Skip to main content
Log in

Principles of comparative stomatographic studies of flowering plants

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Baranova, M. (V. L. Komarov Botanical Institute, Prof. Popov Str. 2, 197376 St. Petersburg, Russia. Principles of comparative stomatographic studies of flowering plants. Bot. Rev.58(1): 49–99, 1992.—Numerous unsolved taxonomic problems have caused systematists to go beyond the traditional methods of herbarium taxonomists and begin to utilize laboratory disciplines such as cytology, palynology, chemotaxonomy, and anatomy. The anatomy of wood and of leaves, among other things, have been used to provide data for systematic studies. The study of the morphology and ontogeny of the stomatal complex in leaves has been one fruitful area for research. The reader is warned that the taxonomic value of such leaf epidermal characters is very different in different taxa just as is true for traditional morphological characters. The terminology used for describing stomates and the whole stomatal complex or apparatus, as it has developed since the time of Vesque (1889) is given. The classifications of Vesque and Metcalfe and Chalk for angiosperms, and that of Florin for gymnosperms are given in detail. The problems inherent in including the ontogenetic development of the stomatal complex in the description and terminology of types are discussed. It is concluded that morphological classification of stomates is best based on their appearance in the mature leaf, excluding any attempt to include ontogeny as well. Fourteen morphological types of stomates are now recognized: anomocytic, anisocytic, paracytic, diacytic, actinocytic, encyclocytic (cyclocytic), tetracytic, pericytic, desmocytic, polocytic, staurocytic, hemiparacytic, laterocytic, and stephanocytic. Other kinds seen in the literature are subtypes of these. In actuality, intermediates between these types exist in nature, and it is not always easy to distinguish these types. Nonetheless, stomatal types and their ontogenies have been used with success in the resolution of many taxonomic problems. The author outlines the many difficulties encountered in the utilization of such data. Even so, examples from the Celastraceae, Chloranthaceae, Polemoniaceae, Hydrophyllaceae, Boraginaceae, Convolvulaceae, Solanaceae, other dicotyledonous families, and some monocotyledonous families are given. The paracytic stomatotype is regarded as probably primitive in both dicotyledons and monocotyledons. Other types of stomates have repeatedly been derived from the paracytic type, so that the presence of similar advanced stomatotypes is not a sure indication of close relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Aneli, N. A. 1975. Atlas of the epidermis of leaves. Tbilisi: Metsneireba. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • —,V. Sh. Karalashvili, &M. S. Loladze. 1973. On the question of the classification of adjacent cells in the epidermis of leaves. In the series: Biologically active substances in the flora of Georgia12: 162–168. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arber, E. A. N. &J. Parkin. 1907. On the origin of angiosperms. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.38: 29–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, C. A. 1953. Origin and relationships of the cycads. Phytomorphology3: 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baas, P. 1972. Anatomical contributions to plant taxonomy. II. The affinities ofHua Pierre andAfrostyrax Perkins et Gilg. Blumea20: 161–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1974. Stomatal types in Icacinaceae. Additional observations on genera outside Malesia. Acta Bot. Neerl.23: 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1975. Vegetative anatomy and the affinities of Aquifoliaceae,Sphenostemon, Phelline, andOncotheca. Blumea22: 311–4107.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1984. Vegetative anatomy and taxonomy ofBerberidopsis andStreptothamnus (Flacourtiaceae). Blumea30: 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1985. Comparative leaf anatomy ofPernettya Gaud. (Ericaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.105: 481–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &R. Kool. 1983. Comparative leaf anatomy ofHeisteria (Olacaceae). Blumea28:367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,E. van Oosterhoud &C. J. L. Scholtes. 1982. Leaf anatomy and classification of the Olacaceae,Octoknema, andErythmpalum. Allertonia3: 155–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahadur, B., T. Rajagopal &N. Ramayya. 1971. Studies on the structural and developmental variation and distribution of stomata in the Rubiaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.64: 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, I. W. &R. A. Howard. 1941. The comparative morphology of the Icacinaceae. I-IV. J. Arnold Arbor.22: 125–132; 171–187; 432–442; 556–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &C. G. Nast. 1944. The comparative morphology of the Winteraceae. V. Foliar epidermis and sclerenchyma. J. Arnold Arbor.25: 342–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1945. Morphology and relationships ofTrochodendron andTetracentron. I. Stem, root, and leaf. J. Arnold Arbor.26: 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1948. Morphology and relationships ofIllicium, Schisandra, andKadsura. I. Stem and leaf. J. Arnold Arbor.29: 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandulska, H. 1923. A preliminary paper on the cuticular structure of certain dicotyledonous and coniferous leaves from the Middle Eocene flora of Bournemouth. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.46: 241–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1924. On the cuticles of some fossil and recent Fagaceae. J. Linn. Soc, Bot.46: 427–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1926. On the cuticles of some fossil and recent Lauraceae. J. Linn. Soc, Bot.47: 383–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1928. A cinnamon from the Bournemouth Eocene. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.48: 139–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1931. On the cuticles of some recent and fossil Myrtaceae. J. Linn. Soc, Bot.48: 657–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baranova, Margarita 1969. Comparative stomatographic investigations in the genusManglietia B1. Bot. Zhurn.54: 1952–1964. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1971. Comparative stomatographic investigations of the Magnoliaceae and related families. Cand. Dis. BIN AN SSSR. 293 p. (In Russian.)

  • —. 1972. Systematic anatomy of the leaf epidermis in the Magnoliaceae and some related families. Taxon21: 447–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975a. Classification of ontogenetic types of stomates (on the appearance of the publication of Fryns-Claessens and van Cotthem). Bot. Zhurn.60: 280–297. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975b. Stomatographic investigations in the family Flagellariaceae. Bot Zhurn.60: 1690–1697. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1980. Comparative stomatographic investigations in the families Buxaceae and Simmondsiaceae. Pages 68–75in S. G. Zhilin (ed.), Systematics and evolution of higher plants. Soviet Sciences Press, Leningrad.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1981. On the laterocytic type of stomatal apparatus in flowering plants. Bot. Zhurn.66: 179–186. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1983. On the laterocytic stomatotype in angiosperms. Brittonia35: 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1985. Classification of the morphological types of stomates. Bot. Zhurn.70: 1585–1595. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1986. Comparative stomatographic investigations in the family Chloranthaceae. Pages 12–19in Problems of paleobotany. Soviet Sciences Press, Leningrad. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1987a. On the stephanocytic type of stomatal apparatus in flowering plants. Bot. Zhurn.72: 59–62. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1987b. Historical development of the present classification of morphological types of stomates. Bot. Rev.53: 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • -Baranova, Margarita. 1990. Principles of comparative stomatographic studies of flowering plants. Komarov Lecture Series 38. (In Russian.)

  • -& T. A. Ostroumova. 1987. Stomatal characters in systematics. Pages 173–192in M. G. Pimenov (ed.), Review of science and technology. Botany, Vol. 6. (In Russian.)

  • Bessis, J. & M. Guyot. 1979. An attempt to use stomatal characters in systematic and phylogenetic studies of the Solanaceae. Biology and taxonomy of the Solanaceae. Linn. Soc. Symposium Series 7.

  • Bobrov, A. E. 1962. Comparative studies of the epidermis and the stomates of the leaves of Cycadaceae. Bot. Zhurn.47: 808–820. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondeson, W. 1952. Entwicklungsgeschichte und Bau der Spaltöffnungen bei den GattungenTrochodendron Sieb. et Zucc.,Tetracentron Oliv. undDrimys J. R. et G. Forst. Acta Hort. Berg.16: 169–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borodin, I. P. 1888. Course in the anatomy of plants. St. Petersburg, Moscow. (In Russian.)

  • Brett, D. W. 1979. Ontogeny and classification of the stomatal complex ofPlatanus. Ann. Bot. (London)44: 249–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau, E. 1864. Monographie des Bignoniacées. J.-B. Balliere, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, W. C. 1977. The Piperales and the monocots. Alternative hypotheses for the origin of monocotyledonous flowers. Bot. Rev.43: 345–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Cotthem, W. 1970a. Comparative morphological study of the stomata in the Filicopsida. Bull. Jard. Bot. Nat. Belg.40: 81–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1970b. A classification of stomatal types. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.63: 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1971. Vergleichende morphologische Studien über Stomata und eine neue Klassification ihrer Typen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.84: 141–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1973. Stomatal types and systematics. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 67 Suppl.1: 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronquist, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. The New York Botanical Garden, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, R. M. T. &H. T. Clifford. 1982. The monocotyledons: a comparative study. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dandy, J. E. 1927. The genera of Magnolieae. Kew Bull.1928(7): 257–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1950. A survey of the genusMagnolia together withManglietia andMichelia. Pages 64–81in Camellias and Magnolias Conference Report. Royal Hort. Soc.

  • — 1964. Magnoliaceae. Pages 50–57in J. Hutchinson (ed.), The genera of flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilcher, D. L. 1974. Approaches to the identification of angiosperm leaf remains. Bot. Rev.40: 1–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esau, K. 1965. Plant anatomy, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farooqui, P. 1981a. Ontogeny of the tricytic stoma—Variations and modifications. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Plant Sci.)90: 85–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1981b. Ontogeny of the anomocytic stoma—Variations and modifications. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Plant Sci.)90: 245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1982. Ontogeny of the paracytic stoma: Variations and modifications. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Plant Sci.)91: 145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florin, R. 1931. Untersuchungen zur Stammesgeschichte der Coniferales und Cordaitales. K. Svensk. Vetenskaps. Handl. III.10(1): 1–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1933. Studien über die Cycadales des Mesozoikums … Erorterung über die Spaltoffnungsapparate der Bennettitales. K. Svensk. Vetenskaps. Handl. III.12(5): 1–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francey, P. 1936. Étude de l’appareil stomatique chez les dicotylédones dans un but taxinomique. Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat.59: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, F. E. 1903. The use of anatomical characters for systematic purposes. New Phytologist2: 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryns-Claessens, E. &W. van Cotthem. 1973. A new classification of ontogenetic types of stomata. Bot. Rev.39: 71–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golysheva, M. D. 1974. On the paracytic stomatotype in leaves of flowering plants. Bjull. Moskovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol.79(4): 94–104. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1976. On the structure of the leaves ofTrochodendron (Trochodendron aralioides Sieb. et Zucc.). Bjull. Moskovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol.81(5): 84–95. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinevetsky, B. B. 1913. Anatomical investigations of stomates. Trudy Obshch. Estestvoisp. Imp. Jur’evsk. Univ.21: 3–129. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyot, M. 1971. Phylogenetic and systematic value of stomata in the Umbelliferae. Pages 199–214in V. H. Heywood (ed.), The biology and chemistry of the Umbelliferae. (Bot. J. Linn. Soc.64, Suppl. 1.) Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gvinianidze, Z. 1965a. Studies of the epidermis of leaves in members of the tribe Lychnideae of the family Caryophyllaceae. Zametki Sistem. Geogr. Rasten. (Tbilisi).24: 41–48. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1965b. Studies of the epidermis of leaves in members of the tribe Diantheae, family Caryophyllaceae. Zametki Sistem. Geogr. Rasten. (Tbilisi).25: 65–68. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallier, H. 1903. Über den Umfang, die Gliederung und die Verwandtschaft der Familie der Hamamelidaceen. Beih. Bot. Centralbl.14: 247–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, T. M. 1932. The fossil flora of Scoresby Sound, east Greenland. Part 2: Description of seed plants incertae sedis together with a discussion of certain cycadophyte cuticles. Meddel. Grönland85(3): 79–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hartog, R. M. &P. Baas. 1978. Epidermal characters of the Celastraceae sensu lato. Acta Bot. Neerl.27: 355–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J. 1959. The families of flowering plants, 2nd ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inamdar, J. A. 1969a. Epidermal structure and stomatal ontogeny in some Polygonales and Centrospermae. Ann. Bot.33: 541–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1969b. Development of stomata on foliar and floral organs of two species ofIpomoea. J. Indian Bot. Soc.48: 173–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1970. Epidermal structure and development of stomata in some Polygonaceae. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci.72B: 91–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &D. C. Bhatt. 1972. Epidermal structure and ontogeny of stomata in vegetative and reproductive organs ofEphedra andGnetum. Ann. Bot. (London)36: 1041–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,B. V. Gopal &A. J. Chohan. 1969. Development of normal and abnormal stomata in some Araliaceae. Ann. Bot. (London)33: 67–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——,J. S. S. Mohan &R. Bagvathi Subramanian. 1986a. Stomatal classifications—a review. Feddes Repert.97: 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &R. C. Patel. 1969. Development of stomata in some Solanaceae. Flora158: 462–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— &J. S. S. Mohan. 1986b. Structure and ontogeny of stomata in some Oleaceae. Feddes Repert.97: 291–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalan, S. 1962. The ontogeny of stomata inSchisandra grandiflora Hook. f. and Thorns. Phytomorphology12: 239–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, W. T. &P. Baas. 1973. Comparative leaf anatomy ofKokoona andLophopetalum (Celastraceae). Blumea21: 153–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, N. N., N. S. Zade &R. M. Pai. 1985. On the stomata inMurdannia Royle (Commelinaceae). Curr. Sci.54: 480–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwai, P. 1974. Epidermal structure and stomatal development inBombax ceiba L. (Bombacaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc.68: 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, J. &P. Baas. 1981. Comparative leaf anatomy of the Asiatic Myristicaceae. Blumea27: 115–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, Y. 1984. A preliminary study on the taxonomy of the family Magnoliaceae. Acta Phytotax. Sinica22: 89–109. (In Chinese.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroy, J.-F. 1978. Une sous-famille monotypique de Winteraceae endémiqueà Madagascar: les Takhtajanioideae. Adansonia II.17: 383–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, G. A. 1986. Systematic foliar morphology of Phyllanthoideae (Euphorbiaceae). I. Conspectus. Ann. Missouri Bot Gard.73: 29–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling, P. 1981. Stomata studies in Chinese Taccaceae with a discussion on its taxonomical significance. Bull. Nanjing Bot. Gard. Mem. Sun Yat Sen.1981: 20–24. (In Chinese.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnaeus,C. 1751. Philosophia botanica.

  • Maheshwari, P. &V. Vasil. 1961. The stomata ofGnetum. Ann. Bot. II.25: 313–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, C. R. 1961. The anatomical approach to systematics. General introduction with special reference to recent work on monocotyledons. Pages 146–150in D. L. Bailey (ed.), Rec. Adv. Bot. University Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1979. Purposes of systematic anatomy. Pages 12–13in C. R. Metcalfe, Anatomy of the dicotyledons, 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &L. Chalk. 1950. Anatomy of the dicotyledons. 2 vols. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, F. J. 1932a. Beiträge zur Anatomie der Alismataceen. Beih. Bot. Centralbl.49: 309–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1932b. Die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Alismataceen zu den Ranales im Lichte der Anatomie. Bot. Jahbr. Syst.65: 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, T. 1953. The genusMouriri (Melastomataceae). A sectional revision based on anatomy and morphology. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot.26: 223–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napp-Zinn,K. 1966. Anatomie des Blattes. I. Blattanatomie der Gymnospermen. Band VIII, Teil 1 in Handbuch der Pflanzenanatomie, 2nd ed., W. Zimmerman, P. Ozenda & H. D. Wulff (eds.). Borntraeger, Berlin.

  • Nautiyal, D. D., S. Singh &D. D. Pant. 1976. Epidermal structure and ontogeny of stomata inGnetum gnemon, G. montanum, andG. ula. Phytomorphology26: 282–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, H. P. 1985. Notes on Magnoliaceae with a revision ofPachylarnax andElmerrillia and the Malesian species ofManglieta andMichelia. Blumea31: 65–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyananyo, B. L. 1986. Taxonomic significance of stomatal complex in the Portulacaceae. Feddes Repert.97: 763–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, M. E. 1932. The determination of fossil angiosperms by the characteristics of their vegetative organs. Ann. Bot.46: 941–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostroumova, T. A. 1987. Types of stomates in the leaves of members of the family Apiaceae. Bot. Zhurn.72: 1479–1488. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Paliwal, G. S. 1961. The development of stomata inLinum usitatissimum L. Curr. Sci.30: 269–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1965. The development of stomata inBasella rubra Linn. Phytomorphology15: 50–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1966. Structure and ontogeny of stomata in some Caryophyllaceae. Phytomorphology16: 533–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1967. Ontogeny of stomata in some Cruciferae. Canad. J. Bot.45: 495–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1969. Stomatal ontogeny and phylogeny. I. Monocotyledons. Acta Bot. Neerl.18: 654–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &N. N. Bhandari. 1962. Stomatal development in some Magnoliaceae. Phytomorphology12: 409–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pant, D. D. 1965. On the ontogeny of stomata and other homologous structures. Plant Sci. Series. Allahabad1: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &R. Banerji. 1965a. Ontogeny of stomata and hairs in some cucurbits and allied plants. J. Indian Bot. Soc.44: 191–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1965b. Structure and ontogeny of stomata in some Piperaceae. J. Linn. Soc, Bot.59: 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1965c. Epidermal structure and development of stomata in some Convolvulaceae. Senckenberg. Biol.46: 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &K. L. Gupta. 1966. Development of stomata and foliar structure of some Magnoliaceae. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.59: 265–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &P. Kidwai. 1964. On the diversity in the development and organization of stomata inPhyla nodiflora Michx. Curr. Sci.33: 653–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1966a. Structure of leaves and stomatal ontogeny in some Pandanales and Spathiflorae. Senckenberg. Biol.47: 309–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1966b. Epidermal structure and stomatal ontogeny in some Celastraceae. New Phytol.65: 288–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &B. Mehra. 1963. Development of caryophyllaceous stomata inAsteracantha longifolia Nees. Ann. Bot. II.27: 647–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1964. Ontogeny of stomata in some Ranunculaceae. Flora155: 179–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1965. Ontogeny of stomata in some Rubiaceae. Phytomorphology15: 300–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— &D. D. Nautiyal. 1963. Cuticle and epidermis of recent Cycadales. Leaves, sporangia and seeds. Senckenberg. Biol.44: 257–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— &B. K. Verma. 1963. Development of stomata in leaves ofNotonia grandiflora DC. J. Indian Bot. Soc.42: 384–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkin, J. 1924. Stomata and phytogeny. Ann. Bot. (London)38: 795–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, J. D. 1978. How should we interpret and distinguish subsidiary cells? Bot. J. Linn. Soc.77: 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1979. A new morphological classification of stomatal complexes. Phytomorphology29: 218–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. C. &J. A. Inamdar. 1971. Structure and ontogeny of stomata in some Polemoniales. Ann. Bot.35: 389–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, W. W. 1970. Helicocytic and allelocytic stomata: Unrecognized patterns in the Dicotyledonae. Amer. J. Bot.57: 140–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prat, H. 1932. L’épiderme des Graminées. Étude anatomique et systématique. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. X.14: 117–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raju, V. S. &P. N. Rao. 1977. Variation in the structure and development of foliar stomata in the Euphorbiaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.75: 69–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1987. The taxonomic use of the basic stomatal type in the generic delimitation ofChamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae). Feddes Repert.98: 137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramayya, N. &T. Rajagopal. 1980. Classification of subsidiaries according to interstomatal space relationships. Curr. Sci.49: 671–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H. S. 1939. Cuticular studies of Magnoliales. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B.9: 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, H. 1981. Terminology and classification of stomata and stomatal development—a critical survey. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.83: 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfous, L. 1914. Les stomates des Célastracées. Bull. Soc. Bot. Genève II.6: 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1917. Étude sur les stomates. These No. 605. Univ. Genève.

  • Rohweder, O., R. Schlumpf &K. Krattinger. 1971. Anmerkungen zum diacytischen Spaltöffnungstyp und zur taxonomischen Bedeutung der Spaltöffnungen in allgemeinen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.84: 275–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastri, R. L. N. 1969. Comparative morphology and phytogeny of the Ranales. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc.44: 291–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax, H. J. 1938. The relation between stomata counts and chromosome number. J. Arnold Arbor.19: 437–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, K. &H. J. Sax. 1937. Stomata size and distribution in diploid and polyploid plants. J. Arnold Arbor.18: 164–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, G. L. &B. V. Gopal. 1969. Ontogeny of stomata on the foliar and floral organs of some species ofCrotalaria L. Ann. Bot. II.33: 553–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanmukha Rao, S. R. &N. Ramayya. 1977. Stomatogenesis in the genusHibiscus L. (Malvaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc.74: 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1983. Occurrence of stomatal diversity and taxonomic value of dominant and codominant stomatal types in the Malvales. Feddes Repert.94: 639–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott, E. W. 1914. Investigations on the phytogeny of the angiosperms. I. The anatomy of the node as an aid in the classification of angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot.1: 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleumer, H. 1983. Olacaceae. F1. Neotropica Monogr.38.

  • Solereder, H. 1908. Systematic anatomy of the dicotyledons. 2 vols. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stace, C. A. 1965. Cuticular studies as an aid to plant taxonomy. Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist.4: 3–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1966. The use of epidermal characters in phylogenetic considerations. New Phytol.65: 304–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Staveren, M. G. C. &P. Baas. 1973. Epidermal leaf characters of the Malesian Icacinaceae. Acta Bot. Neerl.22: 329–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, G. L. &G. S. Khush. 1961. Variation in the organization of the stomatal complex in the leaf epidermis of monocotyledons and its bearing on their phylogeny. Amer. J. Bot.48: 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R. A. &E. S. Martin 1978. A new ontogenetic classification of stomatal types. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.77: 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromberg, A. Ya. 1956. On the question of the classification of stomatal types in the leaves of dicotyledonous plants. Sb. Tr. Tbilissk. N.-I. Khim.-Farm. Inst.8: 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy, B. G. L. 1953. The morphology and relationships of the Chloranthaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.34: 375–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhtajan, A. L. 1964. Foundations of evolutionary morphology of flowering plants. Nauka, Moscow, Leningrad. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1966. System and phylogeny of flowering plants. Soviet Sciences Press, Moscow, Leningrad. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1969. Flowering plants: origin and dispersal. Smithsonian Press, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1980. Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). Bot. Rev.46: 225–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1991. Evolutionary trends in flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H. H. &N. Bancroft. 1913. On the cuticles of some recent and fossil cycadean fronds. Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.8: 155–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timonin, A. K. 1986a. On the taxonomic value of stomatal characteristics and evolution of the stomatal complexes in flowering plants. Bjull. Moscovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol.91(1): 72–81. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1986b. On some peculiarities in the formation of the stomatal apparatus in cases of their polymorphism in dicotyledons. Nauchn. Dokl. Vyssh. Shkoly. Biol. Nauki.2: 70–75. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tognini, F. 1897. Contribuzione allo studio della organogenia comparata degli stomi. Atti. Ist. Bot. Univ. Pavia4: 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, P. B. 1969. Vol. 3. Commelinales—Zingiberales.In C. R. Metcalfe (ed.), Anatomy of the monocotyledons. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1974. Development of the stomatal complex as a taxonomic character in the monocotyledons. Taxon23: 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay, N. 1987. Epidermal structure and ontogeny of stomata ofDioscorea wattii Pr. & Burk. J. Indian Bot. Soc.66: 448–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upchurch, G. R. 1984a. Cuticular anatomy of angiosperm leaves from the Lower Cretaceous Potomac group. I. Zone I leaves. Amer. J. Bot.71: 192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1984b. Cuticular evolution in early Cretaceous angiosperms from the Potomac group of Virginia and Maryland. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.71: 522–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesque, M. J. 1889. De l’emploi des caractères anatomiques dans la classification des végétaux. Bull. Soc. Bot. France36: XLI-LXXVII.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vliet, G. J. C. M. &P. Baas. 1975. Comparative anatomy of the Crypteroniaceae sensu lato. Blumea22: 175–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. W. 1976. Comparative pollen morphology and phylogeny of the Ranalean complex. Pages 241–299in C. B. Beck (ed.), Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G. L. 1956, 1957, 1958. A monographic study of the West Indian species ofPhyllanthus. J. Arnold Arbor.37: 91–122; 217–268; 340–359.38: 51–80; 170–198; 295–373;39: 49–100; 111–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A. 1865. Untersuchungen über die Zahlen- und Grössen Verhältnisse der Spaltöffnungen. Jahrb. Wiss. Bot.4: 125–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Weizen, P. C. &P. Baas. 1984. A leaf anatomical contribution to the classification of the Linaceae complex. Blumea29: 453–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, H. P. 1979. The plant surface (mainly leaf). Pages 97–167in C. R. Metcalfe & L. Chalk. Anatomy of the dicotyledons, 2nd ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1983. Leaf anatomy ofGluta (L.) Ding Hou (Anacardiaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc.86: 375–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N. H. 1979. Subsidiary cells in the Orchidaceae: Their general distribution with special reference to development in the Oncidieae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.78: 41–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakharevich, S. F. 1954. On the methods of describing the epidermis of leaves. Vestn. Leningr. Univ.1954(4): 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, H. 1987. The evolution of stomata. Pages 29–57in E. Zeiger, G. D. Farquhar & I. R. Cowan (eds.), Stomatal function. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubkova, G. 1971a. Ontogeny of the stomatal apparatus in the family Rubiaceae. Bot. Zhurn.56: 1816–1819. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1971b. On the ontogeny of the diacytic stomatal apparatus in the leaves of dicotyledons. Zhurn. Obshch. Biol.32: 740–745. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1975. Routes of formation of anisocytic stomates in dicotyledons. Bot. Zhurn.60: 322–330. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baranova, M. Principles of comparative stomatographic studies of flowering plants. Bot. Rev 58, 49–99 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858543

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858543

Keywords

Navigation