Brittonia

, 60:287 | Cite as

Systematic relevance of seedling morphology in Acosmium, Guianodendron, and Leptolobium (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae)

  • Rodrigo Schütz Rodrigues
  • Ana Maria Goulart de Azevedo Tozzi
Article

Abstract

Morphological and taxonomic studies have proposed changing the circumscription of Acosmium, with the recognition of two additional genera, Leptolobium and Guianodendron. A study on seedling morphology of all accepted species of Acosmium s.str., five species of Leptolobium, and Guianodendron praeclarum is presented, aiming to evaluate the systematic value of these characters. Guianodendron has crypto-hypogeal reserve seedlings, while Acosmium and Leptolobium have phanero-epigeal seedlings with foliaceous cotyledons. The latter two genera are distinguishable from each other mainly by hypocotyl shape, ratio of hypocotyl length to epicotyl length, nyctinasty of leaflets and cotyledons, shape and venation of cotyledons, stipule and leaflet morphology, presence or absence of intercotyledonary glands, and presence of glands on other vegetative parts. In conclusion, seedling morphology data provide relevant systematic characters that support the proposed changes in the generic delimitation of Acosmium.

Key Words

Acosmium Guianodendron Leptolobium Leguminosae Papilionoideae morphology seedling 

Literature Cited

  1. Baudet, J. C. 1974. Signification taxonomique des caractères blastogèniques dans la tribu des Papilionaceae – Phaseoleae. Bulletin du Jardin Botanique National de Belgique 44: 259–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carman, J. G. 1997. Asynchronous expression of duplicate genes in angiosperms may cause apomixis, bispory, tetraspory, and polyembryony. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 61: 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duke, J. A. 1969. On tropical tree seedlings I. Seeds, seedlings, systems and systematics. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 56: 125–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ——— & R. M. Polhill. 1981. Seedlings of Leguminosae. Pp. 941–949. In: R. M. Polhill & P. H. Raven (eds.), Advances in Legume Systematics. Part 2. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  5. Garwood, N. C. 1995. Studies in Annonaceae. XX. Morphology and ecology of seedlings, fruits and seeds of selected Panamanian species. Botanische Jahrbücher und Systematik 117: 1–152.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1996. Functional morphology of tropical tree seedlings. Pp. 59–129. In: M. D. Swaine (ed.), The ecology of tropical forest tree seedlings. Unesco, Paris.Google Scholar
  7. Goldenberg, R. & G. J. Shepherd. 1998. Studies on the reproductive biology of Melastomataceae in “cerrado” vegetation. Plant Systematics and Evolution 211: 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lasseigne, A. 1979. Studies in Cassia (Leguminosae-Caesalpinioideae) IV. The seedling, with special emphasis on sleep movement. Iselya 1: 187–199.Google Scholar
  9. Lavin, M., R. T. Pennington, B. B. Klitgaard, J. I. Sprent, H. C. Lima & P. E. Gasson. 2001. The dalbergioid legumes (Fabaceae): delimitation of a paleotropical monophyletic clade. American Journal of Botany 88: 503–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lima, H. C. 1990. Tribo Dalbergieae (Leguminosae Papilionoideae) – morfologia dos frutos, sementes e plântulas e sua aplicação na sistemática. Arquivos do Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro 30: 1–42.Google Scholar
  11. López, J., J. A. Devesa, T. Ruiz & A. Ortega-Olivencia. 1998. Seedling morphology in Genisteae (Fabaceae) from south-west Spain. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 127: 229–250.Google Scholar
  12. Nemoto, T. & H. Ohashi. 1993. Seedling morphology of Lespedeza (Leguminosae). Journal of Plant Research 106: 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nozzolillo, C. 1977. Identification of Vicia seedlings. Canadian Journal of Botany 55: 2439–2462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 1985. Seedling morphology and anatomy of eight Cicer species and their taxonomic value. Canadian Journal of Botany 63: 1–6.Google Scholar
  15. Oliveira, D. M. T. 2001. Morfologia comparada de plântulas e plantas jovens de leguminosas arbóreas nativas: espécies de Phaseoleae, Sophoreae, Swartzieae e Tephrosieae. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 24: 85–97.Google Scholar
  16. Pennington, R. T., M. Lavin, H. Ireland, B. Klitgaard, J. Preston & J.-M. Hu. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of basal Papilionoideae legumes based upon sequences of the chloroplast trnL intron. Systematic Botany 26: 537–556.Google Scholar
  17. Polak, A. M. 1992. Major timber trees of Guyana - a field guide. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  18. Polhill, R. M. 1981. Sophoreae. Pp. 213–230. In: R. M. Polhill & P. H. Raven (eds.), Advances in Legume Systematics. Part 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 1994. Classification of the Leguminosae. Pp. 35–57. In: F. A. Bisby, J. Buckinham & J. B. Harbone (eds.), Phytochemical Dictionary of the Leguminosae. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Rocas, A. N. 2002. (Benth.) Yakovlev. Pp. 264–265. In: J. Vozzo (ed.), Tropical Tree Seed Manual. USDA, Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
  21. Rodrigues, A. A. G. 1996. Ecologia da reprodução de duas espécies de Acosmium (Schott.) Benth. (Leguminosae-Papilionoideae) no cerrado de Mogi-Guaçu, São Paulo. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, Brazil.Google Scholar
  22. Rodrigues, R. S. 2005. Sistemática de Acosmium s.l. (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae, Sophoreae) e estudos de morfologia de plântulas e números cromossômicos. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
  23. ——— & A. M. G. A. Tozzi. 2006. Guianodendron, a new genus of Leguminosae (Papilionoideae) from South America. Novon 16: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ——— & ———. 2007a. Morphological analysis and re-examination of the taxonomic circumscription of Acosmium (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae, Sophoreae). Taxon 56: 439–452.Google Scholar
  25. ——— & ———. 2007b. Morfologia de plântulas no clado Vatairea (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae). Rodriguésia 58: 221–229.Google Scholar
  26. Salomão, A. N. & A. C. Allem. 2001. Polyembryony in angiospermous trees of the Brazilian cerrado and caatinga vegetation. Acta Botanica Brasilica 15: 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santos, K. & L. S. Kinoshita. 2003. Flora arbustivo-arbórea do fragmento de floresta estacional semidecidual do Ribeirão Cachoeira, município de Campinas, SP. Acta Botanica Brasilica 17: 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Souza, L. A. G. & M. F. Silva. 1998. Tratamentos escarificadores em sementes duras de sete leguminosas nativas da Ilha de Maracá, Roraima, Brasil. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi série Botânica 14: 11–32.Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, V. 1991. Structural, functional and phylogenetic aspects of the colleter. Annals of Botany 68: 287–305.Google Scholar
  30. de Vogel, E. F. 1980. Seedlings of Dicotyledons. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  31. Wojciechowski, M. F., M. Lavin & M. J. Sanderson. 2004. A phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae) based on analysis of the plastid matk gene resolves many well-supported subclades within the family. American Journal of Botany 91: 1846–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yakovlev, G. P. 1969. A review of Sweetia and Acosmium Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh 29: 347–355.Google Scholar
  33. Ye, N. 1983. Descriptions of various seedlings of leguminous plants. Phytologia 54: 190–218.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Schütz Rodrigues
    • 1
  • Ana Maria Goulart de Azevedo Tozzi
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade Federal de RoraimaBoa VistaBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de BotânicaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations