, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 564–580 | Cite as

Contributions to the morphology and anatomy of strasburgeria and a discussion of the taxonomic position of the strasburgeriaceae

  • William C. Dickison


A comprehensive study of floral and vegetative anatomy of the monotypic New Caledonian genusStrasburgeria Baillon was undertaken to provide a more thorough and accurate generic description, and to help clarify the evolutionary relationships of the plant. Detailed descriptions of leaf, stem, nodal, wood, floral, fruit, and seed morphology and anatomy are presented. In general, vegetative characters are primitive whereas those of the reproductive organs are regarded as advanced or specialized.Strasburgeria is envisioned as an early and independent offshoot from the thealean ancestral stock. It appears that the most appropriate treatment of the genus is to recognize the family Strasburgeriaceae and put it adjacent to the Ochnaceae in the current widely accepted manner.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Baas, P. 1975. Vegetative anatomy and the affinities of Aquifoliaceae,Sphenostemon, Phelline, andOncotheca. Blumea 22: 311–407.Google Scholar
  2. Baillon, H. 1876. Stirpes exoticae novae. Adansonia 11: 366–373.Google Scholar
  3. Beauvisage, L. 1920. Contribution à l’étude anatomique de la famille des Ternstroemiacées. Doctoral diss., Univ. de Poitiers. E. Arrault et Cie, Tours.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, L. 1979. Plant classification. 2nd ed. D. C. Heath & Co., Lexington, Mass.Google Scholar
  5. Boivin, B. 1956. Les familles de tracheophytes. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 103: 490–505.Google Scholar
  6. Carlquist, S. 1965. Island life. A natural history of the islands of the world. Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, C. S. & W. C. Dickison. 1976. The morphology and relationships ofOncotheca balansae. Bot. Gaz. 137: 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Committee on Nomenclature, International Association of Wood Anatomists. 1964. Multilingual glossary of terms used in wood anatomy. International Association of Wood Anatomists, Win terthur, Del.Google Scholar
  9. Corner, E. J. H. 1976. The seeds of dicotyledons. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Cronquist, A. 1968. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlgren, R. M. T. 1980. A revised system of classification of the angiosperms. J. Linn. Soc, Bot. 80: 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, G. L. 1966. Systematic embryology of the angiosperms. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Decker, J. M. 1966. Wood anatomy and phylogeny of Luxemburgieae (Ochnaceae). Phytomorphol ogy 16: 39–55.Google Scholar
  14. Dickison, W. C. & P. Baas. 1977. The morphology and relationships ofParacryphia (Paracryphi aceae). Blumea 23: 417–438.Google Scholar
  15. Emberger, L. 1960. Les végétaux vasculaires (vol. 2 of M. Chadefaud & L. Emberger, Traité de botanique systématique). Masson et Cie, Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Engler, A. 1874. Ueber begrenzung und systematische Stellung der natürlichen familie der Ochnaceae. Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leop. Carol. German. Nat. Cur. 37(2): 1–28.Google Scholar
  17. —. 1897. Nur zweifelhaft zu den Ochnaceae gehörige Gattung. P. 245.In: A. Engler & K. Prantl, editors. Die natürlichen pflanzenfamilien. NachtrÄge zum II-IV. Terl. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  18. —. 1925. Strasburgeriaceae. Pp. 87–89.In: A. Engler & K. Prantl, editors. Die natürlichen pflanzenfamilien. 21. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  19. Erdtman, G. 1952. Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  20. Gilg, E. 1925. Ochnaceae. Pp. 53–86.In: A. Engler & K. Prantl, editors. Die natürlichen pflanzen familien. 21. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  21. Guillaumin, A. 1942. Contribution à la flore de la Nouvelle-Calédonie LXXVII.—Plantes des col lecteurs divers. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris), Sér. 2, 14: 144–150.Google Scholar
  22. Hickey, L. J. 1979. A revised classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves. Pp. 25–39.In:C. R. Metcalfe & L. Chalk, editors. Anatomy of the dicotyledons. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. — & J. A. Wolfe. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: vegetative morphology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62: 538–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchinson, J. 1973. The families of flowering plants. 3rd ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  25. Kanis, A. 1968. A revision of the Ochnaceae of the Indo-Pacific area. Blumea 16: 1–82.Google Scholar
  26. Keng, H. 1962. Comparative morphological studies in Theaceae. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 33: 269–384.Google Scholar
  27. Kribs, D. 1935. Salient lines of structural specialization in the wood rays of dicotyledons. Bot. Gaz. 96: 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melchior, H. 1964. Strasburgeriaceae.In: H. Melchior, editor. A. Engler’s Syllabus der pflanzen familien. Vol. 2. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Metcalfe, C. R. & L. Chalk. 1950. Anatomy of the dicotyledons. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. —. 1979. Anatomy of the dicotyledons. 2nd ed., Vol. I. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Muller, J. 1969. Pollen-morphological notes on Ochnaceae. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 9: 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlechter, R. 1906. BeitrÄge zur kenntnis der flora von Neu-Kaledonien. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 39: 114.Google Scholar
  33. Schofield, E. K. 1968. Petiole anatomy of the Guttiferae and related families. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 18: 1–55.Google Scholar
  34. Solereder, H. 1908. Systematic anatomy of the dicotyledons. 2 vols. Transl. by L. A. Boodle & F. E. Fritsch. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. Szyszylowicz, I. 1893. Theaceae (Ternstroemiaceae). Pp. 175–192.In: A. Engler & K. Prantl, editors. Die natürlichen pflanzenfamilien. III. 6. W. Engelmann, Leipzig (appeared in {1895}).Google Scholar
  36. Takhtajan, A. 1980. Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). Bot. Rev. 46: 225–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thorne, R. F.. 1976. A phylogenetic classification of the Angiospermae. Evol. Biol. 9: 35–106.Google Scholar
  38. van Tieghem, P. 1903. Sur le genre Strasburgérie considéré comme type d’une famille nouvelle, les Strasburgériacées. J. Bot. (Morot) 17: 198–204.Google Scholar
  39. —. 1907. A propos de la Strasburgérie. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., sér. 9, 5: 375, 376.Google Scholar
  40. — & J. Constantin. 1918. Eléments de botanique. 5th ed., vol. 2. Masson et Cie, Paris.Google Scholar
  41. Wettstein, R. von. 1935. Handbuch der systematischen botanik. 4th ed. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Leipzig and Vienna.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© New York Botanical Garden 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Dickison
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyThe University of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations