The botanical magazine = Shokubutsu-gaku-zasshi

, Volume 98, Issue 3, pp 291–316 | Cite as

The morphology and anatomy ofHydrastis (Ranunculales): Systematic reevaluation of the genus

  • Hiroshi Tobe
  • Richard C. Keating


Evidence from morphology and anatomy (including embryology), as well as from palynology, chemistry and cytology, indicates thatHydrastis is quite divergent from Ranunculaceae (in which the genus has been most often included) as well as from both Glaucidiaceae and Berberidaceae. Distinctive features ofHydrastis, which demarcate it from Ranunculaceae but which are sometimes shared by Berberidaceae, are: the unique mode of origin of the vascular supply to stamens and carpels; the micropyle being formed by both integuments; the xylem not V-shaped in cross section; scalariform vessel perforations present; haploid chromosome number 13; pollen tectum consisting of a compound layer of striae; leaf mesophyll not differentiated; the unique course of stem medullary bundles; D-galactose present. Its distinctive higher haploid chromosome number, as well as its many less-specialized character states (in floral structure, leaf anatomy, and xylem and vessel morphology), suggest thatHydrastis is a relictual primitive group which diverged early from a common ancestral stock of Ranunculaceae, Berberidaceae and probably of Circaeasteraceae; at least some of the features shared byHydrastis and one or another of the families concerned seem to be a heritage from their common ancestor. We propose a reestablishment of a monotypic family, Hydrastidaceae.

Key words

Berberidaceae Hydrastis Hydrastidaceae Plant morphology Ranunculaceae Ranunculales 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baillon, H. 1867. Historie des Plantes. Vol. I. Paris.Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, G. and J.D. Hooker. 1862. Genera Plantarum. Vol. I. London.Google Scholar
  3. Blaque, G. andJ. Maheu. 1926. Les falsifications actuelles de l'Hydrastis canadensis. Bull. Sci. Pharmacol.33: 375–384.Google Scholar
  4. Bouman, F. andJ.I.M. Calis. 1977. Integumentary shifting—a third way to unitegmy. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.90: 15–28.Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, H. 1891. A contribution to the life-history ofHydrastis canadensis. Bot. Gaz. (Craw-fordsville)16: 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouland, M. 1935. Recherches sur l'anatomie florale des Renonculacées. Botaniste27: 1–252.Google Scholar
  7. Buchheim, G. 1964. Reihe Ranunculales.In: H. Melchior, ed., A. Engler's Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, 12, Aufl.2: 131–147. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Chapman, M. 1936. Carpel anatomy of the Berberidaceae. Amer. J. Bot.23: 340–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chute, M. 1930. The morphology and anatomy of the achene. Amer. J. Bot.17: 703–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronquist, A. 1968. The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants. Nelson, London.Google Scholar
  11. — 1981. An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, G.L. 1966. Systematic Embryology of the Angiosperms. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  13. De Candolle, A.P. 1824. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis. Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Delpino, F. 1899. Rapporti tra la evoluzione e la distribuzione geographica della Ranunculaceae. Mem. Reale Accad. Sci. Inst. Bologna8: 17–66.Google Scholar
  15. Eames, A.J. 1961. Morphology of the Angiosperms. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Engler, A. 1903. Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. 3 Aufl. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. — andL. Diels. 1936. Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. Il Aufl. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
  18. Francini, E. 1931. Lo sviluppo del sistema conduttore in plantule diHydrastis canadensis L. Nuovo Giorn. Bot. Ital.38: 336–357.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, A. 1848. The Genera of the Plants of the United States. Boston.Google Scholar
  20. Guédès, M. 1977. Le gynécée dePodophyllum (Berbéridacées): monomérie vraie et placentation suturale de la portion congénitalement close du carpelle. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci.285: 755–758.Google Scholar
  21. Heintz, A. 1927. Cormofyternas Fylogeni. Lund.Google Scholar
  22. Himmelbaur, W. 1913. Die Berberidaceen und ihre Stellung im System. Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. Math.-Naturwiss. Kl.89: 733–796.Google Scholar
  23. Holm, T. 1899.Podophyllum peltatum, a morphological study. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville)27: 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. — 1913. Medical plants of North America: 75.Hydrastis canadensis. Merck's Rep.22: 202–204.Google Scholar
  25. Hus, H. 1907. The germination ofHydrastis canadensis. Ann. Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard.18: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iriki, Y. andH. Minamisawa. 1983. D-galactose and a ribitol-like substance inHydrastis canadensis L. Nippon Nogeikagaku Kaishi57: 319–321.Google Scholar
  27. Janchen, B. 1948. Die Systematische Gliederung der Ranunculaceen und Berberidaceen. Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. Math.-Naturwiss. Kl.108: 1–82.Google Scholar
  28. Jensen, U. 1968. Serologische Beiträge zur Systematik der Ranunculaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.88: 269–310.Google Scholar
  29. Jussieu, A.L. De. 1789. Genera Plantarum. Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Kaplan, D.R. 1975. Comparative developmental evaluation of the morphology of unifacial leaves in the monocotyledons. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.95: 1–105.Google Scholar
  31. Kaute, U. 1963. Beiträge zur Morphologie des Gynoeceums der Berberidaceen mit einem Anhang über die Rhizomknospe vonPlagiorhegma dubium. Doktordissertation, Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  32. Kumazawa, M. 1930a. Studies on the structure of Japanese species ofRanunculus. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. 3, Bot.2: 297–343.Google Scholar
  33. — 1930b. Morphology and biology ofGlaucidium palmatum Sieb. et Zucc. with notes of affinities to the allied generaHydrastis, Podophyllum andDiphylleia. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. 3, Bot.2: 345–380.Google Scholar
  34. — 1930c. Structure and affinities ofGlaucidium and its allied genera. Bot. Mag. Tokyo44: 479–490 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  35. — 1932. The medullary bundle system in the Ranunculaceae and allied plants. Bot. Mag. Tokyo46: 327–332 (in Japanese with English summary).Google Scholar
  36. — 1935. The structure and affinities ofPaeonia. Bot. Mag. Tokyo49: 306–315 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  37. — 1936. Pollen grain morphology in Ranunculaceae, Lardizabalaceae and Berberidaceae. Jap. J. Bot.8: 19–46, 5 plates.Google Scholar
  38. — 1937a. Comparative studies on the vernation in the Ranunculaceae and Berberidaceae. J. Jap. Bot.13: 573–586, 659–669, 713–726 (in Japanese with English summary).Google Scholar
  39. — 1973b.Ranzania japonica (Berberidac.). Its morphology, biology and systematic affinities. Jap. J. Bot.9: 55–70.Google Scholar
  40. — 1938a. On the ovular structure in the Ranunculaceae and Berberidaceae. J. Jap. Bot.14: 10–25.Google Scholar
  41. — 1938b. Systematic and phylogenetic consideration of the Ranunculaceae and Berberidaceae. Bot. Mag. Tokyo52: 9–15.Google Scholar
  42. Kurita, M. 1967. Chromosome studies in Ranunculaceae. XXV. Mem. Ehime Univ., Sect. 2, Nat. Sci.5: 165–169.Google Scholar
  43. Langlet, O. 1928. Einige Beobachtungen über die Zytologie der Berberidazeen. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.22: 169–184.Google Scholar
  44. Leinfellner, W. 1957. Zur Morphologie des Gynoezeums vonBerberis. Oesterr. Bot. Z.103: 600–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lemesle, R. 1948. Position phylogénétique de l'Hydrastis canadensis L. et duCrossosoma californicum Nutt., d'après les particularités histologiques du xylème. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci.227: 221–223.Google Scholar
  46. — 1950. L'Hydrastis canadensis L. et ses principales falsifications. Rev. Gén. Bot.57: 5–23.Google Scholar
  47. — 1955. Contribution a l'etude de quelques familles de dicotyledones considerees comme primitives. Phytomorphology5: 11–45.Google Scholar
  48. Lindley, J. 1831. An Introduction to the Natural system of Botany. C. & C. & H. Carvill, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Linnaus, C. 1759. Systema Naturae. 10 ed. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  50. Lloyd, J.U. andC.G. Lloyd. 1884/85. Drugs and Medicines of North America. Robert Clarke Co., Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  51. Lotsy, J.P. 1911. Vorträge über botanische Stammesgeschichte. Jena.Google Scholar
  52. Marié, P. 1885. Recherches sur la structure des Renonculacées. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.20: 5–180.Google Scholar
  53. Maue, G. 1926. Zur Pharmakognosie der Ranunculaceen und Berberidaceen. Anatomie des Laubblattes. Doktordissertation, Universität Basel.Google Scholar
  54. Mauritzon, J. 1936. Zur Embryologie der Berberidaceen. Acta Horti Gothob.11: 1–17.Google Scholar
  55. Metcalfe, C.R. andL. Chalk. 1950. Anatomy of the Dicotyledons. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  56. Miyaji, Y. 1930. Beiträge zur Chromosomenphylogenie der Berberidaceen. Planta11: 650–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nowicke, J.W. andJ.J. Skvarla. 1981. Pollen morphology and phylogenetic relationships of the Berberidaceae. Smithsonian Contri. Bot.50: 1–83.Google Scholar
  58. . 1982. Pollen morphology and the relationships ofCircaeaster, ofKingdonia and, ofSargentodoxa to the Ranunculales. Amer. J. Bot.69: 990–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pohl, J. 1894. Botanische Mitteilung überHydrastis canadensis. Biblioth. Bot.29: 1–12.Google Scholar
  60. Prantl, K. 1888. Beiträge zur Morphologie und Systematik der Ranunculaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.9: 225–273.Google Scholar
  61. Sastri, R.L.N. 1969. Floral morphology, embryology, and relationships of the Berberidaceae. Aust. J. Bot.17: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schumann, K. 1897. Die Morphologie einiger Drogen. Arch. Pharm. (Berlin)235: 592–619.Google Scholar
  63. Stearn, W.T. 1973. Botanical Latin. 2 ed. David & Charles, Newton Abbot.Google Scholar
  64. Takhtajan, A. 1966. A System and Phylogeny of the Flowering Plants. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).Google Scholar
  65. — 1980. Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). Bot. Rev. (Lancaster)46: 225–539.Google Scholar
  66. Tamura, M. 1962a. Petiolar anatomy in the Ranunculaceae. Sci. Rep. S. Coll. N. Coll. Osaka Univ.11: 19–47.Google Scholar
  67. — 1962b. Morphology, ecology and phylogeny of the Ranunculaceae. I. Sci. Rep. S. Coll. N. Coll. Osaka Univ.11: 115–126.Google Scholar
  68. — 1962c. Taxonomical and phylogenetical consideration of the Ranunculaceae. Acta Phytotax. Geobot.20: 71–81 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  69. — 1963. Morphology, ecology and phylogeny of the Ranunculaceae. II. Sci. Rep. S. Coll. N. Coll. Osaka Univ.12: 141–156.Google Scholar
  70. — 1964. Morphology, ecology and phylogeny of the Ranunculaceae. III. Sci. Rep. S. Coll. N. Coll. Osaka Univ.13: 25–38.Google Scholar
  71. — 1965. Morphology, ecology and phylogeny of the Ranunculaceae. IV. Sci. Rep. S. Coll. N. Coll. Osaka Univ.14: 53–71.Google Scholar
  72. — 1966. Morphology, ecology and phylogeny of the Ranunculaceae. VI. Sci. Rep. S. Coll. N. Coll. Osaka Univ.15: 13–35.Google Scholar
  73. — 1972. Morphology and phyletic relationship of the Glaucidiaceae. Bot. Mag. Tokyo85: 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. — andY. Mizumoto. 1972. Stages of embryo development in ripe seeds of achenes of the Ranunculaceae. J. Jap. Bot.47: 225–236.Google Scholar
  75. Terabayashi, S. 1977. Studies in the morphology and systematics of Berberidaceae. I. Floral anatomy ofRanzania japonica. Acta Phytotax. Geobot.28: 45–57.Google Scholar
  76. — 1978. Studies in the morphology and systematics of Berberidaceae. II. Floral anatomy ofMahonia japonica (Thunb.) DC. andBerberis thunbergii DC. Acta Phytotax. Geobot.30: 153–168.Google Scholar
  77. — 1979. Studies in the morphology and systematics of Berberidaceae. III. Floral anatomy ofEpimedium grandiflorum Morren subsp.sempervirens (Nakai) Kitamura andVancouveria hexandra (Hooker) Morren et Decne. Acta Phytotax. Geobot.30: 153–168.Google Scholar
  78. — 1981. Studies in the morphology and systematics of Berberidaceae. IV. Floral anatomy ofPlagiorhegma dubia Maxim.,Jeffersonia diphylla (L.) Pers. andAchlys triphylla (Smith) DC. subsp.japonica (Maxim.) Kitam. Bot. Mag. Tokyo94: 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. — 1983a. Studies in the morphology and systematics of berberidaceae. V. Floral anatomy ofCaulophyllum, Leontice, Gymnospermium andBongardia. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyoto Univ., Ser. Biol.8: 197–217.Google Scholar
  80. — 1983b. Studies in the morphology and systematics of Berberidaceae. VI. Floral anatomy ofDiphylleia, Podophyllum andDysosma. Acta Phytotax. Geobot.34: 27–47.Google Scholar
  81. Thorne, R.F. 1974. A phylogenetic classification of the Annoniflorae. Aliso8: 147–209.Google Scholar
  82. — 1976. A phylogenetic classification of the angiosperms. Evol. Biol.9: 35–106.Google Scholar
  83. Tischler, G. 1902. Die Berberidaceen und Podophyllaceen. Versuch einer morphologisch-biologischen Monographie. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.31: 596–727.Google Scholar
  84. Tobe, H. 1980. Morphological studies on the genusClematis Linn., VI. Vascular anatomy of the androecial and gynoecial regions of the floral receptacle. Bot. Mag. Tokyo93: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. — 1981. Embryological studies inGlaucidium palmatum Sieb. et Zucc. with a discussion on the taxonomy of the genus. Bot. Mag. Tokyo94: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vijayaraghavan, M.R. 1970. Ranunculaceae. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 45–52.Google Scholar
  87. Wettstein, R. 1910/11. Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik. 2. Aufl. Wien-Leibzig.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Tobe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard C. Keating
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceChiba UniversityChiba
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesSouthern Illinois UniversityEdwardsvilleU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations