Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phylogenetic analysis ofUlmaceae

  • Published:
Plant Systematics and Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bate-Smith, E. C., Richens, R. E., 1973: Flavonoid chemistry and taxonomy inUlmus. — Biochem. Syst.1: 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, H.-D., 1973: Sieve-tube plastids ofHamamelididae. — Taxon22: 205–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1989: Sieve element plastids, phloem proteins, and the evolution of flowering plants. IV.Hamamelidae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae. 1: Introduction and “Lower”Hamamelidae, pp. 105–128. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40A. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C. C., 1977:Urticales, their differentiation and systematic position. — Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 349–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1989: Systematics and phylogeny of theUrticales. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 193–220. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessey, C. E., 1915: The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.2: 109–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, W., 1977:Ulmaceae. — InBurger, W., (Ed.): Flora costaricensis. — Fieldiana Bot.40: 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernik, V. V., 1975: Arrangement and reduction of perianth and androecium parts in representatives of theUlmaceae Mirbel andCeltidaceae Link. — Bot. Žurn.60: 1561–1573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, D. J., 1978: Flavonoid chemistry and angiosperm evolution. — Bot. Rev.44: 431–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronquist, A., 1968: The evolution and classification of flowering plants. — New York: New York Botanical Garden.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1981: An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. — New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahn, A., 1982: Plant anatomy. — Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, A. H., 1983:Plagioceltis (Ulmaceae) — A superfluous genus. — Taxon32: 460–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannasi, D. E., 1978: Generic relationships in theUlmaceae based on flavonoid chemistry. — Taxon27: 331–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: Phytochemical aspects of phylogeny inHamamelidae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 417–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldblatt, P., 1981: Index to plant chromosome numbers 1975–1978. — St. Louis: Missouri Bot. Gard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornall, R. J., Bohm, B. A., 1978: Angiosperm flavonoid evolution: a reappraisal. — Syst. Bot.3: 353–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudzinskaya, I. A., 1967: TheUlmaceae and reasons for distinguishing theCeltidoideae as a separate familyCeltidaceae Link. — Bot. Žurn.52: 1723–1749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harborne, J. B., 1977: Flavonoids and the evolution of angiosperms. — Biochem. Syst. Ecol.5: 722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, L. J., 1973: Classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves. — Amer. J. Bot.60: 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1979: A revised classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves. — InMetcalfe, C. R., Chalk, L., (Eds): Anatomy of dicotyledons 1, pp. 25–39. — 2nd edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: vegetative morphology. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 538–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1991: The leaf architecture ofTicodendron and the application of foliar characters in discerning its relationships. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.78: 105–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufford, L. D., Crane, P. R., 1989: A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the ‘lower’Hamamelidae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 1: introduction and ‘Lower’Hamamelidae, pp. 175–192. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40A. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, C. J., Blackmore, S., 1989: A review of the classification of theMoraceae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 267–277. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J., 1967: The genera of flowering plants.2. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, W. S., Sanders, R. W., Donoghue, M. J., 1994: Angiosperm family pairs: preliminary phylogenetic analyses. — Harvard Papers Bot.5: 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroy, J.-F., 1961: Un deuxièmeAphananthe (Ulmacee) du Mexique. — J. Agricult. Trop. Bot. Appl.8: 72–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchester, S. R., 1989: Systematics and fossil history of theUlmaceae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 221–251. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauseth, J. D., 1988: Plant anatomy. — Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, P. N., Gill, B. S., 1974: Cytological studies inUlmaceae, Moraceae, andUrticaceae. — J. Arnold Arbor.55: 663–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morawetz, W., Samuel, M. R. A., 1989: Karyological patterns in theHamamelidae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae, 1: Introduction and ‘Lower’Hamamelidae, pp. 129–154. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40A. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J., 1981: Fossil pollen records of extant angiosperms. — Bot. Rev.47: 1–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oginuma, K., Raven, P. H., Tobe, H., 1990: Karyomorphology and relationships ofCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales). — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)103: 113–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polhill, R. M., 1966:Ulmaceae. — InHubbard, C. E., Milne-Redhead, E., (Eds): Flora of Tropical East Africa. — London: Whitefriars Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. H., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: cytology. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 724–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soepadmo, E., 1977:Ulmaceae. — Flora Malesiana, ser. 1,8: 31–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweitzer, E. M., 1971: Comparative anatomy ofUlmaceae. — J. Arnold Arbor.52: 523–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, D., 1989: PAUP — Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, Version 3.1. — Illinois: Illinois Natural History Survey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, M., 1989: Pollen morphology ofCeltidaceae andUlmaceae: a reinvestigation. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics and fossil history of theHamamelidae. 2: HigherHamamelidae, pp. 253–265. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40B. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takaso, T., 1987: Ovule ontogeny and morphology inUlmaceae. — XIV Internat. Bot. Cong., Berlin, Abstracts, p. 220.

  • —, 1990: Seed coat morphology and evolution inCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales). — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)103: 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terabayashi, S., 1991: Vernation patterns inCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales), and their evolutionary and systematic implications. — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)104: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. W., Doyle, J. A., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: palynology. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 664–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. A., Doyle, J. A., Page, V. M., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: paleobotany. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 801–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavada, M., 1983: Pollen morphology ofUlmaceae. — Grana22: 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1981: Investigations of angiosperms from the Middle Eocene of North America: flowers of theCeltidoideae. — Amer. J. Bot.68: 924–933.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: Comparative pollen morphology and its relationships to phylogeny of pollen in theHamamelididae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 348–381.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Providence College, 02918, Providence, R. I., USA

    Michael S. Zavada

  2. Department of Biology Education, Chonbuk National University, 560-756, Chonju, Republic of Korea

    Muyeol Kim

Authors
  1. Michael S. Zavada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muyeol Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zavada, M.S., Kim, M. Phylogenetic analysis ofUlmaceae . Pl Syst Evol 200, 13–20 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984745

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984745

Key words

Search

Navigation