The botanical magazine = Shokubutsu-gaku-zasshi

, Volume 103, Issue 3, pp 269–282 | Cite as

A morphological study of branch development in mosses with special reference to pseudoparaphyllia

  • Hiroyuki Akiyama
Article

Abstract

The manner of branch development in mosses was studied. Two types of branch development,Bryum-type andClimacium-type, can be distinguished by their morphology at dormancy. In theBryum-type, the branch primordium does not produce leaves and stays as a primordium at dormancy; the primordium is merely a mass of thin-walled cells with an apical cell. However, in theClimacium-type, the branch primordium produces leaves even in the very early stages of development, and it is a bud accompanied by scale-like leaves that goes through dormancy.

Though pseudoparaphyllia have been considered to originate from epidermal cells of a stem, results of the present study show that they are, whether filamentous or foliose, produced by the branch primordia. TheBryum-type of dormant branch primordium is accompanied by filamentous pseudoparaphyllia in some species, while, that of theClimacium-type is sometimes accompanied by foliose pseudoparaphyllia. Filamentous pseudoparaphyllia are found to be produced adventitiously from the outermost cell layer of a primordium. Developmental mode of foliose pseudoparaphyllia is left for a future survey.

Key words

Branch primordia Morphology Mosses Paraphyllia Pseudoparaphyllia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akiyama, H. 1986. Notes on little known species of the genusLeucodon with immersed or laterally exserted capsules. Acta Phytotax. Geobot.37: 128–136.Google Scholar
  2. — 1988. Studies onLeucodon (Leucodontaceae, Musci) and related genera in East Asia IV. Taxonomic revision ofLeucodon in East Asia. J. Hattori Bot. Lab.65: 1–80.Google Scholar
  3. Akiyama, H. 1990. Morphology and taxonomic significance of dormant branch primordium, dormant buds, and vegetative reproductive organs in the suborder Leucodontineae and Neckerineae (Musci, Isobryales). Bryologist93 (in press).Google Scholar
  4. Allen, B. 1987. On distinguishing Pterobryaceae and Meteoriaceae by means of pseudoparaphyllia. Bryological Times42: 1–3.Google Scholar
  5. Ando, H. 1972. Studies of the genusHypnum Hedw. (I). J. Hiroshima Univ. ser. B, div. 2,14: 53–73.Google Scholar
  6. Bonnot, E.-J. 1966. Polis muciféres et paraphylles chezThuidium tamariscium (Hedw.) B. S. G. Rev. Bryol. Lichénol.35: 331–335.Google Scholar
  7. — 1967. Sur la valeur et la signification des paraphylles chez les Bryales. Bull. Soc. Bot. France, Mém.1967: 236–248.Google Scholar
  8. Buck, W.R. 1980. A generic revision of the Entodontaceae. J. Hattori Bot. Lab.48: 71–159.Google Scholar
  9. — 1984. On pseudoparaphyllia. Evansia1: 9–11.Google Scholar
  10. — 1988. Another view of familial delimitation in the Hookeriales. J. Hattori Bot. Lab.64: 29–36.Google Scholar
  11. — andR. Ireland. 1985. A reclassification of the Plagiotheciaceae. Nova Hedwigia41: 89–125.Google Scholar
  12. Crandall-Stotler, B. 1972. Morphogenetic patterns of branch formation in the leafy Hepaticae—A résumé. Bryologist75: 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ireland, R. 1971. Moss pseudoparaphyllia. Bryologist74: 312–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iwatsuki, Z. 1963. Bryological miscellanies XII–XIII. J. Hattori Bot. Lab.26: 63–74.Google Scholar
  15. — 1970. A revision ofPlagiothecium and its related genera from Japan and her adjacent areas, I. J. Hattori Bot. Lab.33: 331–380.Google Scholar
  16. — 1987. Notes onIsopterygium Mitt. (Plagiotheciaceae). J. Hattori Bot. Lab.63: 445–451.Google Scholar
  17. — andR.A. Pursell. 1980. Axillary hyaline nodules inFissidens (Fissidentaceae). J. Hattori Bot. Lab.48: 329–335.Google Scholar
  18. Kitagawa, N. 1984. Analogy between bryophytes and higher plants. II. Notes on the calyptrae in mosses. Shida-to-Koke13: 16–22 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  19. Leitgeb, H. 1868. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Pflanzen. I. Wachstum des Stämmches vonFontinalis antipyretica. Sitzb. Akad. Wiss. Wien57: 308–342.Google Scholar
  20. Lin, S.-H. 1984. A taxonomic revision of Phyllogoniaceae (Bryopsida). Part II. J. Taiwan Museum37(2): 1–54.Google Scholar
  21. Lorch, W. 1931. Anatomie der Laubmoose.In K. Liusbauer, Handbuch der Pflanzenanatomie, Bd. VIII. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, G.H. 1955. Cryptogamic Botany. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Watanabe, E. andH. Ando. 1977. Pseudoparaphyllia and their taxonomic importance inHypnum and allied genera. Misc. Bryol. Lichenol.7: 174–177. (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroyuki Akiyama
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceKyoto UniversityKyoto

Personalised recommendations