, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 88–99 | Cite as

Morphological studies of the Nymphaeaceae. VII. The floral biology of Nuphar Lutea subsp. macrophylla

  • Edward L. Schneider
  • Lesa A. Moore


The floral biology ofNuphar lutea subsp.macrophylla, native to Central Texas, has been investigated. The flowers are protogynous with anthesis occurring over a period of several days. Flowers are visited by a number of insects but are effectively pollinated by the beetleDonacia piscatrix Lac., which spends its entire life history in association withNuphar. Evidence is assembled which suggests that the overall floral structure together with the sequence of floral development and the timing of sepal movements (i.e., the opening and closure of the flower) are primary adaptations to assure beetle pollination.


Stigmatic Surface Beetle Pollination Insect Visitor Floral Biology Floral Odor 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Baker, H. G. 1963. Evolutionary mechanisms in pollination biology. Science139: 877–883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beal, E. O. 1956. Taxonomic revision of the genusNuphar Sm. of North America and Europe. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.72: 317–346.Google Scholar
  3. Carpenter, F. M. 1930. A review of our present knowledge of the geological history of the insects. Psyche37: 15–34.Google Scholar
  4. Caspary, R. 1888. Nymphaeaceae. In: A. Engler and K. A. E. Prantl. Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien III.2: 1–10, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  5. Cramer, J. M., A. D. J. Meeuse &P. A. Teunissen 1975. A note on the pollination of nocturnally flowering species ofNymphaea. Acta. Bot. Neerl.24: 489–490.Google Scholar
  6. Delpino, F. 1875. Ulteriori osservazioni sulla dicogamia nel regno vegetale. Milan. Pt. II. fasc. II. Estratto dagli Atti Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. Milano. Vol.12.Google Scholar
  7. Diels, L. 1916. KÄferblumen bei den Ranales und ihre Bedeutung für die Phylogenie der Angiospermen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.34: 758–774.Google Scholar
  8. Eames, A. J. 1961. Morphology of the angiosperms. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Faegri, K.. &L. Pijl van der 1971. The principles of pollination ecology. 2nd ed. Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Grant, V. 1950. The pollination ofCalycanthus occidentalis Amer. J. Bot.37: 294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Handlirsch, A. 1925. Palaeontologie.In: C. Schröder, Handbuch der Entomologie, Fisher, Jena.3: 117–306.Google Scholar
  12. Hegi, G. 1912. Ills. Fl. von Mitt.-Europ. Munich, J. F. Lehmanns.3: 444–448.Google Scholar
  13. Heslop-Harrison, Y. 1955.Nuphar Monograph. J. Ecol.43: 342–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman, C. E. 1940a. Morphology of the immature stages of some northern Michigan Donaciini (Chrysomelidae; Coleoptera). Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci.25: 243–290.Google Scholar
  15. — 1940b. Limnological relationships of some northern Michigan Donaciini (Chrysomelidae; Coleoptera). Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc.59: 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. — 1940c. The relation ofDonacia larvae (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) to dissolved oxygen. Ecology21: 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Houlihan, D. F. 1969. Respiratory physiology of the larva ofDonacia Simplex, a root-piercing beetle. J. Insect Physiol.15: 1517–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knuth, P. 1894. Blumen und Insekten auf den nordfriesischen Inseln. Schriften Naturwiss Vereins, Kiel and Leipzig9: 21.Google Scholar
  19. — 1895. Weitere Beobachtungen über Blumen und Insekten auf den nordfriesischen Inseln. Schriften Naturwiss. Vereins, Kiel10: 226.Google Scholar
  20. — 1908. Handbook of flower pollination (transl. by J. R. A. Davis) Vol.2. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Kugler, H. 1955. Einführung in die Blütenokologie (1st and 2nd ed.) Fisher, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  22. Leppik, E. E. 1957. Evolutionary relationships between entomophilous plants and anthophilous insects. Evolution11: 466–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. — 1963. Fossil evidence of floral evolution. Lloydia26: 91–115.Google Scholar
  24. Lovell, J. H. 1915. The origin of anthophily among the Coleoptera. Psyche22: 67–84, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. — 1918. The flower and the bee; Plant life and pollination. C. Scribner’s Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  26. McGaha, Y. J. 1952. The limnological relations of insects to certain aquatic flowering plants. Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc.71: 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moseley, M. F. 1958. Morphological studies of the Nymphaeaceae. I. The nature of the stamens. Phytomorphology8: 1–29.Google Scholar
  28. —Moseley,.Google Scholar
  29. —Moseley,.Google Scholar
  30. Müller, H. 1883. Fertilization of flowers. Trans. & ed. by D. W. Thompson. Macmillan Publishing Co., London.Google Scholar
  31. Pijl, L.van der 1960. Ecological aspects of flower evolution. I. Phyletic Evolution. Evolution14: 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prance, G. T. &J. R. Arias 1975. A study of the floral biology ofVictoria amazonica (Poepp.) Sowerby (Nymphaeaceae). Acta Amazonica5: 109–139.Google Scholar
  33. Price, P. W. 1975. Insect ecology. J. Wiley-Interscience. New York.Google Scholar
  34. Proctor, M. &P. Yeo 1972. The pollination of flowers. Taplinger, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Robertson, C. 1889. Flowers and insects. I. Bot. Gaz.14: 122–123.Google Scholar
  36. Rodendorf, B. B. &A. G. Ponomarenko 1962. Coleoptera. In: Foundations of Palaeontology.9: 241–267. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  37. Schulz, A. 1892. BeitrÄge zur Morphologic und Biologie der Blüten. II. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.10: 10–11.Google Scholar
  38. Schuster, J. 1906. über den Polymorphismus beiNuphar. Allg. Bot. Z. Syst.12: 79–83.Google Scholar
  39. — 1907-08. Zur Systematik vonCastalia undNymphaea. Bull. Herb. Boissier II.7: 853–868, 901–916, 981–996. 1907;8: 67–74. 1908.Google Scholar
  40. Smart, J. & N. F. Hughes 1973. The insect and the plant: progressive palaeoecological integration. In: H. F. van Emden (editor). Insect plant relationships. Roy. Entomol. Soc. London Symp.6: 143–155.Google Scholar
  41. Sporne, K. R. 1975. The morphology of Angiosperms. St. Martin’s Press. New York.Google Scholar
  42. Sprengel, C. K. 1793. Das entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen. Berlin, Vieweg. Press.Google Scholar
  43. Steenis, J. M. &R. T. Mitchell 1950. Leaf beetle versus Lotus. J. Wildlife Managem.14: 478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Takhtajan, A. 1969. Flowering plants: origin and dispersal. Transl. by C. Jeffery. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  45. Thien, L. B. 1974. Floral biology ofMagnolia. Amer. J. Bot.61: 1037–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trelease, W. 1879. Die Insekten als unbewusste Blumenzüchter. Amer. Naturalist.13: 257–260.Google Scholar
  47. Vogel, S. 1962. Duftdrüsen im Dienste der BestÄubung. Akad. Wiss. Abh. Math.-Naturwiss. Kl.10: 599–763.Google Scholar
  48. Warnstorf, D. 1896. Botanische Beobachtungen aus der Provinz Brandenburg im Jahre 1894. B. Blütenbiologisches. Verh. Bot. Vereins. Vol.37. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward L. Schneider
    • 1
  • Lesa A. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologySouthwest Texas State UniversitySan Marcos

Personalised recommendations