Brittonia

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 137–153

The compositae revisited

  • Arthur Cronquist
Article

Abstract

Bentham’s treatment of the Compositae in the Genera Plantarum is still, after more than a century, the most important basic reference work on the family. The scholarly challenge to Bentham’s views by Small in 1917–1919 is severely compromised by Small’s reliance on the Age and Area hypothesis. In 1955 I published a comprehensive paper on the phylogeny and taxonomy of the Compositae. My outlook was highly compatible with that of Bentham, as it remains today.

A significant change in my views after 20 years is that I now take the woody habit to be primitive within the family, and the herbaceous habit derived, rather than the other way around. Many of the herbs have retained an active cambium, however, and some of these have reverted to a secondarily woody habit.

The fossil record does not connect the Compositae to any other group. Recog nizable members of the family can be traced back to the top of the Oligocène epoch. Some of the older fossils that have been referred to the Compositae, such as the Upper CretaceousPalaeanthus problematicus, clearly do not belong, and others are at best doubtful.

The ancestry of the Compositae remains in dispute. A long series of extinct forebears must be postulated in order to relate them to anything at all, and the chemical data are not in harmony with the morphological data. The most similar modern family is the Calyceraceae, but these can be no more than collateral rela tives. I still hold to the view that the ancestry of the Compositae probably lies in the vicinity of the Rubiaceae.

There is now a ferment about tribal classification in the Compositae, and several new tribes have recently been proposed. The least controversial of these is the Liabeae, which seems likely to become generally accepted. Application of recent chemical data may lead to further restriction of the Senecioneae, with several genera being transferred to the Heliantheae or elsewhere. It now seems to be generally agreed that Bentham’s tribe Helenieae must be dismembered, and that at least some of its components must be included in a more broadly defined tribe Heliantheae. Elevation of the Tagetinae to tribal status can be defended on both morphological and chemical grounds, but may not be necessary, since the rela tionship of the Tagetinae to the Heliantheae is clear.

Carlquist’s recent proposal to organize the tribes of Compositae into two sub families of 6 tribes each is interesting but faulty. It has the virtue of putting most of the radiate tribes into one subfamily, but it minimizes the significance of the Arctotideae as a group connecting the radiate tribes to the discoid ones. Furthermore, it ignores the most obvious dichotomy in the family, which separates the Lactuceae from all the remaining tribes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Adamson, R. S. 1934. Anomalous secondary thickening in Compositae. Ann. Bot. (London)48: 505–514.Google Scholar
  2. Augier, J., &M. DuMerac 1951. La phylogénie des Composées. Rev. Sci.3311: 167–182.Google Scholar
  3. Baranova, M. 1972. Systematic anatomy of the leaf epidermis in the Magnoliaceae and some related families. Taxon21: 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, H. F. 1969. Fossil plants of the Tertiary Beaverhead Basins in southwestern Montana. Palaeontographica, Abt. B, PalÄophytol.127: 1–142.Google Scholar
  5. Bentham, G. 1873a. Compositae.In: G. Bentham and J. D. Hooker. Genera Plantarum2(1): 163–533.Google Scholar
  6. — 1873b. Notes on the classification, history, and geographic distribution of the Compositae. J. Linn. Soc., Bot.13: 335–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bremekamp, C. E. B. 1966. Remarks on the position, the delimitation and the subdivision of the Rubiaceae. Acta Bot. Neerl.15: 1–33.Google Scholar
  8. Carlquist, S. 1957a. The genusFitchia (Compositae). Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot.29: 1–144.Google Scholar
  9. — 1957b. Wood anatomy of Mutisieae (Compositae). Trop. Woods106: 29–45.Google Scholar
  10. — 1958. Wood anatomy of Heliantheae (Compositae). Trop. Woods108: 1–30.Google Scholar
  11. — 1959. Wood anatomy of Helenieae (Compositae). Trop. Woods111: 19–39.Google Scholar
  12. — 1960a. Wood anatomy of Cichorieae (Compositae). Trop. Woods112: 65–91.Google Scholar
  13. — 1960b. Wood anatomy of Astereae (Compositae). Trop. Woods113: 54–84.Google Scholar
  14. — 1961. Wood anatomy of Inuleae (Compositae). Aliso5(1): 21–37.Google Scholar
  15. — 1962. Wood anatomy of Senecioneae (Compositae). Aliso5(2): 123–146.Google Scholar
  16. — 1964. Wood anatomy of Vernonieae (Compositae). Aliso5(4): 451–467.Google Scholar
  17. — 1965a. Wood anatomy of Cynareae (Compositae). Aliso6(1): 13–24.Google Scholar
  18. — 1965b. Wood anatomy of Eupatorieae (Compositae). Aliso6(1): 89–103.Google Scholar
  19. — 1966a. Wood anatomy of Anthemideae, Ambrosieae, Calenduleae, and Arctotideae (Compositae). Aliso6(2): 1–23.Google Scholar
  20. — 1966b. Wood anatomy of Compositae: A summary, with comments on factors controlling wood evolution. Aliso6(2): 25–44.Google Scholar
  21. — 1976. Tribal interrelationships and phylogeny of the Asteraceae. Aliso8(4): 465–492.Google Scholar
  22. Cassini, H. 1975. Cassini on Compositae, collected from the Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles. Ed. by R. M. King and H. W. Dawson. Oriole Editions. New York.Google Scholar
  23. Crété, R. 1956. Contribution à l’étude de l’albumen et de l’embryon chez les Campanulacées et les Lobéliacées. Bull. Soc. Bot. France103: 446–454.Google Scholar
  24. Cronquist, A. 1955. Phylogeny and taxonomy of the Compositae. Amer. Midl. Naturalist53: 478–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeCandolle, A. P. 1836, 1837, 1838. Prodromus Syst. Nat. Vol.5, 6, 7.Google Scholar
  26. Diettert, R. A. 1938. The morphology ofArtemisia tridentata Nutt. Lloydia1: 3–74.Google Scholar
  27. Hegnauer, R. 1964. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Band 3. BirkhÄuser Verlag. Basel and Stuttgart. 743 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Hoffmann, O. 1894. Compositae. pp. 87–394.In: A. Engler and K. Prantl, Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Vol.4, part 5.Google Scholar
  29. Leonhardt, R. 1949. Phylogenetisch-systematische Betrachtungen. I. Betrachtung zur Syste matik der Compositen. Oesterr. Bot. Z.96: 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newberry, J. 1896. Flora of the Amboy clays. Monog. U. S. Geol. Survey 26.Google Scholar
  31. Powell, A. M. &B. L. Turner 1974. A generic conspectus of the subtribe Peritylinae (As teraceae-Helenieae) and reassessment of its tribal position. Amer. J. Bot.61: 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raven, P. H. &D. I. Axelrod 1974. Angiosperm biogeography and past continental move ments. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.61: 539–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rickett, H. W. 1944. The classification of inflorescences. Bot. Rev.10: 187–231.Google Scholar
  34. Robinson, H. &R. D. Brettell 1973a. Tribal revisions in the Asteraceae. III. A new tribe, Liabeae. Phytologia25: 404–407.Google Scholar
  35. — 1973b. Tribal revisions in the Asteraceae. VIII. A new tribe, Ursineae. Phytologia26: 76–85.Google Scholar
  36. — 1973c. Tribal revisions in the Asteraceae. XI. A new tribe, Eremothamneae. Phytologia26: 163–166.Google Scholar
  37. Rydberg, P. A. 1927. Liabeae.In: N. Amer. F1. 34: 289–301.Google Scholar
  38. Small, James 1919. The origin and development of the Compositae. New Phytol. Reprinted from vols.16-18, 1917–1919.Google Scholar
  39. Sporne, K. R. 1954a. Statistics and the evolution of dicotyledons. Evolution8: 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. — 1954b. A note on nuclear endosperm as a primitive character among dico- tyledons. Phytomorphology4: 275–278.Google Scholar
  41. Stebbins, G. L. 1953. A new classification of the tribe Cichorieae, family Compositae. Madroño12: 65–81.Google Scholar
  42. Takhtajan, A. 1966. Sistema i filogenia tsvetkovykh rastenii (in Russian). Soviet Sciences Press. Moscow, Leningrad. 611 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Willis, J. C. 1915. The endemic flora of Ceylon, with reference to geographical distribution and evolution in general. Philos. Trans., Ser. B.206: 307–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur Cronquist
    • 1
  1. 1.The New York Botanical GardenNY

Personalised recommendations