Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 111, Issue 1, pp 25–43 | Cite as

Pseudodiplostemony, and its implications for the evolution of the androecium in the Caryophyllaceae

  • Louis P. Ronse Decraene
  • Erik F. Smets
  • Peter Vanvinckenroye
Original Articles

Abstract

The androecium of the Caryophyllaceae is varied, ranging from a two-whorled condition to a single stamen. A number of species belonging to the three subfamilies, Caryophyl-loideae, Alsinoideae and Paronychioideae have been studied ontogenetically with the SEM to understand their peculiar androecial development in the broader context of the Caryophyllales alliance. Although patterns of initiation are highly variable among species, there are three ontogenetic modes of stamen initiation: all stamens simultaneous within a whorl, the antepetalous stamens simultaneous and the antesepalous sequentially with a reversed direction, or both whorls sequentially with or without a reversed direction. The most common floral (ontogenetic) sequence of the Caryophyllaceae runs as follows: five sepals (in a 2/5 sequence), the stamens in front of the three inner sepals successively, stamens opposite the two outermost sepals, five antepetalous stamens (simultaneously or in a reversed spiral superimposed on the spiral of the antesepalous stamens), five outer sterile (petaloid) organs arising before, simultaneously or after the antesepalous stamens, often by the division of common primordia. A comparison with the floral configurations of the Phytolaccaceae and Molluginaceae indicates that the outer petaline whorl of the Caryophyllaceae corresponds positionally to the alternisepalous stamens of somePhytolacca, such asP. dodecandra. The difference withP. dodecandra lies in the fact that an extra inner or outer whorl is formed in the Caryophyl-laceae, in alternation with the sepals. A comparable arrangement exists in the Molluginaceae, though the initiation of stamens is centrifugal. A comparison of floral ontogenies and the presence of reduction series in the Caryophyllaceae support the idea that the pentamerous arrangement is derived from a trimerous prototype. Petals correspond to sterillized stamens and are comparable to two stamen pairs opposite the outer sepals and a single stamen alternating with the third and fifth sepals. Petals are often in a state of reduction; they may be confused with staminodes and they often arise from common stamenpetal primordia. The antesepalous stamen whorl represents an amalgamation of two whorls: initiation is reversed with the stamens opposite the fourth and fifth formed sepals arising before the other, while the stamens opposite the first and second formed sepals are frequently reduced or lost. Reductive trends are correlated with the mode of initiation of the androecium, as well as changes in the number of carpels, and affect the antesepalous and antepetalous whorls in different proportions. It is concluded that the androecium of the Caryophyllaceae is pseudodiplos-temonous and is not comparable to diplostemonous forms in the Dilleniidae and Rosidae. The basic floral formula of Caryophyllaceae is as follows: sepals 5—petals 5 (sterile stamens)—antesepalous stamens 3+2—antepetalous stamens 5 gynoecium 5.

Key words

Androecium Caryophyllaceae Floral development Gynoecium Petals Pseudodiplo-stemony Reductive trends 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baillon, H. 1886a. Sur la symétrie des androcées méiostémonés et du disque des Caryophyllacées. Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris1,76: 601–603.Google Scholar
  2. Baillon, H. 1886b. Organisation florale duGithago. Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris1,76: 603–604.Google Scholar
  3. Baillon, H. 1888. Caryophyllacées. Histoire des Plantes 9, 76, Hachette, Paris, pp 81–129.Google Scholar
  4. Behnke, H. -D. 1976. Ultrastructure of sieve-element plastids of the Caryophyllales (Centrospermae), evidence for the delimitation and classification of the order. Pl. Syst. Evol.126: 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behnke, H. -D. 1993. Sieve-element plastids: their significance for the evolution and systematics of the order.In H. -D. Behnke and T.J. Mabry, eds., Caryophyllales. Evolution and Systematics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 87–121.Google Scholar
  6. Bittrich, V. 1993. Caryophyllaceae.In K. Kubitzki, J.G. Rohwer and V. Bittrich, eds. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, vol. 2, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 206–236.Google Scholar
  7. Buxbaum, F. 1961. Vorläufige Untersuchungen über Umfang, systematische Stellung und Gliederung der Caryophyllales (Centrospermae). Beitr. Biol. Pflanz.36: 1–56.Google Scholar
  8. 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, Yin-Long, Kron, K.A., Rettig, J.H., Conti, E., Palmer, J.D., Manhart, J.R., Sytsma, K.J., Michaels, H.J., Kress, W.J., Karol, K.G., Clark, W.D., Hedrén, M., Gaut, B.S., Jansen, R.K., Kim, Ki-Joong, Wimpee, C.F., Smith, J.F., Furnier, G.R., Strauss, S.H., Xiang, Qiu-Yun, Plunkett, G.M., Soltis, P.S., Swensen, S.M., Williams, S.E., Gadek, P.A., Jr., Quinn, C.J., Egularte, L.E., Golenberg, E., Learn, G.H. Graham, S.W., Barrett, S.C.H., Selvadurai Dayanandan andAlbert, V.A. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid generbcL. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.80: 528–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohn, F. 1915. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Chenopodiaceen. Flora106: 51–89.Google Scholar
  10. Cronquist, A. 1981. An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia University press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Cronquist, A. andThorne, R.F. 1993. Nomenclatural and taxonomic history.In H. -D. Behnke and T.J. Mabry, eds., Caryophyllales. Evolution and Systematics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 5–25.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlgren, R. 1983. General aspects of angiosperm evolution and macrosystematics. Nord. J. Bot.3: 119–149.Google Scholar
  13. Downie, S.R. andPalmer, J.D. 1994. A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of the Caryophyllales based on structural and inverted repeat restriction site variation. Syst. Bot.19: 236–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckardt, T. 1976. Classical morphological features of Centrospermous families. Pl. Syst. Evol.126: 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eckert, G. 1966. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und blütenanatomische Untersuchungen zum Problem der Obdiplostemonie. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.85: 523–604.Google Scholar
  16. Ehrendorfer, F. 1976. Closing remarks: systematics and evolution of Centrospermous families. Pl. Syst. Evol.126: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eichler, A.W. 1878. Blütendiagramme II. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  18. Erbar, C. andLeins, P. 1985. Studien zur Organsequenz in Apiaceen-Blüten. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.105: 379–400.Google Scholar
  19. Fiedler, H. 1910. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Nyctaginaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.44: 572–605.Google Scholar
  20. Franz, E. 1908. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Portulacaceen und Basellaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.42, Beibl. 97: 1–28.Google Scholar
  21. Friedrich, H. -C. 1956. Studien über die natürliche Verwandtschaft der Plumbaginales und Centrospermae. Phyton (Austria)6: 220–263.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haas, R. 1976. Morphologische, anatomische und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an Blüten und Früchten hochsukkulenter Mesembryanthemaceen-Gattungen-ein Beitrag zu ihrer Systematik. Diss. Bot.33: 1–256.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, E.M. 1995. Inflorescence and floral ontogeny in Asteraceae. A synthesis of historical and current concepts. Bot. Rev.61: 93–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haskell, G. 1949. Variation in the number of stamens in the common chickweed. J. Genet.49: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofmann, U. 1973. Centrospermen-Studien 6: Morphologische Untersuchungen zur Umgrenzung und Gliederung der Aizoaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.93: 247–324.Google Scholar
  27. Hofmann, U. 1977. Centrospermen-Studien 9: Die Stellung vonStegnosperma innerhalb der Centrospermen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.90: 39–52.Google Scholar
  28. Hofmann, U. 1993. Flower morphology and ontogeny.In H. -D. Behnke and T.J. Mabry, eds., Caryophyllales. Evolution and Systematics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 123–166.Google Scholar
  29. Ihlenfeldt, H.D. 1960. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche, morphologische und systematische Untersuchungen an Mesembryanthemen. Feddes Repert.63: 1–104.Google Scholar
  30. Kraft, E. 1917. Experimentelle und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an Caryophyllaceen-Bluten. Flora109: 283–362.Google Scholar
  31. Leins, P. andErbar, C. 1993. Putative origin and relationships of the order from the viewpoint of developmental flower morphology.In H. -D. Behnke and T.J. Mabry, eds., Caryophyllales. Evolution and Systematics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 303–316.Google Scholar
  32. Lüders, H. 1907. Systematische Untersuchungen über die Caryophyllaceen mit einfachem Diagramm. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.40, Beibl. 91: 1–37.Google Scholar
  33. Lyndon, R.F. 1978. Flower development inSilene: Morphology and sequence of initiation of primordia. Ann. Bot.42: 1343–1348.Google Scholar
  34. Mabry, T.J. 1977. The order Centrospermae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.64: 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mattfeld, J. 1938. Das morphologische Wesen und die phylogenetische Bedeutung der Blumenblatter. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.56: 86–116.Google Scholar
  36. Nowicke, J.W. 1993. Pollen morphology and exine ultrastructure.In H. -D. Behnke and T.J. Mabry, eds., Caryophyllales. Evolution and Systematics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 167–221.Google Scholar
  37. Palmer, E.J. andSteyermark, J. 1950. Notes onGeocarpon minimum mackenzie. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club.77: 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pax, F. andHoffmann, K. 1934. Caryophyllaceae.In A. Engler and K. Prantl, eds., Die naturlichen Pflanzenfamilien Bd. 16c, Engelmann, Leipzig, pp. 275–367.Google Scholar
  39. Payer, J.B. 1857. Traite d'organogenié comparée de la fleur. Victor Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
  40. Rodman, J.E. 1990. Centrospermae revisited, part 1. Taxon39: 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodman, J.E. 1993. Cladistic and phenetic studies.In H. -D. Behnke and T.J. Mabry, eds., Caryophyllales. Evolution and Systematics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 279–301.Google Scholar
  42. Rodman, J.E., Oliver, M.K., Nakamura, R.R., McClammer, J.U., Jr. andBledsoe, A.H. 1984. A taxonomic analysis and revised classfication of Centrospermae. Syst. Bot.9: 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rohweder, O. 1965. Centrospermen-Studien 1. Der Blutenbau beiUebelinia kiwuensis T.C.E. Fries (Caryophyllaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.83: 406–418.Google Scholar
  44. Rohweder, O. 1967. Centrospermen-Studien 3. Blütenentwicklung und Blütenbau bei Silenoideen (Caryophyllaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.86: 130–185.Google Scholar
  45. Rohweder, O. 1970. Centrospermen-Studien 4. Morphology und Anatomie der Blüten, Früchte und Samen bei Alsinoideen und Paronychioideen s. Iat. (Caryophyllaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.90: 201–271.Google Scholar
  46. Rohweder, O. and Endress, P.K. 1983. Samenpflanzen-Morphologie und Systematik der Angiospermen und Gymnospermen. Thieme, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  47. Rohweder, O. andKönig, K. 1971. Centrospermen-Studien 5. Bau der Bluten, Fruchte und Samen vonPteranthus dichotomus Forsk. (Caryophyllaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.90: 447–468.Google Scholar
  48. Rohweder, O. andUrmi-König, K. 1975. Centrospermen-Studien 8. Beiträge zur Morphologie, Anatomie und systematischen Stellung vonGymnocarpos Forsk. undParonychia argentea Lam. (Caryophyllaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.96: 375–409.Google Scholar
  49. Ronse Decraene, L.P. 1990. Morphological studies in Tamaricales I: floral ontogeny and anatomy ofReaumuria vermiculata L. Beitr. Biol. Pflanz65: 181–203.Google Scholar
  50. Ronse Decraene, L.P., Clinckemaillie, D. andSmets, E. 1993. Stamen-petal complexes in Magnoliatae. Bull. Jard. Bot. Natl. Belg.62: 97–112.Google Scholar
  51. Ronse Decraene, L.P. andSmets, E. 1987. The distribution and the systematic relevance of the androecial characters oligomery and polymery in the Magnoliophytina. Nord. J. Bot.7: 239–353.Google Scholar
  52. Ronse Decraene, L.P. andSmets, E. 1993. The distribution and systematic relevance of the androecial character polymery. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.113: 285–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ronse Decraene, L.P. andSmets, E. 1994. Merosity in flowers: definition, origin and taxonomic significance. Pl. Syst. Evol.191: 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ronse Decraene, L.P. andSmets, E. 1995. The distribution and systematic relevance of the androecial character oligomery. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.118: 193–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ronse Decraene, L.P., Vanvinckenroye, P. andSmets, E.F. 1997. A study of floral morphological diversity inPhytolacca (Phytolaccaceae) based on early floral ontogeny. Int. J. Plant. Sci.158: 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sattler, R. 1973. Organogenesis of Flowers, a Photographic Text-Atlas. University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo.Google Scholar
  57. Sattler, R. andPerlin, L. 1982. Floral development ofBougainvillea spectabilis Willd.,Boerhaavia diffusa L. andMirabilis jalapa L. (Nyctaginaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc.84: 161–182.Google Scholar
  58. Sharma, H.P. 1963. Studies in the order Centrospermales II. Vascular anatomy of the flower of certain species of the Molluginaceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc.42: 19–32.Google Scholar
  59. Sterk, A.A. 1970. Reduction of the androecium inSpergularia marina (Caryophyllaceae). Acta Bot. Neerl.19: 488–494.Google Scholar
  60. Thomson, B.F. 1942. The floral morphology of the Caryophyllaceae. Amer. J. Bot.29: 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tucker, S.C. andDouglas, A. 1994. Ontogenetic evidence and phylogenetic relationships among basal taxa of legumes.In I.K. Ferguson and S.C. Tucker, eds., Advances in Legume Systematics, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
  62. Vanvinckenroye, P., Cresens, E., Ronse Decraene, L.P. andSmets, E. 1993. A comparative floral developmental study inPisonia, Bougainvillea andMirabilis (Nyctaginaceae) with special emphasis on the gynoecium and floral nectaries. Bull. Jard. Bot. Natl. Belg.62: 69–96.Google Scholar
  63. Vanvinckenroye, P. andSmets, E. 1996. Floral ontogeny of five species ofTalinum and of related taxa (Portulacaceae). J Plant Res.109: 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walter, H. 1906. Die Diagramme der Phytolaccaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.37, Beibl. 85: 1–57.Google Scholar
  65. Yamazaki, T. 1987. The floral anatomy of the genusPhytolacca, with reference to the flower of the Caryophyllaceae. Acta Phytotax. Geobot.38: 21–32. (in Japanese, with English summary).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis P. Ronse Decraene
    • 1
  • Erik F. Smets
    • 1
  • Peter Vanvinckenroye
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Plant Systematics, Botanical InstituteK.U. LeuvenHeverlee (Leuven)Belgium

Personalised recommendations