Advertisement

The Botanical Review

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 225–359 | Cite as

Outline of the classification of flowering plants (magnoliophyta)

  • Armen L. Takhtajan
Interpreting Botanical Progress

Keywords

Botanical Review Flowering Plant Female Gametophyte Pollen Morphology Subsidiary Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Abbe, E. C. 1974. Flowers and inflorescences of the “Amentiferae.” Bot. Rev.40(2): 159–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agababian, V. Sh. 1961. Materials on the palynosystematic study of the family Saxifragaceae s.l. Izv. Armenian Acad. Sci., Biol. Sci.14(2): 45–61. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  3. —. 1964. Evolution of pollen grains in the orders Cunoniales and Saxifragales in relation to some problems in their systematics and phylogeny. Izv. Armenian Acad. Sci., Biol. Sci.17: 59–72. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  4. -. 1973. Pollen grains of primitive angiosperms. (In Russian). Erevan.Google Scholar
  5. Agarwal, S. 1963. Morphological and embryological studies in the family Olacaceae. I.Olax L. Phytomorphology13: 185–196.Google Scholar
  6. Airy Shaw, H. K. 1973. See Shaw, H. K. Airy.Google Scholar
  7. Alston, R. E. andB. L. Turner. 1963. Biochemical systematics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  8. Andrews, H. N. 1961. Studies in paleobotany. Wiley. New York and London.Google Scholar
  9. —. 1963. Early seed plants. Science142: 925–931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Avetisian, E. M. 1952. Pollen morphology of the Boraginaceae and its significance for the study of phylogeny of the family. Candidate’s thesis. Erevan. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  11. —. 1967. Morphology of pollen grains of the families Campanulaceae and allied families (Sphenocleaceae, Lobeliaceae, Cyphiaceae) in relation to their systematics and phylogeny. Trudy Bot. Inst. Armenian Acad. Sci.16: 5–41. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  12. -. 1973. Palynology of the order Campanulales s.l.In: Spores and pollen morphology of recent plants. (In Russian). Proc. 3rd Intern. Palynol. Conf., Acad. Sci.USSR, Leningrad, pp. 90–93.Google Scholar
  13. —. 1980. Palynomorphology of the family Calyceraceae.In: S. Zhilin (ed.). Systematics and evolution of higher plants, pp. 54–63. Nauka, Leningrad. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  14. Axelrod, D. I. 1952. A theory of angiosperm evolution. Evolution4: 29–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. —. 1970. Mesozoic palaeogeography and early angiosperm history. Bot. Rev.36: 277–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ayensu, E. S. 1968a. Comparative vegetative anatomy of the Stemonaceae (Roxburghiaceae). Bot. Gaz.129: 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. —. 1968b. The anatomy ofBarbaceniopsis, a new genus recently described in the Velloziaceae. Amer. J. Bot.55: 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. —. 1972. Dioscoreales.In: C. R. Metcalfe (ed.). Anatomy of the monocotyledons. VI. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Baas, P. 1972. Anatomical contributions to plant taxonomy II. The affinities ofHua Pierre andAfrostyrax Perkins et Gilg. Blumea20: 161–192.Google Scholar
  20. —. 1975. Vegetative anatomy and the affinities of Aquifoliaceae,Sphenostemon, Phelline, andOncotheca. Blumea22: 311–407.Google Scholar
  21. Badre, F., Th. Cadet, G. Cusset andM. Hideux. 1975. Position systematique, étude morphologique et palynologique du genreBerenice. Adansonia15: 135–146.Google Scholar
  22. Baehni, C. 1934. Revision du genreMollia Mart, et Zucc. Candollea5: 403–426.Google Scholar
  23. Bailey, I. W. 1956. Nodal anatomy in retrospect. J. Arnold Arbor.37(3): 269–287.Google Scholar
  24. — andR. A. Howard. 1941. The comparative morphology of the Icacinaceae. II. Vessels. IV. Rays of the secondary xylem. J. Arnold Arbor.22: 171–187, 556–568.Google Scholar
  25. — andC. G. Nast. 1943. The comparative morphology of the Winteraceae. I. Pollen and stamens. II. Carpels. J. Arnold Arbor.24: 340–346, 472–481.Google Scholar
  26. ——. 1945a. The comparative morphology of the Winteraceae. VII. Summary and conclusions. J. Arnold Arbor.26: 37–47.Google Scholar
  27. ——. 1945b. Morphology and relationships ofTrochodendron andTetracentron. I. Stem, root and leaf. J. Arnold Arbor.26: 143–154.Google Scholar
  28. —— andA. C. Smith. 1943. The family Himantandraceae. J. Arnold Arbor.24: 190–206.Google Scholar
  29. — andA. C. Smith. 1942. Degeneriaceae, a new family of flowering plants from Fiji. J. Arnold Arbor.23: 356–365.Google Scholar
  30. — andB. G. L. Swamy. 1951. The conduplicate carpel of dicotyledons and its initial trends of specialization. Amer. J. Bot.38: 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Baillon, B. M. 1867–1895. Histoire de plantes. Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Bancroft, H. 1933. A contribution to the geological history of the Dipterocarpaceae. Förh. Geol. Fören. Stockholm55: 59–100.Google Scholar
  33. —. 1935. The taxonomic history and geographical distribution of the Monotoideae. Amer. J. Bot.22: 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Baranova, M. A. 1972. Systematic anatomy of the leaf epidermis in the Magnoliaceae and some related families. Taxon21: 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. —. 1975. Stomatographic investigation of the family Flagellariaceae. Bot. Zhurn.60: 1690–1697. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  36. —. 1980. Comparative-stomatographic investigation of the families Buxaceae and Simmondsiaceae.In: S. Zhilin, (ed.). Systematics and evolution of higher plants, pp. 68–75. Nauka, Leningrad. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  37. Basak, R. andK. Subramanyan. 1966. Pollen grains of some species ofNepenthes. Phytomorphology16: 334–338.Google Scholar
  38. Bate-Smith, E. C., I. K. Ferguson, K. Hutson, S. R. Jensen, B. J. Nielsen andT. Swain. 1975. Phytochemical interrelationships in the Cornaceae. Biochem. Syst. Ecol.3: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Battaglia, E. andE. J. Boyes. 1955. Post-reductional meiosis: its mechanism and causes. Caryologia8: 87–134.Google Scholar
  40. Bausch, J. 1938. A revision of the Eucryphiaceae. Kew Bull.8: 317–349.Google Scholar
  41. Behnke, H.-D. 1971a. Phytoferritin in sieve-tube plastids. Naturwissenschaften58: 151–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. —. 1971b. Zum Feinbau der Siebröhren-Plastiden vonAristolochia undAsarum (Aristolochiaceae). Planta97: 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. —. 1971c. Sieve-tube plastids of Magnoliidae and Ranunculidae in relation to systematics. Taxon20(5-6): 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. —. 1971d. Über den Feinbau verdicker (nacré) Wande und der Plastiden in den Siebrohren vonAnnona undMyristica. Protoplasma72: 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. —. 1972. Sieve-element plastids in relation to angiosperm systematics—an attempt towards a classification by ultrastructural analysis. Bot. Rev.38: 155–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. —. 1973. Sieve-tube plastids of Hamamelididae. Electron microscopic investigation with special reference to Urticales. Taxon22: 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. —. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phytogeny: ultrastructure. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. —. 1976a. Ultrastructure of sieve-element plastids in Caryophyllales (Centrospermae), evidence for the delimitation and classification of the order. Pl. Syst. Evol.126: 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. —. 1976b. Sieve element plastids ofFouquieria, Frankenia andRhabdodendron. Taxon25: 265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. —. 1977a. Transmission electron microscopy and systematics of flowering plants. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 155–178.Google Scholar
  51. —. 1977b. Zur Skulptur der Pollen-Exine bei drei Centrospermen (Gisekia, Limeum, Hectorella), bei Gyrostemonaceen und Rhabdodendraceen. Pl. Syst. Evol.128: 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. — andB. L. Turner. 1971. On specific sieve-tube plastids in Caryophyllales. Further investigations with special reference to the Bataceae. Taxon20(5-6): 731–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. — andR. Dahlgren. 1976. The distribution of characters within an angiosperm system. 2. Sieve-element plastids. Bot. Not.129: 287–295.Google Scholar
  54. Bensel, C. R. andB. F. Palser. 1975. Floral anatomy in the Saxifragaceae s.l. II. Saxifragoideae and Iteoideae. Amer. J. Bot.62: 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Benson, M. J. 1904.Telangium scottii, a new species ofTelangium (Calymmatotheca) showing structure. Ann. Bot.13: 161–177.Google Scholar
  56. Bentham, G. and J. D. Hooker. 1862–1883. Genera Plantarum. I-III. London.Google Scholar
  57. Benzing, D. H. 1967. Developmental patterns in stem primary xylem of woody Ranales. Amer. J. Bot.54: 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Berg, C. C. 1977. Urticales, their differentiation and systematic position. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 349–374.Google Scholar
  59. —. 1978. Cecropiaceae, a new family of the Urticales. Taxon27: 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Berg, R. Y. 1960. Ovary, ovule, and endosperm ofCalochortus amabilis. With notes on the taxonomic position ofCalochortus. Nytt. Mag. Bot.8: 189–206.Google Scholar
  61. —. 1962. Contribution to the comparative embryology of the Liliaceae:Scoliopus, Trillium, Paris, andMedeola. Skr. Norske Vidensk.-Akad. Oslo, I. Mat.-Naturvidensk. Kl. Ny Ser.4: 1–64.Google Scholar
  62. Berger, A. 1930. Crassulaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl, Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien,18a: 352–483, 487.Google Scholar
  63. Bessey, C. E. 1897. Phylogeny and taxonomy of the angiosperms. Bot. Gaz.24: 145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. —. 1915. The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.2: 109–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Bews, J. W. 1927. Studies in the ecological evolution of the angiosperms. New Phytol.26: 1–21; 65–84; 129–148; 209–248; 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Bhatnagar, A. K. andM. Garg. 1977. Affinities of Daphniphyllum—palynological approach. Phytomorphology27: 92–97.Google Scholar
  67. Bierhorst, D. W. 1971. Morphology of vascular plants. Macmillan. New York.Google Scholar
  68. Björnstad, I. N. 1970. Comparative embryology of Asparagoideae-Polygonateae, Liliaceae. Nytt Mag. Bot.17: 169–207.Google Scholar
  69. Blunden, G., R. Hardman andF. J. Hind. 1971. The comparative morphology and anatomy ofDioscorea sylvatica Eckl. from Natal and the Transvaal. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.64: 431–446.Google Scholar
  70. — andK. Jewers. 1973. The comparative leaf anatomy ofAgave, Beschornia, Doryanthes andFucraea species (Agavaceae: Agaveae). J. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.66: 157–179.Google Scholar
  71. Boureau, E. 1958. Contribution à l’étude anatomique des espèces actuelles de Rhopalocarpaceae. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris)30: 213–221.Google Scholar
  72. Brenan, J. P. M. 1966. The classification of Commelinaceae. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.59: 349–370.Google Scholar
  73. Brewbaker, J. L. 1967. The distribution and phylogenetic significance of binucleate and trinucleate pollen grains in the angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot.54: 1069–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Briggs, B. G. andL. A. S. Johnson. 1979. Evolution in the Myrtaceae—evidence from inflorescence structure. Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales102: 157–256.Google Scholar
  75. Bronckers, F. andF. Stainer. 1972. Contribution à l’étude morphologique du pollen de la famille des Stylidiaceae. Grana12: 1–22.Google Scholar
  76. Brown, S. C. 1976. Biochemistry ofSimmondsia chinensis. M.A. Thesis, Claremont Grad. School, Claremont, Calif.Google Scholar
  77. Brown, W. H. 1938. The bearing of nectaries on the phylogeny of flowering plants. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc.79: 549–595.Google Scholar
  78. Brunner, F. andD. Fairbrothers. 1978. A comparative serological investigation within the Cornales. Serol. Mus. Bull.53: 2–5.Google Scholar
  79. ——. 1979. Serological investigation of the Corylaceae. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club106(2): 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Buchenau, F. 1871. Kleinere Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Juncaceen. Abh. Naturwiss. Vereine Bremen II.Google Scholar
  81. Bugnon, P. 1922. Sur la position systématique des Euphorbiacées. Compte. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.175: 629–632.Google Scholar
  82. Burkill, I. H. 1951. Dioscoreaceae.In: Flora Malesiana. Series I. Vol. 4, part 3, pp. 293–335.Google Scholar
  83. —. 1960. The organography and evolution of Dioscoreaceae, the family of yams. J. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.56: 319–412.Google Scholar
  84. Burtt, B. L. 1977. Classification above the genus, as exemplified by Gesneriaceae, with parallels from other groups. Pl. Syst. Evol. Suppl.1: 97–109.Google Scholar
  85. Buxbaum, F. 1954. Morphologie der Blüte und Frucht vonAlstroemeria und der Anschluss der Alstroemerioideen bei den echten Liliaceen. Oesterr. Bot. Z.101: 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. —. 1959. Beiträge zur Morphologie der GattungTricyrtis. Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen35: 55–75.Google Scholar
  87. Calestani, V. 1905. Contributo alla sistematica delle Ombrellifere d’Europa. Webbia1: 89–280.Google Scholar
  88. Camp, W. H. andM. M. Hubbard. 1963. On the origin of the ovule and cupule in Lyginopterid pteridosperms. Amer. J. Bot.50: 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Campbell, D. H. 1930. The relationships ofPaulownia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club57: 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Canright, J. E. 1952. The comparative morphology and relationships of the Magnoliaceae. I. Trends of specialization in the stamens. Amer. J. Bot.39: 484–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. —. 1955. The comparative morphology and relationships of the Magnoliaceae. IV. Wood and nodal anatomy. J. Arnold Arbor.36: 119–140.Google Scholar
  92. Capuron, R. 1962. Révision des Rhopalocarpacées. Adansonia Sér. 2,2: 228–267.Google Scholar
  93. —. 1963. Contribution à l’étude de la flore à Madagascar. Adansonia, Sér. 2,3(3): 370–400.Google Scholar
  94. —. 1965. Description des fruits deDiegodendron humbertii R. Capuron (Diegodendracées). Adansonia, Sér. 2,5(4): 503–505.Google Scholar
  95. —. 1968. Sur le genrePhysena Noronh. ex Thouars. Adansonia, Sér. 2,8(3): 355–357.Google Scholar
  96. —. 1969. Contribution à l’étude de la flore forestière de Madagascar. Sur la place du genreKaliphora Kook. f. Adansonia, Sér. 2,9(3): 395–397.Google Scholar
  97. —. 1970. Observations sur les Sarcolaenacées. Adansonia, Sér. 2,10: 247–265.Google Scholar
  98. Carlquist, S. 1964. Pollen morphology of Sarcolaenaceae (Chlaenaceae). Brittonia16: 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. —. 1966. Anatomy of Rapateaceae—roots and stems. Phytomorphology16: 17–38.Google Scholar
  100. —. 1969. Rapateaceae.In: C. R. Metcalfe (ed.). Anatomy of the monocotyledons. III. Commelinales-Zingiberales: 130–145. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  101. —. 1975. Ecological strategies of xylem evolution. U. of Calif. Press. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  102. —. 1976a. Wood anatomy of Roridulaceae: ecological and phylogenetic implications. Amer. J. Bot.63: 1003–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. —. 1976b. Wood anatomy of Byblidaceae. Bot. Gaz.137: 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. —. 1976c. Wood anatomy and relationships of the Geissolomataceae. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club102: 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. —. 1977a. Wood anatomy of Tremandraceae: phylogenetic and ecological implications. Amer. J. Bot.64: 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. —. 1977b. Wood anatomy of Grubbiaceae. J. S. African Bot.43: 129–144.Google Scholar
  107. —. 1978. Wood anatomy and relationships of Bataceae, Gyrostemonaceae, and Stylobasiaceae. Allertonia1: 297–330.Google Scholar
  108. — andL. DeBuhr. 1977. Wood anatomy of Penaeaceae (Myrtales): comparative, phylogenetic and ecological implications. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.75: 211–227.Google Scholar
  109. Carolin, R. C. 1959. Floral structure and anatomy in the family Goodeniaceae Dumort. Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales84: 242–255.Google Scholar
  110. —. 1960. The structures involved in the presentation of pollen to visiting insects in the order Campanales. Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales85: 197–207.Google Scholar
  111. —. 1966. Seeds and fruits of the Goodeniaceae. Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales91: 58–83.Google Scholar
  112. —. 1978. The systematic relationships ofBrunonia. Brunonia1: 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Carpenter, C. S. andW. C. Dickison. 1976. The morphology and relationships ofOncotheca balansae. Bot. Gaz.137: 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Casper, S. J. 1963. Systematisch massgebende Merkmale für die Einordnung der Lentibulariaceae in das System. Oesterr. Bot. Z.110: 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Cavaco, A. 1952. Recherches sur les Chlaenaceae, famille endémique de Madagascar. Mém. Inst. Sci.Madagascar, Sér. B,4: 59–92.Google Scholar
  116. Cave, M. S. 1948. Sporogenesis and embryo sac development ofHesperocallis andLeucocrinum in relation to their systematic position. Amer. J. Bot.35: 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. —. 1955. Sporogenesis and the female gametophyte ofPhormium tenax. Phytomorphology5: 247–253.Google Scholar
  118. —. 1967. [1968]. The megagametophyte ofAndrocymbium. Phytomorphology17: 233–239.Google Scholar
  119. —. 1970. Chromosomes of the California Liliaceae. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot.57: 1–48.Google Scholar
  120. —,H. J. Arnott andS. A. Cook. 1961. Embryogeny in the California Peonies with reference to their taxonomic position. Amer. J. Bot.48: 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Chanda, S. 1966. On the pollen morphology of the Centrolepidaceae, Restionaceae, and Flagellariaceae, with special reference to taxonomy. Grana Palynol.6: 355–415.Google Scholar
  122. — andK. Ghash. 1976. Pollen morphology and its evolutionary significance in Xanthorroeaceae.In: I. K. Ferguson and J. Muller (eds.). The evolutionary significance of the exine. pp. 527–559. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  123. Chang, Tsin-tan. 1964. Pollen morphology of Hamamelidaceae and Altingiaceae. Acta Inst. Bot. Komarovii, Ser. 1,13: 172–227. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  124. Chapman, J. L. 1966. Comparative palynology in Campanulaceae. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci.69(3-4): 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Charlten, W. A. andA. Ahmed. 1973. Studies in the Alismataceae. IV. Developmental morphology ofRanalisma humile and comparisons with two members of the Butomaceae,Hydrocleis nymphoides andButomus umbellatus. Canad. J. Bot.51: 899–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Chaudhuri, S. K. andM. Mallik. 1965. Pollen morphological studies of the order Malvales. Bull. Bot. Soc. Bengal19: 32–36.Google Scholar
  127. Cheadle, V. I. 1942. The occurrence and types of vessels in the various organs of the plant in the Monocotyledoneae. Amer. J. Bot.29: 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. —. 1955. The taxonomic use of specialization of vessels in the metaxylem of Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Juncaceae and Restionaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.36: 141–157.Google Scholar
  129. —. 1963. Vessels in Iridaceae. Phytomorphology13: 245–248.Google Scholar
  130. —. 1968 [1969]. Vessels in Haemodorales. Phytomorphology18: 412–420.Google Scholar
  131. —. 1969. Vessels in Amaryllidaceae and Tecophilaeaceae. Phytomorphology19: 8–16.Google Scholar
  132. —. 1970. Vessels in Pontederiaceae, Ruscaceae, Smilacaceae and Trilliaceae.In: N. K. B. Robson, D. F. Cutler and M. Gregory (eds.). New research in plant anatomy, pp. 45–50. J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 63, Suppl. 1. Academic Press. London and New York.Google Scholar
  133. — andH. Kosakai. 1971. Vessels in Liliaceae. Phytomorphology21: 320–333.Google Scholar
  134. ——. 1972. Vessels in Cyperaceae. Bot. Gaz.133: 214–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. ——. 1973. Vessels in Juncales. I. Juncaceae and Thurniaceae. Phytomorphology23: 80–87.Google Scholar
  136. -and-. 1975. Vessels in Alstroemeriales.In: H. Y. Mohan Ram et al. (eds.). Form, structure and function in plants, pp. 292–299. Meerut.Google Scholar
  137. -and J. M. Tucker. 1961. Vessels and phylogeny of Monocotyledoneae.In: Recent advances in botany. From lectures and symposia presented to the IX International Botanical Congress in Montreal 1959,1: 161–165. Toronto.Google Scholar
  138. Chevalier, A. 1947. La famille des Huacaceae et ses affinités. Rev. Int. Bot. Appl. Agric. Trop.27 (No. 291-292): 26–29.Google Scholar
  139. Chupov, V. S. 1978. The comparative immunoelectrophoretic investigations of pollen proteins of some Amentiferous taxa. Bot. Zh. (Leningrad),63(11): 1579–1584. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  140. — andN. G. Cutjavina. 1978. Comparative immunoelectrophoretic study of proteins of seeds of the Liliaceae. Bot. Zh. (Leningrad)63(4): 473–493. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  141. -and -. 1980a. Serological studies in the order Liliales. Bot. Zh. (Leningrad).66 (in press). (In Russian).Google Scholar
  142. — andN. G. Cutjavina. 1980b. Phylogeny of some groups of Liliales based on the data of serological analysis.In: S. Zhilin (ed.). Systematics and evolution of higher plants. Nauka. Leningrad.Google Scholar
  143. Copeland, H. F. 1935. The structure of the flower ofPholisma arenarium. Amer. J. Bot.22: 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. —. 1941. Further studies in the Monotropoideae. Madrono6: 97–119.Google Scholar
  145. —. 1947. Observations on the structure and classification of the Pyroleae. Madroño9: 65–102.Google Scholar
  146. Corner, E. J. H. 1976. The seeds of dicotyledons. Vols. I., II. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  147. Coulter, J. M. 1914. The evolution of sex in plants. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.Google Scholar
  148. — andC. J. Chamberlain. 1903. Morphology of the angiosperms. Appleton, New York.Google Scholar
  149. Crété, P. 1951. Répartition et intérêt phylogénétique des albumens à formations haustoriales chez les Angiospermes et plus particulièrement chez Gamopétales. Ann. Sci. Nat., Sér. 2,12: 131–191.Google Scholar
  150. —. 1952. Contribution à l’étude embryologique des Datiscacées. Bull. Soc. Bot. France99: 152–156.Google Scholar
  151. Croizat, L. 1940. On the phylogeny of the Euphorbiaceae and some of their presumed allies. Revista Univ. Chile25: 205–220.Google Scholar
  152. -. 1960. Principia Botanica. 1a–1b. Codicote.Google Scholar
  153. Cronquist, A. 1957. Outline of a new system of families and orders of dicotyledons. Bull. Jard. Bot. Etat27(1): 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. —. 1965. The status of the general system of classification of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.52: 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. —. 1968. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. Nelson. London.Google Scholar
  156. —. 1969. Broad features of the system of angiosperms. Taxon18: 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. —. 1979. How to know the seed plants. Brown. Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
  158. Cuatrecasas, J. 1970. Brunelliaceae. Flora Neotropica Monograph No. 2. Hafner. Darien, Conn.Google Scholar
  159. Cutler, D. F. 1969. Juncales.In: C. R. Metcalfe (ed.). Anatomy of the monocotyledons. IV. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  160. — andH. K. Airy Shaw. (1965). Anarthriaceae and Ecdeiocoleaceae: Two new monocotyledonous families, separated from the Restionaceae. Kew Bull.19(3): 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Dahl, A. O. 1955. The pollen morphology of several genera excluded from the family Icacinaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.36: 159–163.Google Scholar
  162. — andJ. R. Rowley. 1965. Pollen ofDegeneria vitiensis. J. Arnold Arbor.46: 308–323.Google Scholar
  163. Dahlgren, R. 1975. A system of classification of the angiosperms to be used to demonstrate the distribution of characters. Bot. Not.128: 119–197.Google Scholar
  164. —. 1977a. A commentary on a diagrammatic presentation of the angiosperms in relation to the distribution of character states. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 253–283.Google Scholar
  165. —. 1977b. A note on the taxonomy of the “Sympetalae” and related groups. Publ. Cairo Univ. Herb.7-8: 83–102.Google Scholar
  166. —. 1980. A revised system of classification of the angiosperms. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.80: 91–124.Google Scholar
  167. —,S. R. Jensen andB. J. Nielsen. 1976. Iridoid compounds in Fouquieriaceae and notes on its possible affinities. Bot. Not.129: 207–212.Google Scholar
  168. ———. 1977. Seedling morphology and iridoid occurrence inMontinia caryophyllacea (Montiniaceae). Bot. Not.130: 329–332.Google Scholar
  169. —,B. J. Nielsen, P. Goldblatt andJ. P. Rourke. 1979. Further notes on Retziaceae: its chemical contents and affinities. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.66: 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. — andV. S. Rao. 1969. A study of the family Geissolomataceae. Bot. Not.122: 207–227.Google Scholar
  171. ——. 1971. The genusOftia Adans. and its systematic position. Bot. Not.124: 451–472.Google Scholar
  172. Dang-Van-Liem. 1962. Recherches sur l’embryogenie des Tricoques. Thèse. Paris.Google Scholar
  173. D’Arcy, W. G. andR. C. Keating. 1973. The affinities ofLithophytum: a transfer from Solanaceae to Verbenaceae. Brittonia25: 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. J. Murray. London.Google Scholar
  175. —. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. J. Murray. London (Second edition, 1874).Google Scholar
  176. —. 1876. The effects of cross and self fertilization in the vegetable kingdom. J. Murray. London.Google Scholar
  177. Datta, J. M. andJ. N. Mitra. 1947. The systematic position of the family Moringaceae based on a study ofMoringa pterygosperma Gaertn. (M. oleifera Lam.). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.47: 355–357.Google Scholar
  178. Daumann, E. 1965. Das Blüttennektarum bei den Pontederiaceen und die systematische Stellung dieser Familien. Preslia37: 407–412.Google Scholar
  179. —. 1970. Das Blütennektarum der Monocotyledonen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner systematischen und phylogenetischen Bedeutung. Feddes Repert.80: 463–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Davidson, C. 1973. An anatomical and morphological study ofDatiscaceae. Aliso8: 49–110.Google Scholar
  181. —. 1976. Anatomy of xylem and phloem of the Datiscaceae. Nat. Hist. Museum of Los Angeles County Contrib. Sci.280: 1–28.Google Scholar
  182. Davis, G. L. 1966. Systematic embryology of the angiosperm. Wiley & Sons. New York, London, Sydney.Google Scholar
  183. De Beer, G. R. 1954.Archaeopteryx lithographica. A study based upon the British Museum specimen. London: British Museum (Nat. Hist.).Google Scholar
  184. DeBuhr, L. E. 1975. Phylogenetic relationships of the Sarraceniaceae. Taxon24(2-3): 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Decker, J. M. 1966. Wood anatomy and phylogeny of Luxembergieae (Ochnaceae). Phytomorphology16(1): 39–55.Google Scholar
  186. —. 1967. Petiole vascularization of Luxembergieae (Ochnaceae). Amer. J. Bot.54: 1175–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Dehay, C. 1935. L’appareil libéro-ligneux foliaire des Euphorbiaceae. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris), Ser. 10,17: 147–290.Google Scholar
  188. —. 1942. L’appareil libéro-ligneux foliaire des Sterculiacées. Bull. Soc. Bot. France89: 76–78.Google Scholar
  189. —. 1957. Anatomie comparée de la feuille des Chlaenacées. Mem. Inst. Sci. Madagascar, Sér. B,8: 145–203.Google Scholar
  190. Delpino, F. 1871. Studi sopra un lignaggio anemofilo della Compositae. Firenze.Google Scholar
  191. -. 1875. Ulteriori osservazioni sulla dicogamia nel regno vegetale. Atti Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. 11, 12.Google Scholar
  192. DeWilde, W. J. J. O. 1971. The systematic position of the tribe Paropsieae, in particular the genusAncistrothyrsis, and a key to the genera of Passifloraceae. Blumea19: 99–104.Google Scholar
  193. Dhillon, M. 1976. Vascular anatomy of the flower ofKrameria parvifolia var.glandulosa Macbr. and its bearing on its taxonomic status. J. Res.13(2): 197–201.Google Scholar
  194. Dickison, W. C. 1967. Comparative morphological studies in Dilleniaceae. I. Wood anatomy. J. Arnold Arbor.48: 1–29.Google Scholar
  195. —. 1967. Comparative morphological studies in Dilleniaceae. II. Pollen. J. Arnold Arbor.48: 231–240.Google Scholar
  196. —. 1971. Anatomical studies in the Connaraceae. I. Carpels. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.87: 77–80.Google Scholar
  197. —. 1972a. Observations on the floral morphology of some species ofSaurauia, Actinidia, andClematoclethra. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.88: 43–54.Google Scholar
  198. —. 1972b. Anatomical studies in the Connaraceae. II. Wood anatomy. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.88: 120–136.Google Scholar
  199. —. 1973. Anatomical studies in the Connaraceae. III. Leaf anatomy. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.89: 121–138.Google Scholar
  200. —. 1975. Studies on the floral anatomy of the Cunoniaceae. Amer. J. Bot.62: 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. —. 1978. Comparative anatomy of Eucryphiaceae. Amer. J. Bot.65: 722–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. — andP. Baas. 1977. The morphology and relationships ofParacryphia (Paracryphiaceae). Blumea23: 417–438.Google Scholar
  203. — andE. M. Sweitzer. 1970. The morphology and relationships ofBarbeya oleoides. Amer. J. Bot.57: 468–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Diels, L. 1916. Käferblumen bei den Ranales and ihre Bedeutung für die Phylogenie der Angiospermen. Ber. Dt. Bot. Ges.34: 758–774.Google Scholar
  205. -. 1930. Roridulaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl. Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien.18a: 346–348.Google Scholar
  206. Ding Hou. 1972. Germination, seedling, and chromosome number ofScyphostegia borneensis Stapf (Scyphostegiaceae). Blumea20: 88–92.Google Scholar
  207. Dollo, L. 1893. Les lois de l’évolution. Bull. Soc. Belg. Géol.7: 164–166.Google Scholar
  208. Domin, K. 1922. Byblidaceae, a new archychlamydous family. Acta Bot. Bohemica1: 3–4.Google Scholar
  209. Don, D. 1828. Descriptions ofColumellia, Tovaria, andFrancoa; with remarks on their affinities. Edinburgh New Philos.J. 1828–1829: 46–53.Google Scholar
  210. Doyle, J. A. 1969. Cretaceous angiosperm pollen of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and its evolutionary significance. J. Arnold Arbor.50: 1–35.Google Scholar
  211. -and L. J. Hickey. 1976. Pollen and leaves from the Mid-Cretaceous Potomac Group and their bearing on early angiosperm evolution.In: C. B. Beck (ed.). Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. New York. pp. 139–206.Google Scholar
  212. Drugg, W. S. 1962. Pollen morphology of the Lennoaceae. Amer. J. Bot.49: 1027–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Duigan, S. L. 1961. Studies of the pollen grains of plants native to Victoria, Australia. 1: Goodeniaceae (including Brunoniaceae). Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria N.S.74: 87–109.Google Scholar
  214. Dunbar, A. 1975. On pollen of Campanulaceae and related families with special reference to the surface ultrastructure. Bot. Not.128(1): 73–101.Google Scholar
  215. Eames, A. J. 1931. The vascular anatomy of the flower with refutation of the theory of carpel polymorphism. Amer. J. Bot.18: 147–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. —. 1961. Morphology of the angiosperms. McGraw-Hill. New York, Toronto, London.Google Scholar
  217. Eber, E. 1934. Karpellbau und Plazentationsverhältnisse in der Reiche der Helobiae. Flora127: 273–330.Google Scholar
  218. Eckardt, T. 1937. Untersuchungen über Morphologie, Entwicklungsgeschichte und systematische Bedeutung des pseudomonomeren Gynoeceums. Nova Acta Leopold. Carol., N.F.5: 1–112.Google Scholar
  219. —. 1938. Das pseudomonomeren Gynoeceum. Chron. Bot.4: 206–208.Google Scholar
  220. —. 1967a. Blütenbau und Blütenwicklung vonDysphania myriocephala Benth. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.86: 20–37.Google Scholar
  221. —. 1967b. Zur Blütenmorphologie vonDysphania plantaginella F. v. M. Phytomorphology17: 165–172.Google Scholar
  222. —. 1967c. Vergleich vonDysphania mitChenopodium und mit Illecebraceae. Bauhinia3: 327–344.Google Scholar
  223. Edwards, J. M., J. A. Churchill andU. Weiss. 1970. A chemical contribution to the taxonomic status ofLophiola americana. Phytochemistry9: 1563–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. Ehrendorfer, F. 1971. Samenpflanzen.In: Strasburger’s Lehrbuch der Botanik. 30 Auflage. Stuttgart, New York. (1978. 31 Auflage).Google Scholar
  225. Eichler, A. W. 1875. Blüthendiagramme. I-II. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  226. El-Hamidi, A. 1952. Vergleichend-morphologische Untersuchungen am Gynoecium der Unterfamilien Melanthioideae und Asphodeloideae der Liliaceae. Arl. Inst. Allgem. Bot. Univ. Zürich, ser. A,4: 1–49.Google Scholar
  227. Endlicher, S. 1841. Enchiridion botanicum. Leipzig, Viennae.Google Scholar
  228. Endlicher, S. L. 1836–1840. Genera plantarum. Wien.Google Scholar
  229. Endress, P. K. 1967. Systematische Studie über die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Hamamelidaceen und Betulaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.87: 431–525.Google Scholar
  230. —. 1972. Zur vergleichenden Entwicklungsmorphologie, Embryologie und Systematik bei Laurales. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.92(2/3): 331–428.Google Scholar
  231. —. 1977. Evolutionary trends in the Hamamelidales-Fagales group. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 321–347.Google Scholar
  232. Engler, A. 1893. Icacinaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl (eds.). Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, 3,5: 233–257.Google Scholar
  233. -. 1930. Saxifragaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl (eds.). Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Aufl. 2, 189.Google Scholar
  234. Eramian, E. N. 1971. Palynological data on systematics and phylogeny of the Cornaceae Dumort. and related families.In: L. A. Kuprianova and M. S. Yakovlev (eds.). Morphology of the pollen of Cucurbitaceae, Thymelaeaceae, Cornaceae. Izd. “Nauka”. Leningradskoe Otdel. Leningrad. Pp. 235–273. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  235. Erdtman, G. 1944. Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy. II. Notes on some monocotyledonous pollen types. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.38(2): 163–168.Google Scholar
  236. —. 1952. Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy. Angiosperms. Almqvist & Wiksell. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  237. —,P. Leins, R. Melville andC. R. Metcalfe. 1969. On the relationships ofEmblingia. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.62: 169–186.Google Scholar
  238. — andC. R. Metcalfe. 1963. Affinities of certain genera incertae sedis suggested by pollen morphology and vegetative anatomy. Kew Bull.17: 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. Eyde, R. H. 1963. Morphological and palaeobotanical studies of the Nyssaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.44: 1–59, 328–376.Google Scholar
  240. —. 1966. Systematic anatomy of the flower and fruit ofCorokia. Amer. J. Bot.53: 833–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. —. 1967. The peculiar gynoecial vasculature of Cornaceae and its systematic significance. Phytomorphology17: 172–182.Google Scholar
  242. —. 1968. Flowers, fruits and phylogeny of Alangiaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.49: 167–192.Google Scholar
  243. —,D. H. Nicolson andP. Sherwin. 1967. A survey of floral anatomy in Araceae. Amer. J. Bot.54: 478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Faegri, K. andL. van der Pijl. 1979. The principles of pollination ecology. 3rd revised ed. Pergamon. Oxford.Google Scholar
  245. Fagerlind, F. 1947. Die systematische Stellung der Familie Grubbiaceae. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.41: 315–320.Google Scholar
  246. —. 1948. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Gynäceummorphologie und Phylogenie der Santalales-Familien. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.42: 195–229.Google Scholar
  247. Fahn, A. 1954a. Anatomical structure of Xanthorrhoeaceae Dumort. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.55: 158–184.Google Scholar
  248. —. 1954b. Metaxylem elements in some families of the Monocotyledoneae. New Phytol.53: 530–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. —. 1974. Plant anatomy. 2nd ed. Pergamon. Oxford.Google Scholar
  250. Fenzl, E. 1841. Die GattungTetradiclis Steven und ihre Stellung im naturlichen Systeme. Linnaea15: 289–299.Google Scholar
  251. Ferguson, I. K. 1977. Cornaceae. World pollen and spore flora6: 1–34, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  252. -and M. J. Hideux. 1980. Some aspects of the pollen morphology and its taxonomic significance in Cornaceae sens. lat.In: Proc. IV Internat. Palynol. Conf. Lucknow, India (in press).Google Scholar
  253. Forman, L. L. 1966. The reinstatement ofGalearia Zoll, et Mor. andMicrodesmis Hook. f. in Pandaceae. Kew Bull.20: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. Foster, A. S. andE. M. Gifford. 1974. Comparative morphology of vascular plants. 2nd ed. Freeman. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  255. Friedrich, H. C. 1956. Stüdien über die natürliche Verwandschaft der Plumbaginales und Centrospermae. Phyton (Austria)6: 220–263.Google Scholar
  256. Frohne, D. andJ. John. 1978. The Primulales: serological contributions to the problem of their systematic position. Biochem. Syst. Ecol.6: 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. Fryns-Claessens, E. andW. Van Cotthem. 1973. A new classification of the ontogenetic types of stomata. Bot. Rev.39: 71–138.Google Scholar
  258. Fryxell, P. A. 1968. A redefinition of the tribe Gossypeae. Bot. Gaz.129: 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. Fuchs, H. P. 1967. Pollen morphology of the family Bombacaceae. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.3: 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  260. Fukuoka, N. 1972. Taxonomic study of the Caprifoliaceae. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyoto Univ. Ser. Biol.6: 15–58.Google Scholar
  261. Fulvio, T. E. di andM. S. Cave. 1965. Embryology ofBlanfordia nobilis Smith (Liliaceae), with special reference to its taxonomic position. Phytomorphology14(4): 487–499.Google Scholar
  262. Garay, L. A. 1960. On the origin of the Orchidaceae. Bot. Mus. Leafl.19: 57–96.Google Scholar
  263. García, V. 1962. Embryological studies on the Loasaceae with special reference to the endosperm haustoria.In: Plant embryology. A symposium. Pp. 157–161. CSIR. New Delhi.Google Scholar
  264. Gaussen, H. 1946. Les gymnospermes actuelles et fossiles. Toulouse.Google Scholar
  265. Gerasimova-Navashina, E. N. 1958. On the gametophyte and on the salient features of development and functioning of reproducing elements in angiospermous plants. (In Russian).In: Probl. Bot. (Leningrad)3: 125–167.Google Scholar
  266. Ghiselin, M. T. 1969. The triumph of the Darwinian method. University of California Press. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  267. Gibbs, R. D. 1974. Chemotaxonomy of flowering plants. Vols.I-IV. McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press. Montreal and London.Google Scholar
  268. Gisin, H. 1967. La systématique idéale. Z. Zool. Syst. Evolut.-forsch.5: 111–128.Google Scholar
  269. Gobi, C. 1916. A review of the system of plants. Petrograd. (In Russian with French summary).Google Scholar
  270. —. 1921. Classification génétique des fruits des plantes angiospermes. Ann. Inst. d’essais de semences au Jard. Impér. Princ. bot. Pierre le Grand 4,4: 5–30. (In Russian with French summary).Google Scholar
  271. Goebel, K. 1933. Organographie der Pflanzen. III. Fischer. Jena.Google Scholar
  272. Gottsberger, G. 1970. Beiträge zur Biologie von Annonaceen-Blüten. Oesterr. Bot. Z.118: 237–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  273. Gottwald, H. andN. Parameswaran. 1966. Das sekundäre Xylem der Familie Dipterocarpaceae, anatomische Untersuchungen zur Taxonomie und Phylogenie. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.85: 410–508.Google Scholar
  274. ——. 1967. Beiträge zur Anatomie und Systematik der Quiinaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.87(3): 361–381.Google Scholar
  275. Gundersen, A. 1950. Families of dicotyledons. Chronica Botanica Co. Waltham, Mass.Google Scholar
  276. Gzyrian, M. S. 1952. The family Salicaceae and its place in the system of angiosperms on the basis of the wood anatomy. Candidate’s Thesis. Erevan. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  277. —. 1955. Intergeneric relationships in the Salicaceae. Dokl. Armenian Acad. Sci.105(4): 832–834. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  278. Haines, R. W. andK. A. Lye. 1975. Seedlings of Nymphaeaceae. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.70: 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. Hallier, H. 1901. Über die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Tubifloren und Ebenalen, den polyphyletischen Ursprung der Sympetalen und Apetalen und die Anordnung der Angiospermen Überhaupt. Vorstudien zum Entwurf eines Stammbaums der Blütenpflanzen. Abh. Naturwiss. Naturwiss. Verein Hamburg16(2): 1–112.Google Scholar
  280. -. 1902. Beiträge zur Morphogenie der Sporophylle und des Trophophylle in Beziehung zur Phylogenie der Kormophyten. Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. XIX, 3. Beiheft, 1–110.Google Scholar
  281. —. 1903a. Vorläufiger Entwurf des naturlichen (phylogenetischen) Systems der Blütenpflanzen. Bull. Herb. Boissier II,3: 306–317.Google Scholar
  282. —. 1903b. Über die Abgrenzung und Verwandschaft der einzelnen Sippen bei den Scrophularineen. Bull. Herb. Boissier II,3(2): 181–207.Google Scholar
  283. —. 1904. Über die GattungDaphniphyllum, ein Übergangsglied von den Magnoliaceen und Hamamelidaceen zu den Katzchenblüthlern. Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) XVIII,207: 55–69.Google Scholar
  284. —. 1905. Provisional scheme of the natural (phylogenetic) system of flowering plants. New Phytol.4: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  285. —. 1908. ÜberJuliania, eine Terebinthaceen-Gattung mit Cupula, und die wahren Stammeltern der Katzchenblüthler. Neue Beitrage zur Stammesgeschichte nebst einer Übersicht über das natürliche System der Dicotyledonen. C. Heinrich. Dresden.Google Scholar
  286. —. 1911. Über Phanerogamen von unsicherer oder unrichtiger Stellung. Meded. Rijks-Herb.1: 1–41.Google Scholar
  287. —. 1912. L’origine et le système phylétique des Angiosperms exposés à l’aide de leur arbre généalogique. Arch. Néerl. Sci. Exact. Nat. Ser. 3,1: 146–234.Google Scholar
  288. —. 1923. Über die Lennoeen. Beih. Bot. Centralbl.40: 1–19.Google Scholar
  289. Hamann, U. 1961. Merkmalsbestand und Verwandtschaftbeziehungen der “Farinosae.” Willdenowia3: 169–207.Google Scholar
  290. —. 1962a. Beitrag zur Embryologie der Centrolepidaceae mit Bemerkungen über den Bau der Blüten und Blütenstände und die systematische Stellung der Familie. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.75: 153–171.Google Scholar
  291. —. 1962b. Weiteres über Merkmalsbestand und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der “Farinosae.” Willdenowia3: 196–307.Google Scholar
  292. —. 1963. Über die Entwicklung und den Bau des Spaltöffnungsapparats der Centrolepidaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.82: 316–320.Google Scholar
  293. -. 1964. Embryologie und Systematik am Beispiel der Farinosae. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges.77, Generalversammlungsheft:(45)-(54).Google Scholar
  294. —. 1966. Embryologische, morphologisch-anatomische und systematische Untersuchungen an Philydraceen. Willdenowia Beiheft4: 1–178.Google Scholar
  295. —. 1975. Neue Untersuchungen zur Embryologie und Systematik der Centrolepidaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.96: 154–191.Google Scholar
  296. —. 1976. Hydatellaceae—a new family of Monocotyledoneae. New Zealand J. Bot.14: 193–196.Google Scholar
  297. Hartley, Th. G. 1969. A revision of the genusFlindersia (Rutaceae). J. Arnold Arbor.50: 481–526.Google Scholar
  298. Hartog, C. den. 1970.Ondinea, a new genus of Nymphaeaceae. Blumea18: 413–416.Google Scholar
  299. —,T. van Tholen andP. Baas. 1978. Epidermal characters of the Celastraceae sensu lato. Acta Bot. Neerl.27: 355–388.Google Scholar
  300. Harvey-Gibson, R. I. 1909. A classification of fruits on a physiological basis. Trans. Liverpool Bot. Soc.1: 1–15.Google Scholar
  301. Hawkes, J. G. andW. G. Tucker. 1968. Serological assessment of relationships in a flowering plant family (Solanaceae). Pp. 77–88in: Chemotaxonomy and serotaxonomy, Syst. Ass. Special Vol.2, J. G. Hawkes, ed. Academic Press. London, New York.Google Scholar
  302. Hayden, W. J. 1977. Comparative anatomy and systematics ofPicrodendron, genus incertae sedis. J. Arnold Arbor.58: 257–279.Google Scholar
  303. Heel, W. A. van. 1966. Morphology of the androecium in Malvales. Blumea13: 177–394.Google Scholar
  304. —. 1967. Anatomical and ontogenetic investigations on the morphology of the flowers and the fruit ofScyphostegia borneensis Stapf (Scyphostegiaceae). Blumea15: 107–125.Google Scholar
  305. Hegnauer, R. 1965. Chemismus und systematische Stellung der Cornaceae. Pp. 235–246in: Beiträge zur Biochemie und Physiologie von Naturstoffen. Festschrift Kurt Mothes zum 65 Geburtstag. G. Fischer. Jena.Google Scholar
  306. —. 1966. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Vol. 4. Birkhäuser. Basel.Google Scholar
  307. —. 1969. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Vol. 5. Birkhäuser. Basel.Google Scholar
  308. Heinig, K. H. 1951. Studies in the floral morphology of the Thymelaeaceae. Amer. J. Bot.38: 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  309. Henderson, M. W. 1919. A comparative study of the structure and saprophytism of the Pyrolaceae and Monotropaceae, with reference to their derivation from the Ericaceae. Contr. Bot. Lab. Morris Arbor. Univ. Pennsylvania5: 42–109.Google Scholar
  310. Henslow, G. 1888. The origin of floral structures through insect and other agencies. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner. London.Google Scholar
  311. Heydacker, F. 1963. Les types polliniques dans la famille des Cistaceae. Pollen & Spores7: 303–312.Google Scholar
  312. Hickey, L. J. 1971. Evolutionary significance of leaf architectural features in the woody dicots. Amer. J. Bot.58: 469 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  313. — andJ. A. Doyle. 1972. Fossil evidence on evolution of angiosperm leaf venation. Amer. J. Bot.59: 661 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  314. Hideux, M. 1973. Apport du microscope électronique à balayage à la palynologie structurale Saxifragacées ligneuses australes. Thèse. Paris.Google Scholar
  315. Hideux, M. J. andI. K. Ferguson. 1976. The stereostructure of the exine and its evolutionary significance in Saxifragaceae sensu lato.In: I. K. Ferguson and J. Muller (eds.). The evolutionary significance of the exine, pp. 327–377. Academic Press. London.Google Scholar
  316. Hiepko, P. 1965a. Das zentrifugale Androeceum der Paeoniaceae. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.77(1964): 427–435.Google Scholar
  317. —. 1965b. Vergleichend-morphologische und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen über das Perianth bei den Polycarpicae. I. und II. Teil. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.84: 359–508.Google Scholar
  318. —. 1966. Zur Morphologie, Anatomie und Funktion des Diskus der Paeoniaceae. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.79(5): 233–245.Google Scholar
  319. Hillebrand, G. R. andD. E. Fairbrothers. 1970. Serological investigation of the systematic position of the Caprifoliaceae. I. Correspondence with selected Rubiaceae and Cornaceae. Amer. J. Bot.57: 810–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  320. Hofmann, U. 1973. Morphologische Untersuchungen zur Umgrenzung und Gliederung der Aizoaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.93(2): 247–324.Google Scholar
  321. —. 1977. Die Stellung vonStegnosperma innerhalb der Centrospermen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.90: 39–52.Google Scholar
  322. Holm, L. 1969. An uredinological approach to some problems in angiosperm taxonomy. Nytt Mag. Bot.16(2): 147–150.Google Scholar
  323. -. 1979. Some problems in angiosperm taxonomy in the light of the rust data.In: I. Hedberg, (ed.). Parasites as plant taxonomists. Symb. Bot. Ups.XXII (4).Google Scholar
  324. Hooker, J. 1887.Lophopyxis. Hooker’s Icon.Pl. 18: t. 1714.Google Scholar
  325. Houlbert, C. 1893. Recherches sur la structure comparée du bois secondaires dans les Apétales. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris), 7 sér., Bot.17: 1–183.Google Scholar
  326. Huard, J. 1965. Remarques sur la position systèmatique des Rhopalocarpacées d’après leur anatomie et leur morphologie pollinique. Bull. Soc. Bot. France112: 252–254.Google Scholar
  327. Huber, H. 1963. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Rosifloren. Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München5: 1–48.Google Scholar
  328. —. 1969. Die Samenmerkmale und Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Liliifloren. Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München8: 219–538.Google Scholar
  329. Hunziker, A. T. andE. L. Ariza. 1973. Aporte a la rehabilitatión de Ledocarpaceae, familia monotípica. Kurtziana7: 233–240.Google Scholar
  330. Hunziker, H., H.-D. Behnke, I. J. Eifert andT. J. Mabry. 1974.Halophytum ameghinoi: a betalain-containing and P-type sieve-tube plastid species. Taxon23(4): 537–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  331. Hutchinson, J. 1926, 1934. The families of flowering plants.I-II. Macmillan. London.Google Scholar
  332. —. 1959. The families of flowering plants. I-II. 2nd ed. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  333. —. 1967. The genera of flowering plants (Angiospermae) vol. II. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  334. —. 1969. Evolution and phylogeny of flowering plants. Academic Press. London and New York.Google Scholar
  335. —. 1973. The families of flowering plants arranged according to a new system based on their probable phylogeny. 3rd ed. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  336. Ilyana, G. M. 1976. Embryology of Papaveraceae in relation to phylogeny.In: Materials of the 5th Moscow conference on plant phylogeny, pp. 66–69. Moscow. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  337. Jäger-Zürn, I. 1965. Zur Fragen der systematische Stellung der Hydrostachyaceae auf Grund ihrer Embryologie, Blüten und Infloreszenzmorphologie. Oesterr. Bot. Z.112: 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  338. —. 1966. Infloreszenz- und blütenmorphologische sowie embryologische Untersuchungen anMyrothamnus Welw. Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen42: 241–271.Google Scholar
  339. Janssonius, H. H. 1950. Wood anatomy and relationship. Blumea6: 407–461.Google Scholar
  340. Jeffrey, E. C. 1899. The development, structure and affinities of the genusEquisetum, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.5(5): 157–190.Google Scholar
  341. —. 1917. The anatomy of plants. U. of Chicago Press. Chicago.Google Scholar
  342. Jeffrey, C. 1977. Corolla forms in Compositae—some evolutionary and taxonomic speculations.In: V. H. Heywood and J. B. Harborne (eds.). The biology and chemistry of the Compositae,1: 111–118. Academic Press. London, New York, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  343. Jensen, S. R., B. J. Nielsen andR. Dahlgren. 1975. Iridoid compounds, their occurrence and systematic importance in the angiosperms. Bot. Not.128: 148–173.Google Scholar
  344. Jensen, U. 1965. Serologische Untersuchungen zur Frage der systematischen Einordnung der Didiereaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.84(3): 233–253.Google Scholar
  345. —. 1968. Serologische Beiträge zur Systematik der Ranunculaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.88: 269–310.Google Scholar
  346. —. 1974. The interpretation of comparative serological results.In: G. Bendz and J. Santesson (eds.). Chemistry in botanical classification, pp. 217–227. Nobel Symposium 25. Academic Press. New York and London.Google Scholar
  347. Johnson, L. A. S. andB. Briggs. 1975. On the Proteaceae—the evolution and classification of a southern family. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.70: 83–182.Google Scholar
  348. Johnston, I. M. 1936. A study of the Nolanaceae. Contr. Gray Herb.112: 1–83.Google Scholar
  349. Johri, B. M. 1963. Embryology and taxonomy.In: P. Maheshwari (ed.). Recent advances in the embryology of angiosperms. pp. 395–444. U. of Delhi, Delhi.Google Scholar
  350. —. 1970. Alismataceae and Butomaceae.In: Symposium on comparative embryology of angiosperms. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 334–335.Google Scholar
  351. — andB. Tiagi. 1952. Floral morphology and seed formation inCuscuta reflexa Roxb. Phytomorphology2: 162–180.Google Scholar
  352. Jonker, F. P. 1938. A monograph of the Burmanniaceae. Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb. Rijks. Utrecht51: 1–279.Google Scholar
  353. Jörgensen, C. A. 1925. Frage der systematischen Stellung der Callitrichaceae. Jahrb. Wiss. Bot.64: 440–442.Google Scholar
  354. Joshi, A. C. andJ. V. Pantulu. 1941. A morphological and cytological study ofPolianthes tuberosa Linn. J. Indian Bot. Soc.20: 37–71.Google Scholar
  355. Kamelina, O. P. 1976. On the comparative embryological study of members of the families Dipsacaceae and Morinaceae.In: Materials of the Vth Moscow conference on the plant phylogeny, pp. 71–73. Moscow. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  356. -. 1977. Comparative embryological study of representatives of the families Dipsacaceae and Morinaceae. (In Russian). Candidate Thesis, Leningrad.Google Scholar
  357. Kapil, R. N. 1970. Podostemaceae. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 104–109.Google Scholar
  358. — andM. R. Vijayaraghavan. 1965. Embryology ofPentaphragma horsfieldii (Miq.) Airy Shaw with a discussion on the systematic position. Phytomorphology15: 93–102.Google Scholar
  359. — andK. Walia. 1965. The embryology ofPhilydrum lanuginosum Banks ex Gaertn. and the systematic position of the Philydraceae. Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen41: 381–404.Google Scholar
  360. Kaul, R. B. 1967. Ontogeny and anatomy of the flower ofLimnocharis flava (Butomaceae). Amer. J. Bot.54: 1223–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  361. —. 1968a. Floral morphology and phytogeny in the Hydrocharitaceae. Phytomorphology18: 13–35.Google Scholar
  362. —. 1968b. Floral development and vasculature inHydrocleis nymphoides (Butomaceae). Amer. J. Bot.55: 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  363. —. 1969. Morphology and development of the flowers ofBootia cordata, Ottelia alismoides, and their synthetic hybrid (Hydrocharitaceae). Amer. J. Bot.56: 951–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  364. —. 1970. Evolution and adaptation of inflorescences in the Hydrocharitaceae. Amer. J. Bot.57: 708–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  365. —. 1976. Conduplicate and specialized carpels in the Alismatales. Amer. J. Bot.63: 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  366. Keating, R. C. 1968. Comparative morphology of Cochlospermaceae. I. Synopsis of the family and wood anatomy. Phytomorphology18: 379–392.Google Scholar
  367. —. 1970. Comparative morphology of Cochlospermaceae. II. Anatomy of the young vegetative shoot. Amer. J. Bot.57: 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  368. —. 1972. Comparative morphology of Cochlospermaceae. III. The flower and pollen. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.59: 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  369. —. 1973. Pollen morphology and relationships of the Flacourtiaceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.60: 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  370. Kimura, Y. 1956. Système et phylogenie des Monocotylédones. Notul. Syst. (Paris)15: 137–159.Google Scholar
  371. Kolbe, K.-P. 1978. Serologischer Beitrag zur Systematik der Capparales. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.99: 468–489.Google Scholar
  372. Kooiman, K. 1971. Ein phytochemischer Beitrag zur Lösung des Verwandtschaftsprobleme der Theligonaceae. Oesterr. Bot. Z.119: 395–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  373. —. 1974. Iridoid glycosides in the Loasaceae and the taxonomic position of the family. Acta Bot. Neerl.23: 677–679.Google Scholar
  374. Kosakai, H., M. F. Mosely andV. I. Cheadle. 1970. Morphological studies of the Nymphaeaceae. V. DoesNelumbo have vessels? Amer. J. Bot.57: 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  375. Koster mans, A. J. G. H. 1978.Pakaraimaea dipterocarpacea belongs to Tiliaceae. Taxon27: 357–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  376. Kozo-Poljanski, B. M. 1922. An introduction to phylogenetic systematics of the higher plants. Voronezh. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  377. Krach, J. E. 1977. Seed characters in and affinities among the Saxifragineae. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 141–153.Google Scholar
  378. Kubitzki, K. 1969. Monographie der Hernandiaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.89: 78–209.Google Scholar
  379. —. 1972. Probleme der Grossgliederung der Blütenpflanzen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.85: 259–277.Google Scholar
  380. —. 1977. Classification and evolution of higher plants. Pl. Syst. Evol. Suppl.1: 21–31.Google Scholar
  381. —,A. A. L. Mesonita andO. R. Gottlieb. 1978. Chemosystematic implications of xanthones inBonnetia andArchytaea. Biochem. Syst. Ecol.6: 185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  382. Kuijt, J. 1968. Mutual affinities of Santalalean families. Brittonia20: 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  383. —. 1969. The biology of parasitic flowering plants. U. of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  384. Kuprianova, L. A. 1948. Pollen morphology of the monocotyledons. Trudy Komarov Bot. Inst., USSR Acad. Sci., ser. 1,7: 163–262. (In Russian.).Google Scholar
  385. -. 1965. The palynology of the Amentiferae. Nauka. Moscow-Leningrad. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  386. —. 1967. Palynological data for the history of the Chloranthaceae. Pollen et Spores9: 95–100.Google Scholar
  387. Lawrence, G. H. M. 1951. Taxonomy of vascular plants. Macmillan Co., New York.Google Scholar
  388. Leandri, J. 1937. Sur l’aire et la position systématique du genre malgacheDidymeles Thouars. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., sér. 10,19: 309–317.Google Scholar
  389. Lebeque, A. 1952. Recherches embryogéniques sur quelques dicotylédones dialypetales. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., sér. 11,13: 1–160.Google Scholar
  390. Lee, A. T. 1966. Xanthorrhoeaceae. Contr. New South Wales Nat. Herb. (Fl. Ser.)34: 1–42.Google Scholar
  391. Leins, P. andW. Winhard. 1973. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Studien an Loasaceen-Blüten. Oesterr. Bot. Z.122: 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  392. Li, H.-L. andJ. J. Willaman. 1968. Distribution of alkaloids in angiosperm phylogeny. Econ. Bot.22: 239–252.Google Scholar
  393. Linden, B. L. van der. 1960. Staphyleaceae.In: Flora Malesiana6(1): 49–53.Google Scholar
  394. Lindley, J. 1833. The vegetable kingdom. Third edition. London.Google Scholar
  395. -. 1836. A natural system of botany. London.Google Scholar
  396. -. 1846. The vegetable kingdom. London.Google Scholar
  397. Lindsey, A. A. 1938. Anatomical evidence for the Menyanthaceae. Amer. J. Bot.25: 480–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  398. Litchfield, W. H. 1966. The pollen morphology of Australian Sterculieae. Pollen et Spores8: 439–453.Google Scholar
  399. Lobreau, D. 1969. Les limites de l’“ordre” de Célastrales d’après le pollen. Pollen et Spores11: 499–555.Google Scholar
  400. Lobreau-Callen, D. 1975. Les pollens des Célastrales et groupes apparentés. Thésis Montpellier, C. N. R. S. No. A. O. 8071.Google Scholar
  401. —. 1977. Nouvelle interpretation de 1’“ordre” de Célastrales, à l’aide de la palynologie. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.D284(11): 915–918.Google Scholar
  402. —,S. Nilsson, F. Albers andH. Straka. 1978. Les Cneoraceae (Rutales): étude taxonomique, palynologique et systématique. Grana17: 127–139.Google Scholar
  403. Long, A. G. 1960. On the structure ofCalymmatotheca kidstonii Calder (emended) andGenomosperma latens gen. et sp. nov. from the calciferous sandstone series of Berwickshire. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh64: 29–44.Google Scholar
  404. —. 1966. Some lower carboniferous fructifications from Berwickshire, together with a theoretical account of the evolution of ovules, cupules and carpels. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb.66: 345–375.Google Scholar
  405. Lotsy, J. P. 1911. Vortrage über botanische Stemmesgeschichte. Bd. 3. Teil 1. Cormophyta Siphonogamia. Jena.Google Scholar
  406. Lowe, J. 1961. The phylogeny of monocotyledons. New Phytol.60: 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  407. Mabry, T. J. andH.-D. Behnke. 1976. Betalains and P-type sieve-element plastids,Drysphania. Taxon25: 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  408. —— andI. J. Eifert. 1976. Betalains and P-type sieve-element plastids inGisekia L. (Antrospermae). Taxon25: 112–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  409. —,I. J. Eifert, C. Chang, H. Mabry, C. Kidd andH.-D. Behnke. 1975. Theligonaceae: pigment and ultrastructural evidence which excludes it from the order Centrospermae. Biochem. Syst. Ecol.3: 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  410. — andB. L. Turner. 1964. Chemical investigations of the Batidaceae. Betaxanthins and their systematic implications. Taxon13: 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  411. Maguire, B., P. S. Ashton, C. de Zeeuw, D. E. Giannasi andK. J. Nicklas. 1977. Pakaraimoideae, Dipterocarpaceae of the Western Hemisphere. Taxon26: 341–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  412. -and J. M. Pires. 1978. Saccifoliaceae. A new monotypic family of the Gentianales. Pp. 230–244In: B. Maguire and collaborators, The botany of the Guayana Highland—Part X. Mem. New York Bot. Gard.29: 1–288.Google Scholar
  413. Maheshwari, D. H. 1972. Salvadoraceae. A study of its embryology and systematics. J. Indian Bot. Soc.51: 56–62.Google Scholar
  414. Maheshwari, J. K. 1961. The genusWightia Wall, in India with a discussion on its systematic position. Bull. Bot. Surv. India3: 31–35.Google Scholar
  415. Maheshwari, P. 1945. The place of angiosperm embryology in research and teaching. J. Indian Bot. Soc.24: 25–41.Google Scholar
  416. —. 1950. An introduction to the embryology of angiosperms. McGraw-Hill. New York, London.Google Scholar
  417. Mallick, R. andA. K. Sharma. 1966. Chromosome studies in Indian Pandanales. Cytologia31: 402–410.Google Scholar
  418. Maout, E. le and J. Decaisne. 1868. Traité général de botanique descriptive et analytique. Paris.Google Scholar
  419. Marsden, M. P. F. andI. W. Bailey. 1955. A fourth type of nodal anatomy in dicotyledons, illustrated byClerodendron trichotomum Thunb. J. Arnold Arbor.36: 1–50.Google Scholar
  420. Martin, A. C. 1946. The comparative internal morphology of seeds. Amer. Midl. Nat.36: 513–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  421. Matthiessen, A. 1962. A contribution to the embryology ofPaeonia. Acta Horti Berg.20: 57–61.Google Scholar
  422. Mauritzon, J. 1933a. Studien über die Embryologie der Familien Crassulaceae und Saxifragaceae. Diss., Lund.Google Scholar
  423. —. 1933b. Über die systematische Stellung der Familien Hydrostachyaceae und Podostemaceae. Bot. Not.1933: 172–180.Google Scholar
  424. —. 1939. Contribution to the embryology of the orders Rosales and Myrtales. Acta Univ. Lund (2)35: 1–121.Google Scholar
  425. Maury, G, J. Müller andB. Lugardon. 1975. Notes on the morphology and fine structure of the exine of some pollen types in Dipterocarpaceae. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.19: 241–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  426. Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill. New York.Google Scholar
  427. —. 1976. Evolution and the diversity of life. Selected Essays. Harvard Univ. Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  428. Melikian, A. P. 1968. Position of the families Buxaceae and Simmondsiaceae in the system. Bot. Zhurn.53: 1043–1047. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  429. —. 1973. Seed coat types of Hamamelidaceae and allied families in relation to their systematics. Bot. Zhurn.58: 350–359. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  430. Metcalfe, C. R. 1952. The anatomical structure of the Dioncophyllaceae, in relation to the taxonomic affinities of the family. Kew Bull.1951: 351–368.Google Scholar
  431. —. 1956.Scyphostegia borneensis Stapf. Anatomy of stem and leaf in relation to its taxonomic position. Reinwardtia4: 99–104.Google Scholar
  432. —. 1971. Cyperaceae. Vol. 5.In: C. R. Metcalfe (ed.). Anatomy of the monocotyledons. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  433. — andL. Chalk. 1950. Anatomy of the dicotyledons.I-II. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  434. Meyer, N. R. 1977. Comparative morphological studies of the development and ultrastructure of the gymnosperms and primitive angiosperms. Thesis of doctoral dissertation. Leningrad. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  435. — andA. S. Yaroshevskaya. 1976. The phylogenetic significance of the development of pollen grain walls in Liliaceae, Juncaceae and Cyperaceae.In: I. K. Ferguson and J. Müller (eds.). The evolutionary significance of the exine, pp. 91–95. (Linn. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 1.) Academic Press, London and New York.Google Scholar
  436. Milby, T. H. 1971. Floral anatomy ofKrameria lanceolata. Amer. J. Bot.58: 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  437. Mildbraed, J. 1908. Stylidiaceae.In: A. Engler (ed.). Das Pflanzenreich, IV;278: 1–98. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  438. Miller, R. B. 1975. Systematic anatomy of the xylem and comments on the relationships of Flacourtiaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.56: 20–102.Google Scholar
  439. Mirande, M. 1922. Sur l’origine morphologique du liber interne des Nolanacées et la position systématique de cette famille. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.175: 375–376.Google Scholar
  440. Mohana Rao, P. R. 1974. Seed anatomy in some Hamamelidaceae and phylogeny. Phytomorphology24(1-2): 113–139.Google Scholar
  441. Money, L., I. W. Bailey andB. G. L. Swamy. 1950. The morphology and relationships of the Monimiaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.31: 372–404.Google Scholar
  442. Moore, H. E. 1973. The major groups of palms and their distribution. Gentes Herb.11: 27–141.Google Scholar
  443. — andN. W. Uhl. 1973. Palms and the origin and evolution of monocotyledons. Quart. Rev. Biol.48: 414–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  444. Moseley, M. F. 1948. Comparative anatomy and phylogeny of the Casuarinaceae. Bot. Gaz.110: 232–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  445. —. 1958. Morphological studies in the Nymphaeaceae. I. The nature of the stamens. Phytomorphology8: 1–29.Google Scholar
  446. —. 1971. Morphological studies of Nymphaeaceae. VI. Development of flower ofNuphar. Phytomorphology21: 253–283.Google Scholar
  447. —. 1974. Vegetative anatomy and morphology of Amentiferae. Brittonia25: 356–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  448. Mújica, M. B. andD. F. Cutler. 1974. Taxonomic implications of anatomical studies on the Oliniaceae. Kew Bull.29: 93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  449. Muller, J. 1969. Pollen morphological notes on Ochnaceae. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.9: 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  450. —. 1970. Palynological evidence on early differentiation of angiosperms. Biol. Rev.45: 417–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  451. —. 1975. Pollen morphology of Crypteroniaceae. Blumea22: 275–294.Google Scholar
  452. — andP. W. Leenhouts. 1976. Pollen types in Sapindaceae in relation to taxonomy.In: I. K. Ferguson and J. Müller (eds.). The evolutionary significance of the exine, pp. 407–445. (Linn. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 1.) Academic Press. London and New York.Google Scholar
  453. Müller-Doblies, D. 1970. Über die Verwandtschaft vonTypha undSparganium im Infloreszens- und Blütenbau. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.89: 451–562.Google Scholar
  454. Müller-Doblies, U. 1969. Über die Blütenstande und Blüten sowie zur Embryologie vonSparganium. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.89: 359–450.Google Scholar
  455. Nägeli, C. von. 1884. Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre. München und Leipzig.Google Scholar
  456. Nair, P. K. K. 1967. Pollen morphology with reference to the taxonomy and phylogeny of the Monochlamydeae. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.3: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  457. — andM. Sharma. 1965. Pollen morphology of Liliaceae. J. Palyn. (Lucknow)1: 39–61.Google Scholar
  458. Nakai, T. 1942. Notulae ad plantas Asiae orientalis. XVIII. J. Jap. Bot.18: 91–120.Google Scholar
  459. -. 1943. Ordines, familiae, tribi, sectiones, species, varietates, formae et combinationes novae a Prof. Nakai-Takenoschin adhuc ut novis edita. Appendix. Questiones characterium naturalium plantarum, etc. Tokyo.Google Scholar
  460. Narayana, H. S. 1970. Moringaceae. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 78–83.Google Scholar
  461. Narayana, N. S. 1962. Studies in the Capparidaceae. I. The embryology ofCapparis decidua (Forsk.) Pax. Phytomorphology12: 167–177.Google Scholar
  462. Narayana, L. L. andDigamber Rao. 1971. Contribution to the floral anatomy of Linaceae II. Phytomorphology21: 64–67.Google Scholar
  463. Němejc, F. 1956. On the problem of the origin and phylogenetic development of the angiosperms. Acta Musei Natl. Prag.12B: 65–144.Google Scholar
  464. Netolizky, F. 1926. Anatomie der Angiospermem-Samen. Boerntraeger. Berlin.Google Scholar
  465. Newman, I. V. 1928. The life history ofDoryanthes excelsa. Part. 1. Some ecological and vegetative features and spore production. Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales. LII,5: 499–538.Google Scholar
  466. Nicely, K. A. 1965. A monographic study of the Calycanthaceae. Castanea30: 38–81.Google Scholar
  467. Novák, F. A. 1961. Vyšši rostliny. Praha.Google Scholar
  468. Nowicke, J. W. 1975. Preliminary survey of pollen morphology in the order Centrospermae. Grana15: 51–77.Google Scholar
  469. Nozeran, R. 1955. Contribution à l’étude de quelques structures florales. Ann. Sci. Bot. Sér. 11,10: 1–244.Google Scholar
  470. Ozenda, P. 1949. Recherches sur le Dicotylédones apocarpiques. Contribution à l’étude des Angiospermes dites primitives. Masson. Paris.Google Scholar
  471. —. 1952. Remarques sur quelques interprétations de l’étamine. Phytomorphology2: 225–231.Google Scholar
  472. Padmanabhan, D. 1960. The embryology ofAvicennia officinalis. 1. Floral morphology and gametophytes. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B.52: 131–145.Google Scholar
  473. —. 1964. The embryology ofAvicennia officinalis. 2. Endosperm. Phytomorphology14: 442–451.Google Scholar
  474. —. 1970. Verbenaceae. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 250–254.Google Scholar
  475. Paliwal, G. S. 1969. Stomatal ontogeny and phylogeny. I. Monocotyledons. Acta Bot. Neerl.18: 654–668.Google Scholar
  476. Palser, B. F. 1963. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales. 6. The Diapensiaceae. Bot. Gaz.124: 200–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  477. Plant, D. D. 1965. On the ontogeny of stomata and other homologous structures. Plant Sci. Ser. Allahabad,1: 1–24.Google Scholar
  478. —,D. D. Nautiyal andSudha Singh. 1974. The cuticle, epidermis and stomatal ontogeny ofCasuarina equisetifolia Forst. Ann. Bot.39: 1117–1123.Google Scholar
  479. Parkin, J. 1914. The evolution of the inflorescence. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.42: 511–553.Google Scholar
  480. —. 1923. The strobilus theory of angiospermous descent. Proc. Linn. Soc. London153: 51–64.Google Scholar
  481. —. 1953. The durian theory—a criticism. Phytomorphology3: 80–88.Google Scholar
  482. —. 1955. A plea for a simpler gynoecium. Phytomorphology5: 46–57.Google Scholar
  483. Patel, R. N. 1973. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand. 2. Escalloniaceae. New Zealand J. Bot.11: 421–434.Google Scholar
  484. Paterson, B. R. 1961. Studies of floral morphology in the Epacridaceae. Bot. Gaz.122(4): 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  485. Pax, F. 1889. Caryophyllaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl (eds.). Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, 3(1b): 61–94.Google Scholar
  486. -. 1896. Euphorbiaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl (eds.). Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 3(5): 1–119.Google Scholar
  487. Payne, W. W. andJ. L. Seago. 1968. The open conduplicate carpel ofAkebia quinata (Berberidales: Lardizabalaceae). Amer. J. Bot.55: 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  488. Penning von, T. D. andB. T. Styles. 1975. A generic monograph of the Meliaceae. Blumea22: 419–540.Google Scholar
  489. Perrier de la Bâthie, H. 1942. Au sujet des affinités desBrexia et des Celastracées et de deuxBrexia nouveaux de Madagascar. Bull. Soc. Bot. France89: 219–221.Google Scholar
  490. Petersen, F. P. andD. E. Fairbrothers. 1979. Serological investigation of selected amentiferous taxa. Systematic Botany4(3): 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  491. Pettit, J. 1970. Heterospory and the origin of the seed habit. Biol. Rev.45: 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  492. Philipson, W. R. 1967.Griselinia Forst, fil.—Anomaly or link. New Zealand J. Bot.5: 134–165.Google Scholar
  493. —. 1974. Ovular morphology and the major classification of the dicotyledons. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.68: 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  494. —. 1975. Evolutionary lines within the dicotyledons. New Zealand J. Bot.13: 73–91.Google Scholar
  495. —. 1977. Ovular morphology and the classification of dicotyledons. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 123–140.Google Scholar
  496. — andM. N. Philipson. 1973. A comparison of the embryology ofForstera L. andDonatia J. R. et G. Forst. New Zealand J. Bot.11: 449–459.Google Scholar
  497. Piechura, J. E. andD. Fairbrothers. 1979. Serological investigation of the Oleaceae and putative relatives. Bot. Soc. Amer. Misc. Ser. Publ.157: 65.Google Scholar
  498. Pfeiffer, H. H. 1951.Lophopyxis als typus einer Eigenen familie. Revista Sudamer. Bot.10: 3–6.Google Scholar
  499. Pijl, L. van der. 1955. Sarcotesta, aril, pulpa and the evolution of the angiosperm fruit. I, II. Proc. Ned. Acad. Wet. C58(2): 154–161; 58(3): 307–312.Google Scholar
  500. —. 1960. Ecological aspects of flower evolution. I. Phyletic evolution. Evolution14: 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  501. —. 1961. Ecological aspects of flower evolution. II. Zoophilous flower classes. Evolution15: 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  502. —. 1969. Principles of dispersal in higher plants. Springer. New York.Google Scholar
  503. Pilger, R. 1935. Santalaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl (eds.). Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, Zweite Auflage.16B: 52–91.Google Scholar
  504. Pires, J. M. andW. A. Rodrigues. 1971. Notas sôbre os gênerasPolygonanthus eAnisophyllea. Acta Amazonica1(2): 7–15.Google Scholar
  505. Planchon, J. E. 1848. Sur la famille des Droséracées. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. Sér. 3,9: 185–207.Google Scholar
  506. —. 1854. Affinités et synonymie de quelques genres nouveaux. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. Sér. 4,2: 256–266.Google Scholar
  507. Plouvier, V. 1959. Sur la recherche des hétérosides cyanogénétiques et de itols chez quelques Saxifragacées: presence d’allitol chez lesItea. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.249: 2828–2830.Google Scholar
  508. —. 1965. Recherche d’hétérosides chez quelques Saxifragacées; le deutzioside, composé nouveau isolé desDeutzia; la présence de skimmine chez lesHydrangea. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.261: 4268–4271.Google Scholar
  509. Posluszny, U. andR. Sattler. 1976. Floral development ofZannichellia palustris. Canad. J. Bot.54(8): 651–662.Google Scholar
  510. Pragolowski, J. 1974. The pollen morphology of the Trochodendraceae, Tetracentraceae, Crcidiphyllaceae and Eupteleaceae with reference to taxonomy. Pollen et Spores16(4): 449–467.Google Scholar
  511. Prakash, N. andE. J. McAlister. 1977. An embryological study ofBauern capitata with comments on the systematic position ofBauera. Austral. J. Bot.25: 615–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  512. Prance, G. T. 1965. The systematic position ofStylobasium Desf. Bull. Jard. Bot. État35: 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  513. —. 1968. The systematic position ofRhabdodendron Gilg et Pilg. Bull. Jard. Bot. Natl. Belg.38: 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  514. Prantl, K. 1887. Beiträge zur Morphologie und Systematik der Ranunculaceen. Bot. Jb.9: 225–273.Google Scholar
  515. Presting, D. 1965. Zur Morphologie der Pollenkörner der Passifloraceen. Pollen et Spores7: 193–247.Google Scholar
  516. Price, J. R. 1952. The chemical constituents ofFlindersia. Austral. J. Sci. Res.54: 387–400.Google Scholar
  517. Prijanto, B. 1970. Batidaceae. World pollen flora3: 1–11.Google Scholar
  518. Pritzel, E. 1898. Die Systematische Wert der Samenanatomie, insbesondere des Endosperms bei den Pariétales. Bot. Jb.24: 345–394.Google Scholar
  519. Puff, C. andA. Weber. 1976. Contributions to the morphology, anatomy, and karyology ofRhabdodendron, and a reconsideration of the systematic position of the Rhabdodendronaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol.125: 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  520. Pulle, A. A. 1938, 1952. Compendium van de terminologie, nomenclatuur en systematick der saadplanten. Utrecht.Google Scholar
  521. Punt, W. andP. W. Leenhouts. 1967. Pollen morphology and taxonomy in the Loganiaceae. Grana Palynol.7: 469–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  522. Puri, V. 1952. Placentation in angiosperms. Bot. Rev.18: 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  523. Radlkofer, L. 1890. Über die Gliederung der Familie der Sapindaceen. Sitzungsber. Math.-Phys. Cl. Königl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. München20: 105–319.Google Scholar
  524. -. 1931–1934. Sapindaceae.In: A. Engler, ed., Das Pflanzenreich, IV: 165. (Heft 98a).Google Scholar
  525. Radulescu, D. 1970. Recherches morpho-palynologiques sur les espèces l’Iridaceae. Lucr. Grad. Bot. Bucuresti1970: 311–350.Google Scholar
  526. —. 1973a. Contributions morpho-palynologiques concernant quelques Liliiflorae. Lucr. Grad. Bot. Bucuresti.1972–1973: 87–104.Google Scholar
  527. —. 1973b. La morphologie du pollen chez quelques Haemodoraceae. Lucr. Grad. Bot. Bucuresti.1972–1973: 123–132.Google Scholar
  528. —. 1973c. Recherches morpho-palynologiques sur la famille Liliaceae. Lucr. Grad. Bot. Bucuresti.1972–1973: 133–248.Google Scholar
  529. —. 1973d. Liliiflorae. Discussions et considérations phylogénétiques à l’aide de quelques recherches morphologiques. Lucr. Grad. Bot. Bucuresti.1972–1973: 249–283.Google Scholar
  530. Rao, V. S. 1969. The floral anatomy and relationship of the rare Apostasias. J. Indian Bot. Soc.68: 374–385.Google Scholar
  531. —. 1974. The relationships of the Apostasiaceae on the basis of floral anatomy. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.68: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  532. Rauh, W. andI. Jäger-Zürn. 1966. Zur Kenntnis der Hydrostachyaceae. I. Blütenmorphologische und embryologische Untersuchungen an Hydrostachyaceen unter besonderer Berücksichtung ihrer systematischen Stellung. Sitzungsber. Heidelberger Akad. Wiss., Math.-Naturwiss. Kl.1966(1): 1–117.Google Scholar
  533. Raven, P. H. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: Cytology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 724–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  534. Reitsma, T. 1970. Pollen morphology of the Alangiaceae. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.10: 249–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  535. Rendle, A. B. 1930, 1938. The classification of flowering plants. I., II. 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  536. —. 1963. The classification of flowering plants. Cambridge University Press, England.Google Scholar
  537. Rensch, B. 1959. Evolution above the species level. Columbia Univ. Press. New York.Google Scholar
  538. Ritchie, E., J. A. Bosson andM. Rasmussen. 1963. The chemical constituents of AustralianFlindersia spp. Australian J. Chem.16: 480–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  539. Robertson, C. 1904. The structure of the flowers and the mode of pollination of the primitive angiosperms. Bot. Gaz.37: 294–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  540. Robyns, A., S. Nilsson andR. Dechamps. 1977. Sur la position systématique du genreMaxwellia Baillon. Bull. Jard. Bot. Natl. Belg.47: 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  541. Rock, B. N. 1972. The woods and flora of the Florida Keys: “Pinnatae.” Smithsonian Contrib. Bot. 5, Washington.Google Scholar
  542. Rodriguez, R. L. 1971. The relationships of the Umbellales.In: V. H. Heywood, ed., The biology and chemistry of the Umbelliferae, pp. 63–91. Academic Press. London.Google Scholar
  543. Roh weder, O. 1969. Beiträge zur Blütenmorphologie und -anatomie der Commelinaceen mit Anmerkungen zur Begrenzung und Gliederung der Familie. Ber. Schweiz. Bot. Ges.79: 199–220.Google Scholar
  544. Rolfe, R. A. 1909. The evolution of the Orchidaceae. Orchid Rev.17: 129–132; 193–196; 289–292; 353–356.Google Scholar
  545. —. 1910. The evolution of the Orchidaceae. Orchid Rev.18: 33–36; 87–99; 129–132; 162–166; 289–294; 321–325.Google Scholar
  546. Romanov, I. D. 1971. Types of development of embryo sac of the angiosperms.In: V. P. Zosimovich (ed.), Problems in embryology (Kiev). (In Russian), pp. 72–113.Google Scholar
  547. Rosén, W. 1935. Beiträge zur Embryologie der Stylidiaceen. Bot. Not.1935: 273–278.Google Scholar
  548. —. 1946. Further notes on the embryology of the Goodeniaceae. Acta Horti Gothob.16: 235–249.Google Scholar
  549. —. 1949. Endosperm development in Campanulaceae and closely related families. Bot. Not.1949: 137–147.Google Scholar
  550. Rowley, J. R. andG. Erdtman. 1967. Sporoderm inPopulus andSalix. Grana Palynol.7(2-3): 517–567.Google Scholar
  551. Sands, M. J. 1973. New aspects of the floral vascular anatomy in some members of the order Rhoeadales sensu Hutch. Kew Bull.28(2): 211–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  552. Sastri, R. L. N. 1969. Floral morphology, embryology, and relationships of the Berberidaceae. Austral. J. Bot.17: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  553. Sâto, D. 1942. Karyotype alteration and phylogeny in Liliaceae and allied families. Jap. J. Bot.12: 57–161.Google Scholar
  554. Sato, Y. 1972. Development of the embryo sac ofDaphniphyllum macropodum var.humile (Maxim.) Rosenth. Sci. Rep. Tôhoku Univ. ser. 4 (Biol.)36: 129–133.Google Scholar
  555. Savile, D. B. O. 1979. Fungi as aids in higher plant classification. Bot. Rev.45: 377–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  556. Sawada, M. 1971. Floral vascularization ofPaeonia japonica with some consideration on systematic position of the Paeoniaceae. Bot. Mag. Tokyo84: 51–60.Google Scholar
  557. Sax, K. andD. A. Kribs. 1930. Chromosomes and phylogeny in Caprifoliaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.11: 147–153.Google Scholar
  558. Schaeffer, J. 1972. Pollen morphology of the genusHydnocarpus (Flacourtiaceae) with notes on related genera. Blumea20: 65–87.Google Scholar
  559. Schaffner, J. H. 1929. Principles of plant taxonomy, VII. Ohio J. Sci.29(5): 243–252.Google Scholar
  560. —. 1934. Phylogenetic taxonomy of plants. Quart. Rev. Biol.9: 129–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  561. Schlittler, J. 1949. Die Systematische Stellung vonPetermannia F. v. Muell. und ihre phylogenetischen Beziehungen zu den Luzuriagoideae Engl. und den Dioscoreaceae Lindl. Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 94, Beih. No.1: 1–28.Google Scholar
  562. Schmid, R. 1964. Die systematische Stellung der Dioncophyllaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.83: 1–56.Google Scholar
  563. Schneider, E. L. 1978. Morphological studies of the Nymphaeaceae. IX. The seed ofBarclaya longifolia Wall. Bot. Gaz.139: 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  564. Schofield, E. K. 1968. Petiole anatomy of the Guttiferae and related families. Mem. New York Bot. Gard.18: 1–55.Google Scholar
  565. Schraudolf, H., B. Schmidt andF. Weberling. 1972. Das Vorkommen von “Myrosinase” als Hinweis auf die systematische Stellung der Batidaceae. Experientia72: 1090–1091.Google Scholar
  566. Schulze, W. 1978. Beiträge zur Taxonomie der Liliifloren. III. Alstroemeriaceae. Wiss. Z. Friedrich-Schiller Univ. Jena. Math. Naturwiss.27,1: 79–85.Google Scholar
  567. Schurhoff, P. N. 1926. Zur Pleiophyllie der Sympetalen auf Grund ihrer Haplotenentwicklung. Rep. Spec. Nov. Reg. Veg. Beih.41: 1–14.Google Scholar
  568. Schwartz, O. 1926. Anatomische, morphologische und systematische Untersuchungen über die Pontederiaceae. Beih. Bot.42(1): 263–320.Google Scholar
  569. -. 1930. Pontederiaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl. Die natürlichen Pflanzanfamilien.15a: 181–188.Google Scholar
  570. Sen, S. 1975. Cytotaxonomy of Liliales. Feddes Repert.86: 255–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  571. Sengupta, S. 1972. On the pollen morphology of Convolvulaceae with special reference to taxonomy. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.13: 157–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  572. Sewertzoff, A. N. 1931. Morphologische Gesetzmässigkeiten der Evolution. Jena.Google Scholar
  573. Shah, C. K. 1962. Pollen development in some members of the Cyperaceae.In: Plant embryology. A symposium, 1960. CSIR, New Delhi, 81–93.Google Scholar
  574. —. 1967. A taxonomic evaluation of the families Cyperaceae and Juncaceae. Bull. Natl. Inst. Sci. India34: 248–256.Google Scholar
  575. Sharma, A. K. 1964. Cytology as an aid in taxonomy. Bull. Bot. Soc. Bengal18(1-2): 1–4.Google Scholar
  576. -. 1969. Evolution and taxonomy of monocotyledons.In: C. D. Darlington, ed., Chromosomes Today2: 241–249.Google Scholar
  577. — andM. Chaudhuri. 1964. Cytological studies as an aid in assessing the status ofSansevieria, Ophiopogon andCurculigo. The Nucleus7: 43–58.Google Scholar
  578. Sharma, B. D. 1969. Pollen morphology of Tiliaceae in relation to plant taxonomy. J. Palynol.5(1): 7–29.Google Scholar
  579. Shaw, H. K. Airy. 1973. Greyiaceae.In: J. C. Willis, A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns, 8th ed. P. 511. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  580. —,D. F. Cutler andS. Nilsson. 1973.Pottingeria, its taxonomic position, anatomy and palynology. Kew Bull.28: 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  581. Shen, Y.-F. 1954. Phylogeny and wood anatomy ofNandina. Taiwania5: 85–92.Google Scholar
  582. Shilkina, I. A. 1977. The comparative anatomy of the wood of the genusOncotheca (order Theales). Bot. Zhurn.62: 1273–1275.Google Scholar
  583. Simon, J.-P. 1971. Comparative serology of the order Nymphaeales. II. Relationships of Nymphaeaceae and Nelumbonaceae. Aliso7: 325–350.Google Scholar
  584. Singh, S. P. 1970. Pedaliaceae.In: Symposium on comparative embryology of angiosperms. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 273–277.Google Scholar
  585. Singh, V. 1965. Morphological and anatomical studies in Helobiae. II. Vascular anatomy of the flower of Potamogetonaceae. Bot. Gaz.126(2): 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  586. — andR. Sattler. 1972. Floral development ofAlis ma triviale. Canad. J. Bot.50: 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  587. ——. 1974. Floral development ofButomus umbellatus. Canad. J. Bot.52: 223–230.Google Scholar
  588. Sinnott, E. W. 1914. Investigations on the phylogeny of the angiosperm. I. The anatomy of the node as an aid in the classification of angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot.1: 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  589. — andI. W. Bailey. 1914. Investigations on the phylogeny of the angiosperms: No. 4. The origin and dispersal of herbaceous angiosperms. Ann. Bot.28: 547–600.Google Scholar
  590. Skottsberg, C. 1935. Myzodendraceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl, Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. 2nd ed.16b: 92–97.Google Scholar
  591. Skvarla, J. J., B. L. Turner, V. C. Patel andA. S. Tomb. 1977. Pollen morphology in the Compositae and in morphologically related families.In: V. H. Heywood and J. B. Harborne, eds., The biology and chemistry of the Compositae,1: 141–259. Academic Press. London, New York, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  592. Sleumer, H. 1970. Le genreParopsia Noronha ex Thouars (Passifloraceae). Bull. Jard. Bot. Natl. Belg.40: 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  593. Small, J. 1919. The origin and development of the Compositae. Reprinted from New Phytol. vols.16-18, 1917–1919.Google Scholar
  594. Smith, A. C. 1945. Geographical distribution of the Winteraceae. J. Arnold Arbor.26: 48–59.Google Scholar
  595. —. 1971 [1972]. An appraisal of the orders and families of primitive extant angiosperms. J. Indian Bot. Soc., Golden Jubilee Vol.50A: 215–226.Google Scholar
  596. Smith, L. B. 1934. Geographical evidence on the lines of evolution in the Bromeliaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.66: 446–468.Google Scholar
  597. Smithson, E. 1957. The comparative anatomy of the Flagellariaceae. Kew Bull.1956: 491–501.Google Scholar
  598. Smith-White, S. 1959. Cytological evolution in the Australian flora. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.24: 273–289.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  599. Solms-Laubach, H. 1883. Pontederiaceae.In: A. De Candolle. Monographie phanerogamarum. Paris.4: 501–535.Google Scholar
  600. Soó, R. 1967. Die modernen Systeme der Angiospermen. Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae13: 201–233.Google Scholar
  601. Sporne, K. R. 1972. Some observations on the evolution of pollen types in dicotyledons. New Phytol.71: 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  602. Srivastava, L. M. 1970. The secondary phloem ofAustrobaileya scandens. Canad. J. Bot.48: 341–359.Google Scholar
  603. Stant, M. Y. 1970. Anatomy ofPetrosavia stellaris Becc., a saprophytic monocotyledon.In: N. K. B. Robson et al., eds., New research in plant anatomy, pp. 147–161. Suppl. 1, J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 63. Academic Press. London and New York.Google Scholar
  604. Stebbins, G. L. 1971. Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  605. —. 1974. Flowering plants. Evolution above the species level. E. Arnold. London.Google Scholar
  606. — andG. S. Khush. 1961. Variation in the organization of the stomatal complex in the leaf epidermis of monocotyledons and its bearing on their phylogeny. Amer. J. Bot.48: 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  607. Stern, W. L., G. K. Brizicky andR. H. Eyde. 1969. Comparative anatomy and relationships of Columelliaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.50: 36–75.Google Scholar
  608. Stevens, P. F. 1971. A classification of Ericaceae: subfamilies and tribes. J. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.64: 1–53.Google Scholar
  609. Stevens, R. A. andE. S. Martin. 1978. A new ontogenetic classification of stomatal types. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.77: 53–64.Google Scholar
  610. Stone, D. E. andC. R. Broome. 1971. Pollen ultrastructure: evidence for relationship of the Juglandaceae and the Rhoipteleaceae. Pollen et Spores13(1): 5–14.Google Scholar
  611. Stopes, M. 1905. On the double nature of the cycadean integument. Ann. Bot.19: 561–566.Google Scholar
  612. Straka, H. 1963. Über die mögliche phylogenetische Bedeutung der Pollenmorphologie der madagassischenBubbia perrieri R. Cap. (Winteraceae). Grana Palyn.4: 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  613. —. 1967. Die Pollenmorphologie einiger Madagassischer Pflanzenfamilien und ihre Darstellung in Pollenformeln und auf Lochkarten. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.3: 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  614. —. 1975. Pollen- und Sporenkunde. Fischer. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  615. — andF. Albers. 1978. Die Pollenmorphologie vonDiegodendron humbertii R. Capuron. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.99: 363–369.Google Scholar
  616. —— andA. Mondon. 1976. Die Stellung und Gliederung der Familie Cneoraceae (Rutales). Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen52: 267–310.Google Scholar
  617. Subramanyam, K. 1950a. Development of embryo sac and endosperm inStylidium tenellum. Curr. Sci.19: 294.Google Scholar
  618. —. 1950b. An embryological study ofLevenhookia dubia. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India B.16: 245–253.Google Scholar
  619. —. 1951a. On the probable origin of the unilocular ovary of the Compositae from the Stylidiaceae. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci.33B: 327–330.Google Scholar
  620. —. 1951b. A morphological study ofStylidium graminifolium. Lloydia14: 65–81.Google Scholar
  621. —. 1953. The nutritional mechanism of embryo sac and embryo in the families Campanulaceae, Lobeliaceae and Stylidiaceae. J. Mysore Univ. B.13: 1–4.Google Scholar
  622. -. 1962. Embryology in relation to systematic botany with particular references to the Crassulaceae.In: Plant embryology. A symposium. Pp. 94–112. New Delhi.Google Scholar
  623. —. 1970a. Pentaphragmataceae. Bull. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad.41: 317–320.Google Scholar
  624. —. 1970b. Stylidiaceae. Bull. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad.41: 321–324.Google Scholar
  625. Suessenguth, K. 1927. Über die GattungLennoa. Flora122: 264–305.Google Scholar
  626. Swamy, B. G. L. 1948. A contribution to the life history ofCasuarina. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts77(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
  627. —. 1949. Further contributions to the morphology of the Degeneriaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.30: 10–38.Google Scholar
  628. Swamy, R. L. N. 1969. Comparative morphology and phylogeny of the Ranales. Biol. Rev.44: 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  629. Takhtajan, A. 1942. The structural types of gynoecium and placentation. Bull. Armen. Branch Acad. Sci. USSR,3-4 (17–18): 91–112 (in Russian with English summary).Google Scholar
  630. —. 1943. Correlations of ontogeny and phylogeny in the higher plants. [In Russian with English summary]. Trudy Erevan State Univ.22: 71–176.Google Scholar
  631. -. 1948. Morphological evolution of the angiosperms. Moscow. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  632. —. 1950. Phylogenetic principles of the system of higher plants. Bot. Zh. (Leningrad)35: 113–135 (In Russian). English translation: Bot. Rev. 1953,19: 1–45.Google Scholar
  633. -. 1954. The origin of angiospermous plants. Moscow. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  634. —. 1957. On the origin of temperate flora of Eurasia. Bot. Zh. (Leningrad)42: 1635–1653 (In Russian with English summary).Google Scholar
  635. —. 1959. Die Evolution der Angiospermen. Fischer. Jena.Google Scholar
  636. -. 1964. Foundations of the evolutionary morphology of angiosperms. Moscow and Leningrad (in Russian).Google Scholar
  637. —. 1966. A system and phylogeny of the flowering plants. Nauka. Moscow and Leningrad. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  638. —. 1969. Flowering plants. Origin and dispersal. Oliver and Boyd. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  639. -. 1970. The origin and dispersal of flowering plants. “Nauka” Leningrad. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  640. —. 1973. Evolution und Ausbreitung der Blütenpflanzen. Fischer. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  641. —. 1976. Neoteny and the origin of flowering plants.In: C. B. Beck (ed.), Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Columbia Univ. Press. New York, pp. 207–219.Google Scholar
  642. Takhtajan, A. L. andN. R. Meyer. 1976. Some additional data on the pollen morphology ofDegeneria vitiensis. Bot. Zh. (Leningrad)61: 1531–1534 (in Russian with English summary).Google Scholar
  643. Tamura, M. 1963. Morphology, ecology and phylogeny of the Ranunculaceae, I. Sci. Reports, Osaka Univ.11: 115–126.Google Scholar
  644. —. 1972. Morphology and phyletic relationship of the Glaucidiaceae. Bot. Mag. Tokyo85: 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  645. Taylor, F. H. 1972. The secondary xylem of the Violaceae: a comparative study. Bot. Gaz.133: 230–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  646. Terekhin, E. S. 1962. On the development of embryo in some Pyroleae-Monotropoideae. Bot. Zh.47: 1811–1816. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  647. Thanikaimoni, G. andG. Vasanthy. 1972. Sarraceniaceae: Palynology and systematics. Pollen et Spores14: 143–155.Google Scholar
  648. Thomas, J. L. 1960. A monographic study of the Cyrillaceae. Contr. Gray Herb.186: 1–114.Google Scholar
  649. Thorne, R. F. 1968. Synopsis of a putative phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants. Aliso6: 57–66.Google Scholar
  650. —. 1973. Inclusion of the Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) in the Araliaceae. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh32: 161–165.Google Scholar
  651. —. 1974a. A phylogenetic classification of the Annoniflorae. Aliso8(2): 147–209.Google Scholar
  652. —. 1974b. The “Amentiferae” or Hamamelidae as an artificial group: A summary statement. Brittonia25: 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  653. —. 1976. A phylogenetic classification of the Angiospermae. Evol. Biol.9: 35–106.Google Scholar
  654. —. 1977. Some realignments in the Angiospermae. Pl. Syst. Evol. Suppl.1: 299–319.Google Scholar
  655. Tiagi, B. 1951. A contribution to the morphology and embryology ofCuscuta hyalina andC. planiflora. Phytomorphology1: 9–21.Google Scholar
  656. —. 1956. A contribution to the embryology ofStriga orobanchoides Benth. andStriga euphmsioides Benth. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club83: 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  657. —. 1963. Studies in the family Orobanchaceae. IV. Embryology ofBoschniackia himalaica andB. tuberosa, with remarks on the evolution of the family. Bot. Not.116: 81–93.Google Scholar
  658. —. 1970. Orobanchaceae. Bull. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad.41: 282–289.Google Scholar
  659. Tiagi, Y. D. and Kshetrapal Shashikala. 1972. Studies on the floral anatomy, evolution of the gynoecium and relationships of the family Loganiaceae. Advances in plant morphology, pp. 408–416. Meerut.Google Scholar
  660. Tippo, O. 1938. Comparative anatomy of the Moraceae and their allies. Bot. Gaz.100: 1–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  661. Tomlinson, P. B. 1962. Phylogeny of the Scitamineae—morphological and anatomical considerations. Evolution16: 192–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  662. —. 1965. Notes on the anatomy ofAphyllanthes (Liliaceae) and comparison of Eriocaulaceae. J. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.59: 163–173.Google Scholar
  663. —. 1969a. On the morphology and anatomy of turtle grass,Thalassia testudinum (Hydrocharitaceae). III. Floral morphology and anatomy. Bull. Marine Sci.19(2): 286–305.Google Scholar
  664. —. 1969b. Commelinales-Zingiberales. Vol. 3 of C. R. Metcalfe, ed., Anatomy of the monocotyledons. Clarendon Press. Oxford.Google Scholar
  665. —. 1974. Development of the stomatal complex as a taxonomic character in monocotyledons. Taxon23: 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  666. — andE. S. Ayensu. 1968. Morphology and anatomy ofCroomia pauciflora (Stemonaceae). J. Arnold Arbor.49: 260–275.Google Scholar
  667. ——. 1969. Notes on the vegetative morphology and anatomy of the Petermanniaceae (Monocotyledones). J. Linn. Soc., Bot.62: 17–26.Google Scholar
  668. Traub, H. P. 1963. The genera of Amaryllidaceae. Amer. Plant Life Soc., La Jolla, Calif.Google Scholar
  669. —. 1968. The subgenera, sections and subsections ofAllium L. Plant Life24: 147–163.Google Scholar
  670. —. 1972a. The order Alliales. Pl. Life28: 129–132.Google Scholar
  671. —. 1972b. Tribe Hosteae, family Agavaceae. Pl. Life28: 137–138.Google Scholar
  672. Troll, W. 1928. Organisation und Gestalt in Bereich der Blute. Berlin.Google Scholar
  673. —. 1931. Beitrage zur Morphologie des Gynaeceums. I. Über das Gynaeceum der Hydrocharitaceen. Planta14: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  674. Tsukada, M. 1964. Pollen morphology and identification. III. Modern and fossil tropical pollen with emphasis on Bombacaceae. Pollen et Spores6: 393–462.Google Scholar
  675. Tucker, S. C. 1974. Whorled initiation of stamens and carpels inSaururus cernuus. Amer. J. Bot.61: 66 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  676. —. 1975. Floral development inSaururus cernuus. I. Floral initiation and stamen development. Amer. J. Bot.62: 993–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  677. —. 1976. Floral development inSaururus cernuus. II. Carpel initiation and floral vasculature. Amer. J. Bot.63: 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  678. Tucker, W. G. 1969. Serotaxonomy of the Solanaceae: A preliminary survey. Ann. Bot.33: 1–23.Google Scholar
  679. Uhl, N. W. andH. E. Moore. 1971. The palm gynoecium. Amer. J. Bot.58: 945–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  680. Van Tieghem, Ph. 1897. Sur les caractères et les affinités des Grubbiacées. J. Bot. (Paris)11: 127–238.Google Scholar
  681. Vaughan, J. G. 1970. The structure and utilization of oil seeds. Chapman & Hall. London.Google Scholar
  682. Vani-Hardev. 1972. Systematic embryology ofRoridula gorgonias Planch. Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen48: 339–351.Google Scholar
  683. Veillet-Bartoszewska, M. 1960. Ericacées. Developpement de l’embryon chez leLedum palustre L. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.251: 5.Google Scholar
  684. Verlaque, R. 1977. Rapports entre les Valerianaceae, les Morinaceae et les Dipsacaceae. Bull. Soc. Bot. France124: 475–482.Google Scholar
  685. Vijayaraghavan, M. R. 1965. Morphology and embryology ofActinidia polygama Franch et Sav. and systematic position of the family Actinidiaceae. Phytomorphology15: 224–235.Google Scholar
  686. —. 1969. Studies in the family Cyrillaceae. I. Development of male and female gametophytes inCliftonia monophylla (Lam.) Britton ex Sarg. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club96: 484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  687. —. 1970. Cyrillaceae.In: Symposium on comparative embryology of angiosperms. Bull. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad.41: 163–167.Google Scholar
  688. -and U. Dhar.Kadsura heteroclita—microsporangium and pollen. J. Arnold Arbor.56: 176–181.Google Scholar
  689. ——. 1976.Scytopetalum tieghemii—embryologically unexplored taxon and affinities of the family Scytopetalaceae. Phytomorphology26: 10–22.Google Scholar
  690. ——. 1978. Embryology ofCyrilla andCliftonia (Cyrillaceae). Bot. Not.131: 127–138.Google Scholar
  691. — andU. Malik. 1972. Morphology and embryology ofScaevola frutescens K. and affinities of the family Goodeniaceae. Bot. Not.125: 241–254.Google Scholar
  692. — andU. Padmanaban. 1969. Morphology and embryology ofCentaurium ramosissimum Druce and affinities of the family Gentianaceae. Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen46: 15–37.Google Scholar
  693. — andG. S. Sarveshwari. 1968. Embryology and systematic position ofMarina longifolia Wall. Bot. Not.121: 383–402.Google Scholar
  694. Vink, W. 1970. The Winteraceae of the Old World. I.Pseudowintera and Drimys—morphology and taxonomy. Blumea18: 225–354.Google Scholar
  695. Vliet, G. J. C. M. van. 1976. Wood anatomy of the Rhizophoraceae. Leiden Bot. Series3: 20–75.Google Scholar
  696. — andP. Baas. 1975. Comparative anatomy of Crypteroniaceae s.l. Blumea22: 173–195.Google Scholar
  697. Wagenitz, G. 1959. Die systematische Stellung der Rubiaceae. Ein Beitrag zum System der Sympetalen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.79: 17–35.Google Scholar
  698. —. 1975. Blütenreduktion als ein zentrales Problem der Angiospermen-Systematik. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.96: 448–470.Google Scholar
  699. —. 1977. New aspects of the systematics of Asteridae. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 375–395.Google Scholar
  700. Wagner, P. 1977. Vessel types of the monocotyledons: a survey. Bot. Not.130: 383–402.Google Scholar
  701. Wagner, W. H. 1969. The construction of classification. Systematic Biology, Publ. 1692 National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. pp. 67–90.Google Scholar
  702. Walker, J. W. 1974a. Evolution of exine structure in the pollen of primitive angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot.61: 891–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  703. —. 1974b. Aperture evolution in the pollen of primitive angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot.61: 1112–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  704. —. 1976a. Comparative pollen morphology and phylogeny of the Ranalean complex.In: C. B. Beck (ed.), Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Columbia Univ. Press. New York. pp. 241–299.Google Scholar
  705. -. 1976b. Evolutionary significance of the exine in the pollen of primitive angiosperms. I. K. Ferguson and J. Müller (eds.), The evolutionary significance of the exine. Linn. Soc. Symp. Series1: 251–308.Google Scholar
  706. — andJ. A. Doyle. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: Palynology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 664–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  707. — andJ. J. Skvarla. 1975. Primitively columellaless pollen: a new concept in the evolutionary morphology of angiosperms. Science187: 445–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  708. Walters, J. L. 1962. Megasporogenesis and gametophyte selection inPaeonia californica. Amer. J. Bot.49: 787–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  709. Walton, J. 1953. The evolution of the ovule in the pteridosperms. Adv. Sci.10: 223–230 (British Association Adv. Sci., No. 38).Google Scholar
  710. Watson, L. 1967. Taxonomic implications of a comparative anatomical study of the Epacridaceae. New Phytol.66: 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  711. —,W. T. Williams andG. N. Lance. 1967. A mixed-data approach to angiosperm taxonomy: the classification of Ericales. Proc. Linn. Soc. London178: 25–35.Google Scholar
  712. Webster, G. L. 1967. The genera of Euphorbiaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor.48: 303–30.Google Scholar
  713. —. 1975. Conspectus of a new classification of the Euphorbiaceae. Taxon24: 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  714. Wernham, H. F. 1913. Floral evolution: with particular reference to the sympetalous dicotyledons. New Phytol.11: 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  715. West, W. C. 1969. Ontogeny of oil cells in the woody Ranales. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club96: 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  716. Westfall, J. J. 1949. Cytological and embryological evidence for the reclassification ofPaulownia. Amer. J. Bot.36: 805.Google Scholar
  717. Wettstein, R. von. 1891–1893. Scrophulariaceae.In: A. Engler und K. Prantl, Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien IV, 3b: 39–107. Engelmann. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  718. —. 1908. Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik. Franz Deuticke, Leipzig and Wien.Google Scholar
  719. —. 1935. Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik, Vierte Aufl. Franz Deuticke. Leipzig and Wien.Google Scholar
  720. Whipple, H. L. 1972. Structure and systematics ofPhryma leptostachya L. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.88: 1–17.Google Scholar
  721. Whitaker, T. 1934. Chromosome constitution in some monocotyledons. J. Arnold Arbor.15: 135–143.Google Scholar
  722. Whitehead, D. R. 1965. Pollen morphology in the Juglandaceae. 2. Survey of the family. J. Arnold Arbor.46: 369–410.Google Scholar
  723. Wilkinson, A. M. 1949. Floral anatomy and morphology ofTriosteum and of the Caprifoliaceae in general. Amer. J. Bot.36: 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  724. Williams, C. 1975. Biosystematics of the Monocotyledoneae—flavonoid patterns in leaves of the Liliaceae. Biochem. Syst. Ecol.3: 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  725. Williams, N. H. 1975. Stomatal development inLudisia discolor (Orchidaceae): mesoperigenous subsidiary cells in the monocotyledons. Taxon24: 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  726. —. 1979. Subsidiary cells in the Orchidaceae: their general distributions with special reference to development in the Oncidieae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.78: 41–66.Google Scholar
  727. Wilson, C. L. 1976. Floral anatomy ofIdiospermum australiense (Idiospermaceae). Amer. J. Bot.63: 987–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  728. Wilson, T. K. 1964. Comparative morphology of the Canellaceae. III. Pollen. Bot. Gaz.125: 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  729. — andL. M. Maculans. 1965. The comparative morphology of the Canellaceae. II. Anatomy of the young stem and node. Amer. J. Bot.52: 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  730. ——. 1967. The morphology of the Myristicaceae. I. Flowers ofMyristica fragrans andM. malabarica. Amer. J. Bot.54: 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  731. Wodehouse, R. P. 1935. Pollen grains. McGraw-Hill. New York.Google Scholar
  732. —. 1936. Evolution of pollen grains. Bot. Rev.2: 67–89.Google Scholar
  733. Wood, C. E. 1971. The Saururaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor.52: 479–485.Google Scholar
  734. Wulff, H. D. 1939. Die Pollenentwicklung der Juncaceen. Jahrb. Wiss. Bot.87: 533–556.Google Scholar
  735. Wunderlich, R. 1967. Some remarks on the taxonomic significance of the seed coat. Phytomorphology17: 301–311.Google Scholar
  736. —. 1971. Die systematische Stellung vonTheligonum. Oesterr. Bot. Z.119: 329–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  737. Yakovlev, M. S. 1950. The structure of endosperm and embryo in grasses. Trudy Bot. Inst. USSR Acad. Sci., ser. 7,1: 121–218. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  738. — andM. D. Yoffe. 1957. On some peculiar features in the embryogeny ofPaeonia. Phytomorphology7: 74–82.Google Scholar
  739. -and-. 1965. The embryology of the genusPaeonia. In: M. S. Yakovlev, ed., Flower morphology and reproductive processes of angiosperms. Leningrad, 140–176. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  740. Yamazaki, T. 1966. The embryology ofShortia uniflora with a brief review of the systematic position of the Diapensiaceae. J. Jap. Bot.41: 245–251.Google Scholar
  741. —. 1970, 1971. Embryological studies in Ebenales. J. Jap. Bot.45: 267–273; 353–358, 1970.46: 161–166, 1971.Google Scholar
  742. Zazhurilo, K. K. 1940. On the anatomy of the seed coats of Magnoliaceae (Liriodendron tulipifera L.). Bull. Soc. Nat. Voronezh Univ. 4,1: 32–40. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  743. — andE. K. Kuznetsova. 1939. The nature of diffuse placentation. Trudy Voronezh State Univ.10(5): 79–88. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  744. Ziegenspeck, H. 1944. Das Vorkommen von Öl in den Stomata der Monokotyledonen und die Bedeutung des konstitutionalen Vorkommens für die Systematik derselben. Repert. Spec. Nov.53: 151–173.Google Scholar
  745. Zimmermann, W. 1959. Die Phylogenie der Pflanzen. 2 Aufl. Fischer. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armen L. Takhtajan
    • 1
  1. 1.Komarov Botanical InstituteLeningrad

Personalised recommendations