The Botanical Review

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 335–423 | Cite as

Phylogenetic classification of Ericaceae: Molecular and morphological evidence

  • K. A. Kron
  • W. S. Judd
  • P. F. Stevens
  • D. M. Crayn
  • A. A. Anderberg
  • P. A. Gadek
  • C. J. Quinn
  • J. L. Luteyn


A new classification of Ericaceae is presented based on phylogenetic analyses of nuclear and chloroplast DNA sequence data, morphology, anatomy, and embryology. Eight subfamilies and 20 tribes are recognized. In this classification Epacridaceae are included as Styphelioideae and Empetraceae as tribe Empetreae within the Ericoideae. The herbaceous taxa previously recognized as Pyrolaceae and Monotropaceae by some authors are also included within Ericaceae, in the subfamily Monotropoideae. A key, morphological descriptions, and representative images are provided for all named groups. Two new combinations inKalmia (K. buxifolia andK. procumbens) are made, and three new taxa are described: Oligarrheneae, Richeeae, and Cosmelieae (all within Styphelioideae).


Botanical Review rbcL Calyx Lobe Phylogenetic Classification Leaf Epidermal Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Se presenta una clasificación nueva de las Ericaceae basada en análisis filogenéticos, empleando secuencias de ADN nuclear y de cloroplasto, morfología, anatomía y embriología. Se reconocen ocho subfamilias y 20 tribus. En esta clasificación las Epacridaceae son incluídas como Styphelioideae y las Empetraceae como la tribu Empetreae dentro de Ericoideae. Los grupos herbáceos previamente reconocidos como Pyrolaceae y Monotropaceae por algunos autores también se incluyen dentro de las Ericaceae, en la subfamilia Monotropoideae. Se dan una clave, descripciones morfológicas e imágenes representativas de todos los grupos nombrados. Se hacen dos combinaciones nuevas enKalmia (K. buxifolia yK. procumbens), y se describen tres nuevos taxones: Oligarrheneae, Richeeae y Cosmelieae (todos dentro de Styphelioideae).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anderberg, A. A. 1992. The circumscription of the Ericales and their cladistic relationships to other families of “higher” dicotyledons. Syst. Bot. 17: 660–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. —. 1993. Cladistic interrelationships and major clades of the Ericales. Pl. Syst. Evol. 184: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. —. 1994a. Cladistic analysis ofEnkianthus with notes on the early diversification of the Ericaceae. Nord. J. Bot. 14: 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. —. 1994b. Phylogeny of the Empetraceae, with special emphasis on character evolution in the genusEmpetrum. Syst. Bot. 19: 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. —,C. Rydin &M. Källersjö. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the order Ericales s.l.: Analyses of molecular data from five genes from the plastid and mitochondrial genomes. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. APG (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group). 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Artopoeus, A. 1903. Über den Bau und die Öffnungsweise der Antheren und Entwicklung der Samen der Erikaceen. Flora 92: 309–345.Google Scholar
  8. Baas, P. 1985. Comparative leaf anatomy ofPernettya Gaud. (Ericaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 105: 481–495.Google Scholar
  9. Backlund, A. &K. Bremer. 1998. To be or not to be: Principles of classification and monotypic plant families. Taxon 47: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bentham, G. &J. D. Hooker. 1876. Epacrideae. Pp. 2(2): 608–618in G. Bentham & J. D. Hooker (eds.), Genera Plantarum. Lovell Reeve and Co., Williams & Northgate, London.Google Scholar
  11. Böcher, T. W. 1981. Evolutionary trends in Ericalean leaf structure. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter 23: 1–64.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, R. 1810. Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae et insulae Van-Diemen. J. Johnson and Co., London.Google Scholar
  13. Chou, Y.-L. 1952. Floral morphology of three species ofGaultheria. Bot. Gaz. 114: 198–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Copeland, H. F. 1933. Development of seeds in certain Ericales. Amer. J. Bot. 20: 513–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. —. 1935. On the genusPityopus. Madroño 3: 154–168.Google Scholar
  16. —. 1937. The reproductive structures ofPleuricospora. Madroño 4: 1–40.Google Scholar
  17. —. 1938. The structure ofAllotropa. Madroño 4: 137–168.Google Scholar
  18. —. 1939. The structure ofMonotropsis and the classification of the Monotropoideae. Madroño 5: 105–119.Google Scholar
  19. —. 1941. Further studies on Monotropoideae. Madrono 6: 97–119.Google Scholar
  20. —. 1954. Observations on certain Epacridaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 41: 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cox, H. T. 1948. Studies in the comparative anatomy of the Ericales, II: Ericaceae—Subfamily Arbutoideae. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 40: 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crayn, D. M. &C. J. Quinn. 1998. Archerieae: A new tribe in Epacridaceae. Austral. Syst. Bot. 11: 23–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ——. 2000. The evolution of theatpB-rbcL intergenic spacer in the epacrids (Ericales) and its systematic and evolutionary implications. Molec. Phylogenet. & Evol. 16: 238–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. —,K. A. Kron, P. A. Gadek &C. J. Quinn. 1996. Delimitation of Epacridaceae: Preliminary molecular evidence. Ann. Bot. (London) 77: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ————. 1998. Phylogenetics and evolution of epacrids: A molecular analysis using the plastid generbcL with a reappraisal of the position ofLebetanthus. Austral. J. Bot. 46: 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cronquist, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. New York. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cullings, K. W. 1994. Molecular phylogeny of the Monotropoideae (Ericaceae) with a note on the placement of the Pyroloideae. J. Evol. Biol. 7: 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Don, D. 1827. On the affinities of the Empetreae, a natural group of plants. Edinburgh New Philos. J. 2: 59–63.Google Scholar
  29. Dorr, L. J. 1980. The reproductive biology and pollination ecology ofZenobia (Ericaceae). M.S. thesis, Univ. of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  30. Doyle, J. &J. Doyle. 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 19: 11–15.Google Scholar
  31. Drude, O. 1889. Ericaceae. Pp. 15–65in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 4(1). W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  32. Emisse, D. J. &A. G. Kluge. 1993. Taxonomic congruence versus total evidence, and amniote phylogeny inferred from fossils, molecules, and morphology. Molec. Biol. & Evol. 10: 1170–1195.Google Scholar
  33. Farris, J. S., V. A. Albert, M. Källersjö, D. Lipscomb &A. Kluge. 1996. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 12: 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freudenstein, J. 1999. Relationships and character transformation in Pyroloideae (Ericaceae) based on ITS sequences, morphology, and development. Syst. Bot. 24: 398–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Furman, T. E. &J. M. Trappe. 1971. Phylogeny and ecology of mycotrophic achlorophyllous angiosperms. Quart. Rev. Biol. 46: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gift, N. &P. F. Stevens. 1997. Vagaries in the delimitation of character states in quantitative variation: An experimental study. Syst. Biol. 46: 112–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Greuter, W. (ed.). 1994. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany.Google Scholar
  38. Harborne, J. B. &C. A. Williams. 1973. A chemotaxonomic survey flavonoids and simple phenols in leaves of the Ericaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 66: 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hegnauer, R. 1966. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Vol. 4. Daphniphyllaceae-Lythraceae. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hermann, P. M. &B. F. Palser. 2000. Stamen development in the Ericaceae, I: Anther wall, microsporogenesis, inversion, and appendages. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 934–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hersey, R. E. &S. P. Vander Kloet. 1976. Taxonomy and distribution ofGaultheria in the Caribbean. Canad. J. Bot. 54: 2465–2472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hooker, J. D. 1876. Ericaceae. Pp. 2(2): 577–604in G. Bentham & J. D. Hooker (eds.), Genera Plantarum. Lovell Reeve and Co., Williams & Northgate, London.Google Scholar
  43. Hutchinson, J. 1969. Evolution and phylogeny of flowering plants. Academic Press, London and New York.Google Scholar
  44. Judd, W. S. 1979. Generic relationships in the Andromedeae (Ericaceae). J. Arnold Arb. 60: 477–503.Google Scholar
  45. —. 1981. A monograph ofLyonia (Ericaceae). J. Arnold Arbor. 62: 63–128, 129–209, 315–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. —. 1982. A taxonomic revision ofPieris (Ericaceae). J. Arnold Arb. 63: 103–144.Google Scholar
  47. —. 1984. A taxonomic revision of the American species ofAgarista (Ericaceae). J. Arnold Arbor. 65: 255–342.Google Scholar
  48. —. 1986. A taxonomic revision ofCraibiodendron (Ericaceae). J. Arnold Arb. 67: 441–469.Google Scholar
  49. —. 1990. A new variety ofLyonia (Ericaceae) from Puerto Rico. J. Arnold Arb. 71: 129–133.Google Scholar
  50. —. 1995a.Lyonia Nuttall. Pp. 222–294in J. L. Luteyn (ed.), Ericaceae—Part II: The superiorovaried genera (Monotropoideae, Pyroloideae, Rhododendroideae, Vaccinioideae p.p.). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 66. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  51. —. 1995b.Agarista. Pp. 295–344in J. L. Luteyn (ed.), Ericaceae—Part II: The superior-ovaried genera (Monotropoideae, Pyroloideae, Rhododendroideae, Vaccinioideae p.p.). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 66. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  52. —. 1995c.Pieris. Pp. 345–350in J. L. Luteyn (ed.), Ericaceae—Part II: The superior-ovaried genera (Monotropoideae, Pyroloideae, Rhododendroideae, Vaccinioideae p.p.). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 66. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  53. — &P. M. Hermann. 1990. Circumscriptionof Agarista boliviensis (Ericaceae). Sida 14: 263–266.Google Scholar
  54. — &K. A. Kron. 1993. Circumscription of Ericaceae (Ericales) as determined by preliminary cladistic analyses based on morphological, anatomical, and embryological features. Brittonia 45: 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Källersjö, M., J. S. Farris, M. W. Chase, B. Bremer, M. Fay, C. Humphries, G. Pedersen, O. Seberg &K. Bremer. 1998. Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analysis of 2538rbcL sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants and flowering plants. Pl. Syst. Evol. 213: 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kron, K. A. 1996. Phylogenetic relationships of Empetraceae, Epacridaceae, Ericaceae, Monotropaceae, Pyrolaceae: Evidence from nuclear ribosomal 18s sequence data. Ann. Bot. (London) 77: 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. —. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships of Rhododendroideae (Ericaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 84: 973–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. — &M. W. Chase. 1993. Systematics of the Ericaceae, Empetraceae, Epacridaceae, and related taxa based uponrbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 735–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. — &W.S. Judd. 1990. Phylogenetic relationships within the Rhodoreae (Ericaceae) with specific comments on the placement ofLedum. Syst. Bot. 15: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. —. 1997. Systematics of theLyonia group (Andromedeae, Ericaceae) and the use of species as terminals in higher-level cladistic analyses. Syst. Bot. 22: 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. — &J. M. King. 1996. Cladistic relationships ofKalmia, Leiophyllum, andLoiseleuria (Phyllodoceae, Ericaceae) based onrbcL and nrITS data. Syst. Bot. 21: 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. —,R. Fuller, D. M. Crayn, P. A. Gadek &C. J. Quinn. 1999a. Phylogenetic relationships of epacrids and vaccinioids (Ericaceae s.l.) based onmatK sequence data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 218: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. —,W. S. Judd &D. M. Crayn. 1999b. Phylogenetic analyses of Andromedeae (Ericaceae subfam. Vaccinioideae). Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1290–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Leins, P. 1964. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Studien an Ericales-Blüten. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 83: 57–88.Google Scholar
  65. Lems, K. 1962. Adaptive radiation in the Ericaceae, I: Shoot development in the Andromedeae. Ecology 43: 524–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. —. 1964. Evolutionary studies in the Ericaceae, II: Leaf anatomy as a phylogenetic index in the Andromedeae. Bot. Gaz. 125: 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Luteyn, J. L. 1991. Key to the subfamilies and genera of neotropical Ericaceae. Nord. J. Bot. 11: 623–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. —. 1995a. 16.Tepuia. Pp. 351–364in J. L. Luteyn (ed.), Ericaceae—Part II: The superior-ovaried genera (Monotropoideae, Pyroloideae, Rhododendroideae, Vaccinioideae p.p.). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 66. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  69. —. 1995b. 17.Pernettya. Pp. 365–383in J. L. Luteyn (ed.), Ericaceae—Part II: The superiorovaried genera (Monotropoideae, Pyroloideae, Rhododendroideae, Vaccinioideae p.p.). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 66. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  70. —. 1995c. 18.Gaultheria. Pp. 384–488in J. L. Luteyn (ed.), Ericaceae—Part II: The superiorovaried genera (Monotropoideae, Pyroloideae, Rhododendroideae, Vaccinioideae p.p.). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 66. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  71. —. 1996. Ericaceae. Fl. Ecuador 54. Council for Nordic Publications in Botany, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  72. Maddison, W. P. &D. R. Maddison. 1992. MacClade 3.05. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  73. Matthews, J. R. &E. M. Knox. 1926. The comparative morphology of the stamen in the Ericaceae. Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 29: 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Melvin, N. C. 1980. A systematic investigation of the genusLeucothoë (Ericaceae). Ph.D. diss., Miami University.Google Scholar
  75. Middleton, D. J. 1991a. Taxonomic studies in theGaultheria group of genera of the tribe Andromedeae (Ericaceae). Edinburgh J. Bot. 48: 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. —. 1991b. Infrageneric classification of the genusGaultheria L. (Ericaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 106: 229–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. — &C. C. Wilcock. 1990a. A critical examination of the status ofPernettya as a genus distinct fromGaultheria. Edinburgh J. Bot. 47: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. ——. 1990b. Chromosome counts in the genusGaultheria and related genera. Edinburgh J. Bot. 47:303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Morton, C. M., M. W. Chase, K. A. Kron &S. M. Swensen. 1996. A molecular evaluation of the monophyly of the order Ebenales based uponrbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 21: 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Niedenzu, F. 1890. Über den anatomischen Bau der Laubblätter der Arbutoideae und Vaccinioideae in Beziehung zu ihrer systematischen Gruppierung und geographischen Verbreitung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 11: 134–263.Google Scholar
  81. Nuttall, T. 1818. The genera of North American plants and a catalogue of the species to the year 1817. 2 vols. D. Heartt, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  82. Odell, E. A. &S. P. Vander Kloet. 1991. The utility of stem characters in the classification ofVaccinium L. (Ericaceae). Taxon 40: 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Olmstead, R. G., H. J. Michaels, K. M. Scott &J. D. Palmer. 1992. Monophyly of the Asteridae and identification of their major lineages inferred from DNA sequences ofrbcL: Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 79: 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Palser, B. F. 1951. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales, I: Organography and vascular anatomy in the Andromedeae. Bot. Gaz. 112: 447–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. —. 1952. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales, II: Megagametophyte development in the Andromedeae. Bot. Gaz. 114: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. —. 1954. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales, III: Organography and vascular anatomy of several species of Arbuteae. Phytomorphology 4: 335–354.Google Scholar
  87. —. 1958. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales, IV: Observations of three members of the Gaultherieae. Trans. Illinois State Acad. Sci. 51: 24–34.Google Scholar
  88. —. 1961a. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales, V: Organography and vascular anatomy in several United States species of the Vacciniaceae. Bot. Gaz. 123: 79–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. —. 1961b. Some aspects of embryology in the Ericales. Pp. 1: 685–689in Recent advances in botany; from lectures & symposia presented to the IX International Botanical Congress, Montreal. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  90. Paterson, B. R. 1961. Studies of floral morphology in the Epacridaceae. Bot. Gaz. 122: 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pax, F. 1891. Empetraceae. Pp. 123–127in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 3(5). W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  92. Powell, E. A. &K. A. Kron. 2001. An analysis of the phylogenetic relationships in the Wintergreen Group (Diplycosia, Gaultheria, Pernettya, Tepuia; Ericaceae). Syst. Bot. 26: 808–817.Google Scholar
  93. Powell, J. M., A. R. Chapman &A. N. L. Doust. 1987. Classification and generic status in the Epacridaceae: A preliminary analysis. Austral. Syst. Bot. Soc. Newslett. 53: 70–78.Google Scholar
  94. —,D. M. Crayn, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn, D. A. Morrison &A. R. Chapman. 1996. A reassessment of relationships within Epacridaceae. Ann. Bot. (London) 77: 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. —,D. A. Morrison, P. A. Gadek, D. M. Crayn &C. J. Quinn. 1997. Relationships and generic concepts within Styphelieae (Epacridaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 10: 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rao, T. A. &S. Chakraborti. 1985. The veinlet syndrome in the tribe Andromedeae (Ericaceae). Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 94: 639–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Safijowska, L. D. 1960. Male gametophyte inEnkianthus. Bot. Gaz. 121: 190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Samuelsson, G. 1913. Studien über die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Blüten einiger Bicornes-Types. Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 7:97–188.Google Scholar
  99. Sleumer, H. 1959. Studien über die GattungLeucothoë D. Don. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 78: 435–480.Google Scholar
  100. —. 1966. Ericaceae (in part). Flora malesiana, Ser. 1, Spermatoph. 6: 469–668.Google Scholar
  101. —. 1967. Ericaceae (in part). Flora malesiana, Ser. 1, Spermatoph. 6: 669–914.Google Scholar
  102. Smith-White, S. 1948. A survey of chromosome numbers in the Epacridaceae. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 73: 37–56.Google Scholar
  103. —. 1955. Chromosome numbers and pollen types in the Epacridaceae. Austral. J. Bot. 3: 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. —. 1959. Pollen development patterns in the Epacridaceae: A problem of cytoplasm-nucleus interaction. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 84: 8–35.Google Scholar
  105. Stace, H. M., A. R. Chapman, K. L. Lemson & J. M. Powell. 1997. Cytoevolution, phylogeny and taxonomy in Epacridaceae. Ann. Bot. 79 (London): 283–290.Google Scholar
  106. Stevens, P. F. 1969. Taxonomic studies in the Ericaceae. Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  107. —. 1970a.Agauria andAgarista: An example of tropical transatlantic affinity. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 30: 341–359.Google Scholar
  108. —. 1970b.Calluna, Cassiope andHarrimanella: A taxonomic and evolutionary problem. New Phytol. 69: 1131–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. —. 1971. A classification of the Ericaceae: Subfamilies and tribes. J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 64: 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. —. 1995. Familial and infrafamilial relationships. Pp. 1–12in J. L. Luteyn (ed.), Ericaceae—Part II: The superior-ovaried genera (Monotropoideae, Pyroloideae, Rhododendroideae, Vaccinioideae p.p.). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 66. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  111. Swofford, D. L. 1999. PAUP* 4.0 Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  112. Taaffe, G., E. A. Brown, D. M. Crayn, P. A. Gadek &C. J. Quinn. 2001. Generic concepts in Styphelieae: Resolving the limits ofLeucopogon. Austral. J. Bot. 49: 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Takhtajan, A. L. 1997. Diversity and classification of flowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  114. Thorne, R. T. 1992. Classification and geography of the flowering plants. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 58: 225–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Villamil, P. H. de &B. F. Palser. 1981. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales, IX: Organography, vascular anatomy and megagametophyte in three species of Gaultherieae. Phytomorphology 30: 250–265.Google Scholar
  116. Wallace, G. D. 1975. Studies of the Monotropoideae (Ericaceae): Taxonomy and distribution. Wasmann J. Biol. 33: 1–88.Google Scholar
  117. —. 1976. Interrelationships of the subfamilies of the Ericaceae and derivation of the Monotropoideae. Bot. Not. 128: 286–298.Google Scholar
  118. Watson, L. 1962. The taxonomic significance of stomatal distribution and morphology in Epacridaceae. New Phytol. 61: 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. —. 1965. The taxonomic significance of certain anatomical variations among Ericaceae. J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 59: 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. —. 1967. Taxonomic implications of a comparative anatomical study of Epacridaceae. New Phytol. 66: 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. —,W. T. Williams &G. N. Lance. 1967. A mixed-data approach to angiosperm taxonomy: The classification of Ericales. Proc. Linn. Soc. London 178: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Weiller, C. M. 1996a.Planocarpus (Epacridaceae), a new generic name. Austral. Syst. Bot. 9: 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. —. 1996b. Reinstatement of the genusAndrostoma Hook. f. (Epacridaceae). New Zealand J. Bot. 34: 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  125. Wood, C. E., Jr. 1961. The genera of Ericaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arb. 42: 10–80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. A. Kron
    • 1
  • W. S. Judd
    • 2
  • P. F. Stevens
    • 3
  • D. M. Crayn
    • 4
  • A. A. Anderberg
    • 5
  • P. A. Gadek
    • 6
  • C. J. Quinn
    • 4
  • J. L. Luteyn
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of BiologyWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.National Herbarium of New South Wales Royal Botanic Gardens SydneySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Swedish Museum of Natural HistoryStockholmSweden
  6. 6.School of Tropical BiologyJames Cook UniversityCairnsAustralia
  7. 7.The New York Botanical GardenBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations