 449–479.Google Scholar
  39. Puff, C. & A. Igersheim. 1991. The flowers ofPaederia L. (Rubiaceae-Paederieae).In: C. Puff, editor, The genusPaederia L. (Rubiaceae-Paederieae): a multidisciplinary study. Opera Bot. Belg. 3: 55–75.Google Scholar
  40. — &A. Igersheim. 1994. The character states and taxonomic position ofMetabolos Bl. (syn.Allaeophania Thw.) (Rubiaceae). Bull. Jard. Bot. Nat. Belg. 63: 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Punt, W., S. Blackmoore, S. Nilsson &A. Le Thomas A. 1994. Glossary of pollen and spore terminology. LPP Contr. Ser. 1. LPP Foundation, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Robbrecht, E. 1988. Tropical woody Rubiaceae. Opera Bot. Belg. 1: 1–271.Google Scholar
  43. — 1994. Supplement to the 1988 outline of the classification of the Rubiaceae. Index to genera. Opera Bot. Belg. 6: 173–176.Google Scholar
  44. —,C. Puff &A. Igersheim. 1991. The generaMitchella andDamnacanthus. Evidence for their close alliance; comments on the campylotropy in the Rubiaceae and the circumscription of the Morindeae. Blumea 35: 307–345.Google Scholar
  45. Standley, P. C. 1931. The Rubiaceae of Venezuela. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 7: 420.Google Scholar
  46. Standley, P. C. & J. A. Steyermark. 1953.Pagamea. In: J. A. Steyermark et al., editors. Contributions to the Flora of Venezuela. From Ericaceae through Compositae. Fieldiana, Bot. 28: 584–590.Google Scholar
  47. Steyermark, J. A. 1965.Pagameopsis. In: B. Maguire et al., editors. The botany of the Guayana Highland. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 12: 267–270.Google Scholar
  48. — 1974. Rubiaceae.In: T. Lasser, editor. Flora de Venezuela 9(2): 1007–1014. Instituto Botanico, Caracas.Google Scholar
  49. — 1987. Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana—II. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 74: 85–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Takhtajan, A. 1986. Floristic regions of the world. University of California Press, London.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, C. M. 1996. Overview of the Psychotrieae (Rubiaceae) in the Neotropics. Opera Bot. Belg. 7: 261–270.Google Scholar
  52. Verdcourt, B. 1953. A revision of certain African genera of herbaceous Rubiaceae. V. A revision of the genusPentas Bentham together with a key to related genera. Bull. Jard. Bot. Et. Brux. 23: 237–371.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden Press 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederic Piesschaert
    • 1
  • Steven Jansen
    • 1
  • Ivan Jaimes
    • 1
  • Elmar Robbrecht
    • 2
  • Erik Smets
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Plant Systematics, Institute of Botany and MicrobiologyCatholic University LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.National Botanic Garden of BelgiumMeiseBelgium

Personalised recommendations