Advertisement

The Botanical Review

, 68:488 | Cite as

Unique floral structures and iterative evolutionary themes in Asparagales: Insights from a morphological cladistic analysis

  • Paula J. Rudall

Abstract

A morphological cladistic analysis is presented of the lilioid order Asparagales, with emphasis on relationships within the “lower” asparagoids, in the context of recent new data on both floral and vegetative structures. The analysis retrieved a monophyletic “lower” asparagoid clade, in contrast to molecular analyses, in which lower asparagoids invariably form a grade. However, limited outgroup sampling in the current analysis is a significant factor in this “inside-out” topology; if the morphological tree is rerooted with Orchidaceae as the outgroup, the result is a topology broadly similar to the molecular one. The relatively low resolution of the “lower” asparagoid clade identified here is a result of high homoplasy in several characters, which could be regarded as iterative evolutionary themes within Asparagales, notably (among floral characters) epigyny and zygomorphy. Close relationships between some family pairs were inferred, including Orchidaceae and Hypoxidaceae, Boryaceae and Blandfordiaceae, Asphodelaceae and Hemerocallidaceae, and Iridaceae and Doryanthaceae. The small South African genusPauridia, which differs from other Hypoxidaceae in that it lacks the outer stamen whorl, was placed as sister to Orchidaceae rather than being embedded in Hypoxidaceae as in molecular analyses, because despite some significant similarities with other Hypoxidaceae (e.g., mucilage canals), it shares some characters with Orchidaceae, notably the presence of a gynostemium and pontoperculate pollen.Xanthorrhoea andLanaria were wild-card taxa in the context of this analysis, with characters in common with more than one different group.

Keywords

Botanical Review rbcL Floral Character Floral Structure Silica Body 
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.

Literature Cited

  1. Adams, S. P., T. P. V. Hartman, K. Y. Lim, M. W. Chase, M. D. Bennett, I. J. Leitch &A. R. Leitch. 2001. Loss and recovery ofArabidopsis-type telomere repeat sequences 5′-(TTTAGGG)n-3′ in the evolution of a major radiation of flowering plants. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, 268: 1541–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arber, A. 1921. The leaf structure of the Iridaceae, considered in relation to the phyllode theory. Ann. Bot. (London) 35: 301–336.Google Scholar
  4. Bayer, C., O. Appel &P. J. Rudall. 1998. Asteliaceae. Pp. 141–145in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3. Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Beaumont, J., D. F. Cutler, T. Reynolds &J. G. Vaughan. 1985. The secretory tissue of aloes and their allies. Israel J. Bot. 34: 265–282.Google Scholar
  6. Bernhardt, P. 1996. Anther adaptation in animal pollination. Pp. 192–220in W. G. D’Arcy & R.C. Keating (eds.), The anther: Form, function and phylogeny. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Caddick, L. R., P. J. Rudall, P. Wilkin &M. W. Chase. 2000. Yams and their allies: Systematics of Dioscoreales. Pp. 475–487in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. —, —, —. 2002. Phylogenetics of Dioscoreales based on combined analyses of morphological and molecular data. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.: 138: 123- 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron, K. M., M. W. Chase, W. M. Whitten, P. J. Kores, D. C. Jarell, V. A. Albert, T. Yukawa, H. G. Hills &D. H. Goldman. 1999. A phylogenetic analysis of the Orchidaceae: Evidence from rbcL nucleotide sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chase, M. W., M. R. Duvall, H. G. Hills, J. G. Conran, A. V. Cox, L. E. Eguiarte, J. Hartwell, M. F. Fay, L. R. Caddick, K. M. Cameron &S. Hoot. 1995. Molecular phylogenetics of Lilianae. Pp. 109–137in P. J. Rudall, P. J. Cribb, D. F. Cutler & C. J. Humphries (eds.), Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. 2 vols. Roy. Bot. Gard., Kew.Google Scholar
  11. —. 1996. New circumscriptions and a new family of asparagoid lilies: Genera formerly included in Anthericaceae. Kew Bull. 51: 667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —. 2000a. Phylogenetics of Asphodelaceae (Asparagales): An analysis of plastidrbcL andtrnL-F DNA sequences. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 86: 935–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. —. 2000b. Xeronemataceae, a new family of asparagoid lilies from New Caledonia and outlying New Zealand islands. Kew Bull. 55: 865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. —. 2000c. Higher-level systematics of the monocotyledons: An assessment of current knowledge and a new classification. Pp. 3- 16in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Churchill, D. M. 1987.Borya. Fl. Austral. 45: 268–279.Google Scholar
  16. Cranwell, L. M. 1933. A new locality forXeronema callistemon. New Zealand J. Sci. Technol. 34: 234- 236.Google Scholar
  17. —. 1953. New Zealand pollen studies. The monocotyledons. Bull. Auckland Inst. & Mus. 3: 1–91.Google Scholar
  18. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. Ed. 2. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.Google Scholar
  19. Dahlgren, R. M. T. &F. N. Rasmussen. 1983. Monocotyledon evolution: Characters and phylogenetic estimation. Evol. Biol. 16: 255–395.Google Scholar
  20. —. 1988. Structure and relationships of families endemic to or centered in southern Africa. Pp. 1–94in P. Goldblatt & P. P. Lowry II (eds.), Modern systematic studies in African botany: Proceedings of the eleventh Plenary Meeting of the Association for the Taxonomic Study of the Flora of Tropical Africa, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, June 10–14, 1985. Monogr. Syst. Bot., 25. Missouri Bot. Gard., St. Louis.Google Scholar
  21. —. 1985. The families of the monocotyledons: Structure, evolution, and taxonomy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  22. De Vos, M. P. 1949. The development of the ovule and the seed in the Hypoxideae, II. The generaPauridia Harv. andForbesia Ecklon. J. S. African Bot. 15: 13–22.Google Scholar
  23. Dressler, R. L. 1993. Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. Erdtman, G. 1952. Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy. Angiosperms. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  25. Fay, M. F., P. J. Rudall, S. Sullivan, K. L. Stobart, A. Y. de Bruijn, G. Reeves, F. Qamaruz-Zaman, W. P. Hong, J. Joseph, W. J. Hahn, J. G. Conran &M. W. Chase. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of Asparagales based on four plastid DNA loci. Pp. 360–371in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Furness, C. A. &P. J. Rudall. 1998. The tapetum in monocotyledons: Structure and systematics. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 64: 201–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. — & —. 1999a. Microsporogenesis in monocotyledons. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 84: 475–4499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. — & —. 1999b. Inaperturate pollen in monocotyledons. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 160: 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Geerinck, D. 1968. Considérations taxonomiques au sujet des Haemodoraceae et des Hypoxidaceae (Monocotyledones). Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belg. 101: 265–278.Google Scholar
  30. —. 1969. Genéra des Haemodoraceae et des Hypoxidaceae. Bull. Jard. Bot. Belg. 39: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilliard, O. M. &B. L. Burtt. 1978. Notes on some plants from southern Africa chiefly from Natal, VII. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 36: 43–76.Google Scholar
  32. Huber, H. 1969. Die Samenmerkmale und Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse der Liliifloren. Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 8: 219–538.Google Scholar
  33. Hutchinson, J. 1959. The families of flowering plants. Vol. 2. Monocotyledons. Ed. 2. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Kauff, F., P. J. Rudall &J. G. Conran. 2000. Systematic root anatomy of Asparagales and other monocotyledons. Pl. Syst. Evol. 223: 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keighery, G. J. 1984. The Johnsonieae (Liliaceae): Biology and classification. Flora 175: 103–108.Google Scholar
  36. Kocyan, A. &P. K. Endress. 2001. Floral structure and development ofApostasia andNeuwiedia (Apostasioideae) and their relationships to other Orchidaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 847–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kubitzki, K. (ed.). 1998. The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3. Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  38. Laughton, E. M. 1964. Occurrence of fungal hyphae in young roots of South African indigenous plants. Bot. Gaz. 125: 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leake, J. R. 1994. The biology of myco-heterotrophic (saprophytic) plants. Tansley review no. 69. New Phytol. 127: 171–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McPherson, M. A. & S. W. Graham. 2001. Inference of Asparagales phylogeny using a large chloroplast data set. Abstract 504, Botany 2001, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  41. Newton, G. D. &N. H. Williams. 1978. Pollen morphology of the Cypripedioideae and the Apostasioideae (Orchidaceae). Selbyana 2: 169–182.Google Scholar
  42. Nixon, K. C. 1999. Winclada (BETA) ver. 0.9.9 Published by the author, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Oliver, W. R. B. 1925. Vegetation of the Poor Knights Islands. New Zealand J. Sci. Technol. 7: 36.Google Scholar
  44. —. 1926. New Zealand angiosperms. Trans. & Proc. New Zealand Inst. 56: 1–5.Google Scholar
  45. Pridgeon, A. M. 1994. Systematic anatomy of Orchidaceae: Resource or anachronism? Pp. 84–91in A. M. Pridgeon (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th World Orchid Conference. HMSO, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  46. —. 1995. Subterranean axes in tribe Diurideae (Orchidaceae): Morphology, anatomy and systematic significance. Amer. J. Bot. 82: 1473–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prychid, C. J. &P. J. Rudall. 1999. Calcium oxalate crystals in monocotyledons: structure and systematics. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 84: 725–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Puri, Y. P., C. R. Stanton, C. Assesavesna &D. W. Fishier. 1966. Anatomical and agronomic studies ofPhormium in western Oregon. Production Research Report No. 93. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  49. Rudall, P. J. 1991. Lateral meristems and stem thickening growth in monocotyledons. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 57: 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. —. 1995. New records of secondary thickening in monocotyledons. IAWA J. 16: 261–268.Google Scholar
  51. —. 1998. Lanariaceae. Pp. 340–342in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3. Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  52. —. 2001. Centrifixed anther attachment in monocotyledons. Kew Bull. 56: 965–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. —. 2002. Homologies of inferior ovaries and septal nectaries in monocotyledons. Int. J. Pl. Sci.: 163: 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. —. 2002. Roles of synorganisation, zygomorphy and homeosis in floral evolution: the gynostemium and labellum of orchids and other lilioid monocots. Biol. Rev. (London): 77: 403–441.Google Scholar
  55. —. 1996. Systematics of Xanthorrhoeaceaesensu lato: Evidence for polyphyly. Telopea 6: 629–647.Google Scholar
  56. —. 1995. Asparagales: A reappraisal. Pp. 157–168in P. J. Rudall, P. J. Cribb, D.F. Cutler & C. J. Humphries (eds.), Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. 2 vols. Roy. Bot. Gard., Kew.Google Scholar
  57. —. 2001. Floral anatomy and systematic position ofDiplarrhena (Iridaceae): A new tribe Diplarrheneae. Ann. Bot. (Rome), n.s., 2: 59–66.Google Scholar
  58. —. 1997. Microsporogenesis and pollen sulcus type in Asparagales (Lilianae). Canad. J. Bot. 75: 408–430.Google Scholar
  59. —. 1998. Anatomical and molecular systematics of Asteliaceae and Hypoxidaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 127: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. —. 2000. Consider the lilies: Systematics of Liliales. Pp. 347–359in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  61. Shneyer, V. S. 1983. The relationships between the Iridaceae and Liliaceae s.l. as revealed by the serological analysis of seed proteins. Bot. Zhurn. S.S.S.R. 68: 49–54.Google Scholar
  62. Simpson, M. G. 1983. Pollen ultrastructure of the Haemodoraceae and its taxonomic significance. Grana 22: 79–103.Google Scholar
  63. —. 1985. Pollen ultrastructure of the Tecophilaeaceae. Grana 24: 77–92.Google Scholar
  64. —. 1998. Tecophilaeaceae. Pp. 429–4136in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  65. Skottsberg, C. 1934. Studies in the genusAstelia Banks et Solander. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakad. Avh. Naturskyddsärenden 14: 1–106.Google Scholar
  66. Smets, E. F., L. P. Ronse Decraene, P. Caris &P. J. Rudall. 2000. Floral nectaries in monocotyledons: Distribution and evolution. Pp. 230–240in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  67. Stenar, H. 1925. Embryologische Studien I u. II. I. Zur Embryologie einiger Columniferen. II. Die Embryologie der Amaryllideen. Akademische Abhandlung Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, M. F. 1978. Studies in the Hypoxidaceae, II. Floral morphology and anatomy. Bothalia 12: 429–435.Google Scholar
  69. —. 1979. Studies in the Hypoxidaceae, III. The genusPauridia. Bothalia 12: 621–625.Google Scholar
  70. Vogel, S. 1981. Bestaubungskonzepte der Monokotylen und ihr Ausdruck im System. Ber. Deutsch Bot. Ges. 94: 663–675.Google Scholar
  71. Waterhouse, J. T. 1967. Some aspects of the status of the family Xanthorrhoeaceae Hutchinson. M.S. thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
  72. —. 1987. The phylogenetic significance of Dracaena-type growth. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 109: 129–138.Google Scholar
  73. Zavada M., Z. L. Xu &J. M. Edwards. 1983. On the taxonomic status ofLophiola aurea Ker-Gawler. Rhodora 85: 73–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula J. Rudall
    • 1
  1. 1.Royal Botanic GardensRichmondUK

Personalised recommendations