Advertisement

The botanical magazine = Shokubutsu-gaku-zasshi

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 397–411 | Cite as

An embryological contribution to systematics of the Chrysobalanaceae I. Tribe Chrysobalaneae

  • Hiroshi Tobe
  • Peter H. Raven
Article

Abstract

In this paper we present the first results concerning the embryology of Chrysobalanaceae. In it, we document developmental features of anthers, ovules, seeds and gametophytes ofChrysobalanus andLicania (tribe Chrysobalaneae). Based on our results with these two genera, Chrysobalanaceae have a distinctive combination of embryological features. They differ from Rosaceae (in which Chrysobalanaceae were once placed as a tribe or subfamily) in having a tenuinucellate ovule, a small nucellus with the tissue soon disintegrating, and an endothelium. None of our embryological of Rosales, or with other groups such as Fabaceae or Myrtales, which have also been suggested as relatives. We propose, based upon the evidence from embryology, vegetative features, and reproductive morphology, that Chrysobalanaceae might best be placed in the order Theales, probably near the family Theaceae.

Key words

Chrysobalanaceae Chrysobalaneae Chrysobalanus Embryology Licania 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bala-Bawa, S. 1970. Theaceae.In: B.R. Seshachar, ed., Proceedings of the Symposium on Comparative Embryology of Angiosperms, held in 1967 in Dehli. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 75–77.Google Scholar
  2. Corner, E.J.H. 1976. The Seeds of Dicotyledons. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Cronquist, A. 1981. An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Dahlgren, R. 1983. General aspects of angiosperm evolution and macrosystematics. Nord. J. Bot.3: 119–149.Google Scholar
  5. Dahlgren, R. and R.F. Thorne. 1984. The order Myrtales: circumscription, variation, and relationships. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.71: (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Davis, G.L. 1966. Systematic Embryology of the Angiosperms. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Dickison, W.C. 1981. The evolutionary relationships of the Leguminosae.In: R.M. Polhill and P.H. Raven, ed., Advances in Legume Systematics, Part 1, p. 35–54. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  8. Dnyansagar, V.R. 1970. Leguminosae.In: B.R. Seshachar, ed., Proceedings of the Symposium on Comparative Embryology of angiosperms, held in 1967 in Dehli. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 93–103.Google Scholar
  9. Erdtman, G. 1952. Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy. Angiosperms. Chronica Botanica, Waltham, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Fritsch, C. 1888. Über die Gattung der Chrysobalanaceen. Verh. Zool-Bot. Ges. Wien38: 93–95.Google Scholar
  11. Gutzwiller, M.A. 1961. Die Phylogenetische Stellung vonSuriana maritima L. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.81: 1–49.Google Scholar
  12. Hallier, H. 1923. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Linaceae (DC. 1819). Dumort. Beih. Bot. Centralbl.39: 1–178.Google Scholar
  13. Hauman, L. 1951. Contribution a l'etude des Chrysobalanoides africaines Bull. Jard. Bot. Etat21: 167–198.Google Scholar
  14. Hegnauer, R. 1973. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Vol. 6. Birkhäser Verlag, Basel.Google Scholar
  15. Juel, H.O. 1915. Über den Bau des Gynöceums beiParinarium. Ark. Bot.14: 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Metcalee, C.R. andL. Chalk. 1950. Anatomy of Dicotyledons. 2 vols. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Narayana, L.L. 1975. A contribution to the floral anatomy and embryology of Ochnaceae. J. Jap. Bot.50: 329–336.Google Scholar
  18. Netolitzky, F. 1926. Anatomie der Angiospermen Samen. Linsbauer Handb. Pfl. Anat. vol. 10. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. Prance, G.T. 1972. Chrysobalanaceae. Flora Neotropica Monogr. No. 9. Hafner Publs. New York.Google Scholar
  20. —,D.J. Rogers andF. White. 1969. A taximetric study of an angiosperm family: generic delimitation in the Chrysobalanaceae. New Phytol.68: 1203–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ram, M. 1956. Floral morphology and embryology ofTrapa bispinosa, with a discussion on the systematic position of the genus. Phytomorphology6: 312–323.Google Scholar
  22. Schmid, R. 1982. Descriptors used to indicate abundance and frequency in ecology and systematics. Taxon31: 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. — andM.D. Turner. 1977. Contrad 70, an effective softener of herbarium material for anatomical study. Taxon26: 551–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Takhtajan, A.L. 1980. Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). Bot. Rev.46: 225–359.Google Scholar
  25. Thorne, R.F. 1983. Proposed new realignments in angiosperms. Nord. J. Bot.3: 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tobe, H. andP.H. Raven. 1983a. An embryological analysis of the Myrtales: its definition and characteristics. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.70: 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. . 1983b. The embryology ofAxinandra zeylanica (Crypteroniaceae) and the relationships of the genus. Bot. Gaz.144: 426–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vaughan, J.G. 1970. The Structure and Utilization of Oil Seeds. Chapman & Hall Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  29. Webb, J.E. 1902. A morphological study of flower and embryo ofSpiraea. Bot. Gaz.33: 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wettstein, R. 1933. Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik, 4 ed. Franz Deuticke, Leipzig.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Tobe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter H. Raven
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceChiba UniversityChiba
  2. 2.Missouri Botanical GardenSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations