Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 108, Issue 3, pp 289–304 | Cite as

Floral ontogeny in the Plumbaginaceae

  • J. De Laet
  • D. Clickemaillie
  • S. Jansen
  • E. Smets
Original Articles


A scanning electron microscopic study of the floral ontogeny of seven species of the Plumbaginaceae (representing five genera of the Armerioideae and two of the Plumbagoideae) is presented. The early ontogenetic stages in all species examined are sufficiently similar to propose the following familial description. The five sepal primordia are initiated simultaneously or spirally. These soon reach continuity and develop into the synsepalous calyx. Meanwhile, five common stamen-petal primordia that alternate with the sepal primordia are initiated simultaneously on the flattened apex. Soon, two distinct growth-centres can be observed on each of these primordia: a petal primordium at the abaxial side and a stamen primordium on the top. After inception of the common primordia, five gynoecial primordia alternating with the common primordia are initiated simultaneously on the corners of the apex that has become pentagonal. These primordia soon reach continuity and develop into the superior unilocular gynoecium. Continuity between the gynoecial primordia is reached earlier in the Plumbagoideae than in the Armerioideae. In the centre of the ovary a primordium arises that develops into the single basal circinotropous bitegmic ovule. The floral nectaries are associated with the androecium.

Key words

Character research Common primordia Continuity Floral ontogeny Plumbaginaceae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, H.G. 1948. Dimorphism and monomorphism in the Plumbaginaceae. I. A survey of the family. Ann. Bot.12: 207–219.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, H.G. 1966. The evolution, functioning and breakdown of heteromorphic incompatibility systems. I. The Plumbaginaceae. Evolution20: 349–368.Google Scholar
  3. Baum, H. 1949. Die Verbreitung der postgenitalen Verwachsung im Gynözeum und ihre Bedeutung für die typologische Betrachtung des coenokarpen Gynözeums. Öst. Bot. Z.95: 124–128.Google Scholar
  4. Bouman, F. 1984. The ovule.In B.M. Johri, ed., Embryology of Angiosperms, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 123–157.Google Scholar
  5. Celakovsky, L.J. 1894. Das Reductionsgesetz der Blüthen, das Dédoublement und die Obdiplostemonie. Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Böhm. Gesellschaft des wissenschaftlichen, mathematisch-naturlichen Klasses3: 1–142.Google Scholar
  6. Chase, M.W., Soltis, D.E., Olmstead, R.G., Morgan, D., Les, D.H., Mishler, B.D., Duvall, M.R., Price, R.A., Hills, H.G., Qiu, Y.-L., Kron, K.A., Rettig, J.H., Conti, E., Palmer, J.D., Manhart, J.R., Sytsma, K.J., Michaels, H.J., Kress, W.J., Karrol, K.G., Clark, W.D., Hedrén, M., Gaut, B.S., Jansen, R.K., Kim, K.-J., Wimpee, C.F., Smith, J.F., Furnier, G.R., Strauss, S.H., Xiang, Q.-Y., Plunkett, G.M., Soltis, P.S., Swensen, S.M., Williams, S.E., Gadek, P.A., Quinn, C.J., Eguiarte, L.E., Golenberg, E., Learn, G.H. Jr., Graham, S.W., Barrett, S.C.H., Dayanandan, S. andAlbert, V.A. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucieotide sequences from the plastid generbcL. Ann. Missouri. Bot. Gard.80: 528–580.Google Scholar
  7. Clinckemaillie, D. andSmets, E.F. 1992. Floral similarities between Plumbaginaceae and Primulaceae: systematic significance. Belg. J. Bot.125: 151–153.Google Scholar
  8. Clos, M.D. 1879. La théorie des soudures en botanique. Mém. Acad. Sci. Toulouse, série 8,1: 107–145.Google Scholar
  9. Coen, E.S. 1991. The role of homeotic genes in flower development and evolution. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.42: 241–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coen, E.S. andMeyerowitz, E.M. 1991. The war of the whorls: genetic interactions controlling flower development. Nature353: 31–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cresens, E.M. andSmets, E.F. 1989a. Character research on magnoliophytinean pistils—the character ‘carpel form’ and Sattler's approach to gynoecial morphology. Amer. J. Bot.76, suppl.: 30.Google Scholar
  12. Cresens, E.M. andSmets, E.F. 1989b. The carpel—a problem child of floral morphology and evolution. Bull. Jard. Bot. Nat. Belg.59: 377–409.Google Scholar
  13. Cresens, E.M. andSmets, E.F. 1990. The characterization of the character “Carpel Form”—a renewed view of the gynoecium of the Magnoliatae,In C.P. Malik, D.S. Bhatia, R.C. Setia, and P. Singh, eds., Advances in Frontier Areas of Plant Science. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, 125–154.Google Scholar
  14. Cresens, E.M. andSmets, E.F. 1992. On the character “carpel-form”. Trends in the development of the Magnoliatae pistil. Candollea47: 373–390.Google Scholar
  15. Cronquist, A. 1981. An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Cronqulst, A. 1988. The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants, ed. 2. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.Google Scholar
  17. Cusick, F. 1966. On phylogenetic and ontogenetic fusions,In E.G. Cutter, ed., Trends in Plant Morphogenesis. Longmans Green and Co, London, pp. 170–183.Google Scholar
  18. Dahlgren, R. 1983. General aspects of angiosperm evolution and macrosystematics. Nord. J. Bot.3: 119–149.Google Scholar
  19. Daniel, E. andSattler, R. 1978. Development of perianth tubes ofSolanum dulcamara: implications for comparative morphology. Phytomorphology28: 151–171.Google Scholar
  20. Dulberger, R. 1975. Intermorph structural differences between stigmatic papillae and pollen grains in relation to incompatibility in Plumbaginaceae. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B188: 257–274.Google Scholar
  21. Endress, P.K. 1987. Floral phyllotaxis and floral evolution. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.108: 417–438.Google Scholar
  22. Erbar, C. andLeins, P. 1985. Studien zur Organsequenz in Apiaceenblüten. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.105: 379–400.Google Scholar
  23. Fahn, A. 1979. Secretory Tissues in Plants. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  24. Friedrich, H.-C. 1956. Studien über die natürliche Verwandtschaft der Plumbaginales und Centrospermae. Phyton6: 220–263.Google Scholar
  25. Giannasi, D.E., Zurawski, G., Learn, G. andClegg, M.T. 1992. Evolutionary relationships of the Caryophyllidae based on comparativerbcL sequences. Syst. Bot.17: 1–15.Google Scholar
  26. Heywood, V.H. 1978. Flowering Plants of the World. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Hufford, L.D. 1988. Roles of early ontogenetic modifications in the evolution of floral form ofEucnide (Loasaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.109: 289–333.Google Scholar
  28. Kubitzki, K. 1993. Plumbaginaceae.In K. Kubitzki, J.G. Rohwer and V. Bittrich, eds., The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, vol II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 523–530.Google Scholar
  29. Labbe, A. 1962. Les Plombaginacées. Structure, développement, répartition, conséquences en systématique, Trav. Lab. Biol. Vég. Grenoble-Lautaret. Imprimerie Allier, Grenoble.Google Scholar
  30. McLean, R.C. andIvimey-Cook, W.R. 1956. Textbook of Theoretical Botany, vol. 2. Longmans, Green & Co, London.Google Scholar
  31. Melchior, H. 1964. A. Engler's Syllabus der Planzenfamilien, ed. 12, vol 2. Gebrüder Borntraeger Berlin.Google Scholar
  32. Metcalfe, C.R. andChalk, L. 1950. Anatomy of the Dicotyledons. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  33. Nowicke, J.W. and Skvarla, J.J. 1977. Pollen morphology and the relationship of the Plumbaginaceae, Polygonaceae, and Primulaceae to the order Centrospermae. Smithson. Contr. Bot.37.Google Scholar
  34. Pax, F. 1897. Plumbaginaceae.In A. Engler and K. Prantl, eds., Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, vol. 4. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, pp. 116–125.Google Scholar
  35. Payer, J.-B. 1857. Traité d'organogénie comparée de la fleur. Librairie de Victor Masson, Paris. (reprint by J. Cramer, 1966, Wheldon and Wesley Ltd, New York).Google Scholar
  36. Pfeffer, W. 1872. Zur Blüthenentwicklung der Primulaceen und Ampelideen. Jahrb. wiss. Bot.8: 194–215.Google Scholar
  37. Ronse Decraene L.-P., Clinckemaillie, D. andSmets, E. 1993. Stamen-petal complexes in Magnoliatae. Bull. Jard. Bot. Nat. Belg.62: 97–112.Google Scholar
  38. Ronse Decraene, L.-P. andSmets, E.F. 1991. The floral nectaries ofPolygonum s.I. and related genera (Persicarieae and Polygoneae): position, morphological nature and semophylesis, Flora185: 165–185.Google Scholar
  39. Ronse Decraene, L.P. andSmets, E.F. 1993. Dédoublement revisited: towards a renewed interpretation of the androecium of the Magnoliophytina. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.113: 103–124.Google Scholar
  40. Roth, I. 1961a. Histogenese und morphologische Deutung der basilären Plazenta vonArmeria. Öst. Bot. Z.109: 18–40.Google Scholar
  41. Roth, I. 1961b. Histogenese und morphologische Deutung der Kronblätter vonArmeria. Portug. Acta Biol., série A,6: 211–230.Google Scholar
  42. Sattler, R. 1962. Zur frühen Infloreszenz-und Blütenentwicklung der Primulales sensu lato mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Stamen-Petalum-Entwicklung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.81: 358–396.Google Scholar
  43. Sattler, R. 1967. Petal inception and the problem of pattern detection. J. Theoret. Biol.17: 31–39.Google Scholar
  44. Sattler, R. 1974. A new approach to gynoecial morphology. Phytomorphology24: 22–34.Google Scholar
  45. Sattler, R. 1977. Kronröhrenentstehung beiSolanum dulcamara L. und “kongenitale Verwachsung”. Ber. Dt. Bot. Ges.90: 29–38.Google Scholar
  46. Sattler, R. 1978. “Fusion” and “continuity” in floral morphology. Notes R. Bot. Card. Edinb.36: 397–405.Google Scholar
  47. Sattler, R. 1988. A dynamic multidimensional approach to floral morphology.In P. Leins, S.C. Tucker and P.K. Endress, eds., Aspects of Floral Development. Cramer, Berlin, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  48. Schnarf, K. 1929. Embryologie der Angiospermen. Handbuch der Pflanzenanatomie II 2, Gebrüder. Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
  49. Schnepf, E. 1969. Sekretion und Excretion bei Pflanzen, Protoplasmologia VIII, 8, Springer-Verlag, Wien.Google Scholar
  50. Smets, E.F. 1986. Localization and systematic importance of the floral nectaries in the Magnoliatae (dicotyledons). Bull. Jard. Bot. Nat. Belg.56: 51–76.Google Scholar
  51. Smets, E.F. 1988. Florale nektariën van de Magnoliophytina: karakterizering en systematische betekenis. Doctoral dissertation, Instituut voor Plantkunde, K.U. Leuven.Google Scholar
  52. Smets, E. 1989. The distribution and the systematic relevance of caducous nectaries and persistent nectaries in the Magnoliophytina (angiosperms). Acta Bot. Neerl.38: 100.Google Scholar
  53. Smets, E.F. andCresens, E.M. 1988. Types of floral nectaries and the concepts ‘character’ and ‘character-state’—a reconsideration. Acta Bot. Neerl.37: 121–128.Google Scholar
  54. Stebbins, G.L. 1974. Flowering plants. Evolution above the Species Level. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  55. Swales, D.E. 1979. Nectaries of certain Arctic and Subarctic plants with notes on pollination. Rhodora81: 363–407.Google Scholar
  56. Takhtajan, A. 1986. Floristic Regions of the World. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  57. Taylor, D.W. 1991. Angiosperm ovules and carpels: their characters and polarities, distribution in basal clades, and structural evolution. Postilla208: 1–40.Google Scholar
  58. Thorne, R.F. 1981. Phytochemistry and angiosperm phylogeny: a summary statement.In D.A. Young and D.S. Selgler, eds., Phytochemistry and Angiosperm Phylogeny. Praeger Publ., New York, pp. 233–295.Google Scholar
  59. Troll, W. 1932. Morphologie der schildförmigen Blätter. Planta17: 153–314.Google Scholar
  60. Tucker, S.C. 1989. Overlapping organ initiation and common primordia in flowers ofPisum sativum (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae). Amer. J. Bot.76: 714–729.Google Scholar
  61. Verbeke, J.A. 1992. Fusion events during floral morphogenesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.43: 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vuilleumier, B.S. 1967. The origin and evolutionary development of heterostyly in the angiosperms. Evolution21: 210–226.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. De Laet
    • 1
  • D. Clickemaillie
    • 1
  • S. Jansen
    • 1
  • E. Smets
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Plant Systematics, Botanical InstituteK.U. LeuvenHeverleeBelgium

Personalised recommendations