Monocotyledon Evolution

Characters and Phylogenetic Estimation
  • Rolf Dahlgren
  • Finn N. Rasmussen


The distribution of a great number of character states in monocotyledons has recently been surveyed by Dahlgren and Clifford (1982). This presentation deals with the possibilities of using these characters in estimates of monocotyledon phylogeny. Various hypotheses of monocotyledon evolution and phylogeny are discussed in the light of our current knowledge of characters, and some theoretical and practical problems in cladistic analysis of monocotyledons are pointed out.


Starchy Endosperm Silica Body Phyletic Line Endosperm Formation Scalariform Perforation Plate 
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.


  1. Ambrose, J. D., 1980, A re-evaluation of the Melanthoideae (Liliaceae) using numerical analyses, in: Petaloid Monocotyledons (C. D. Brickell et al., eds.), PP. 65–81, Academic, London.Google Scholar
  2. Ancibor, E., 1979, Systematic anatomy of vegetative organs of the Hydrocharitaceae, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 78:237–266.Google Scholar
  3. Arber, A., 1925, Monocotyledons. A Morphological Study, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Ashlock, P. D., 1971, Monophyly and associated terms, Syst. Zool. 20:63–69.Google Scholar
  5. Ashlock, P. D., 1974, The uses of cladistics, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:81–99.Google Scholar
  6. Barthlott, W., and Fröhlich, D., 1983, Micromorphologie und Orientierungs-Muster epi-cuticularer Wachs-Kristalloide: Ein neues systematisches Merkmal bei Monocotylen, Plant Syst. Evol. (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Behnke, H.-D., 1968, Zum Feinbau der Siebröhren-Plastiden bei Monocotylen, Naturwissenschaften 55:120–141.Google Scholar
  8. Behnke, H.-D., 1971, Zum Feinbau der Siebröhren-Plastiden von Aristolochia und Asarum (Aristolochiaceae), Planta 97:62–69.Google Scholar
  9. Behnke, H.-D., 1981, Siebelement-Plastiden, Phloem-Protein und Evolution der Blütenpflanzen: II. Monocotyledonen, Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 94:647–662.Google Scholar
  10. Behnke, H.-D., and Barthlott, W., 1983, New evidence from the ultrastructural and micro-morphological fields in angiosperm classification, Nord. J. Bot. 3:43–66.Google Scholar
  11. Behnke, H.-D., and Dahlgren, R., 1976, The distribution of characters within an angiosperm system, 2. Sieve element plastids, Bot. Not. 129:287–295.Google Scholar
  12. Bergson, H., 1908, L’evolution creatice, Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Björnstad, I., 1970, Comparative embryology of Asparagoideae-Polygonatae, Liliaceae, Nytt Mag. Bot. 17:169–207.Google Scholar
  14. Björnstad, I., and Friis, I., 1972, Studies on the genus Haemanthus L. (Amaryllidaceae). II. A revision of the section Demeusa (De Wild. & Th. Dur.) Pax & Hoffm. emend. I. Björnstad & I. Friis, Nor. J. Bot. 19:207–222.Google Scholar
  15. Bonde, N., 1977, Cladistic classification as applied to vertebrates, in Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution (M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody, and B. M. Hecht, eds.), pp. 741–804, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Boudet, A. M., Lecusson, R., and Boudet, A., 1975, Mise en évidence et propriétés de deux formes de la 5-déshydroquinate hydrolyase chez les végétaux supérieurs, Planta (Berl.) 124:67–75.Google Scholar
  17. Boudet, A. M., Boudet, A., and Bouyssou, H., 1977, Taxonomic distribution of isoenzymes of dehydroquinate hydrolyase in the angiosperms, Phytoehemistry 16:919–922.Google Scholar
  18. Bremer, K., and Wanntorp, H.-E., 1978, Phylogenetic systematics in botany, Taxon 21:311–329.Google Scholar
  19. Bremer, K., and Wanntorp, H.-E., 1981a, A cladistic classification of green plants, Nord. J. Bot. 1:1–13.Google Scholar
  20. Bremer, K., and Wanntorp, H.-E., 1981b, The cladistic approach to plant classification, in: Advances in Cladistics (V. Funk and D. R. Brooks, eds.), pp. 87–94, New York Botantical Gardens, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Brewbaker, J. L., 1967, The distribution and phylogenetic significance of binucleate and trinucleate pollen grains in the angiosperms, Am. J. Bot. 54:1069–1083.Google Scholar
  22. Burger, W. C., 1977, The Piperales and the monocots. Alternative hypotheses of mono-cotyledonous flowers, Bot. Rev. 43:346–393.Google Scholar
  23. Burger, W. C., 1981, Heresy revived: The monocot theory of angiosperm origin, Evol. Theory 5:189–225.Google Scholar
  24. Bush, G. L. 1975, Modes of animal speciation, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6:339–364.Google Scholar
  25. Cantino, P. D., 1982, Affinities of the Lamiales: A cladistic analysis, Syst. Bot. 7:237–248.Google Scholar
  26. Chanda, S., and Ghosh, K., 1976, Pollen morphology and its evolutionary significance in Xanthorrhoeaceae, in: The Evolutionary Significance of the Exine (I. K. Ferguson and J. Muller, eds.), pp. 527–559, Academic, London.Google Scholar
  27. Cheadle, V. I., 1943, The origin and certain trends of specialization of the vessels in the Monocotyledoneae, Am. J. Bot. 30:11–17.Google Scholar
  28. Cheadle, V. I., 1944, Specialization of vessels within the xylem of each organ in the Monocotyledoneae, Am. J. Bot. 31:81–92.Google Scholar
  29. Cheadle, V. I., 1953, Independent origin of vessels in the monocotyledons and dicotyledons, Phytomorphology 3:23–44.Google Scholar
  30. Cheadle, V. I., and Kosakai, H., 1980, Occurrence and specialization of vessels in Commelinales, Phytomorphology 30:98–117.Google Scholar
  31. Cheadle, V. I., and Kosakai, H., 1982, Occurrence and specialization of vessels in Xyridales, Nord. J. Bot. 2:97–109.Google Scholar
  32. Chupov, V. S., and Kutiavina, N. G., 1978, The comparative immuno-electrophoretic investigation of seed proteins of Liliaceae (in Russian), Bot. Zh. 63:473–493.Google Scholar
  33. Chupov, V. S., and Kutiavina, N. G., 1981, Serological studies in the order Liliales (in Russian), Bot. Zh. 66:75–81.Google Scholar
  34. Clifford, H. T., 1970, Monocotyledon classification with special reference to the origin of grasses (Poaceae), in: New Research in Plant Anatomy (N. K. B. Robson et al., eds.), Bot. J. Linn. Soc. (Suppl. 1) 1970:25–34.Google Scholar
  35. Clifford, H. T., and Williams, W. T., 1980, Interrelationships amongst the Liliatae: A graph theory approach, Aust. J. Bot. 28:261–268.Google Scholar
  36. Conover, M., 1982, The vegetative morphology and development of the reticulate-veined Lilliiflorae and their parallel veined allies, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  37. Cracraft, I., 1975, Historical biogeography and earth history: Perspectives for a future synthesis, Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62:227–250.Google Scholar
  38. Crisci, I. V., and Stussey, T. F., 1980, Determining primitive character states for phylo-genetic reconstruction, Syst. Bot. 5:112–135.Google Scholar
  39. Crisci, I. V., and Stussey, T. F., 1982, Of reason and logic: Evolutionary polarity revisited, Syst. Bot. 7:230.Google Scholar
  40. Cronquist, A., 1963, The taxonomic significance of evolutionary parallelism, Sida 1:109–116.Google Scholar
  41. Cronquist, A., 1968, The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants, Nelson, London.Google Scholar
  42. Cronquist, A., 1969, Broad features of the system of angiosperms, Taxon 18:188–193.Google Scholar
  43. Cronquist, A., 1981, An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Cullen, J., 1978, A preliminary survey of ptyxis (vernation) in the angiosperms. Notes R. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 37:161–214.Google Scholar
  45. Daghlian, C. P., 1981, A review of the fossil record of monocotyledons, Bot. Rev. 47:517–555.Google Scholar
  46. Dahlgren, R. (in cooperation with Hansen, B., Jakobsen, K., and Larsen, K.), 1974, An-giospermernes Taxonomi, 1, Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  47. Dahlgren, R. (in cooperation with Hansen, B., Jakobsen, K., Jensen, S. R., Larsen, K., and Nielsen, B. J.), 1979, Angiospermernes Taxonomi, 1, 2nd ed., Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  48. Dahlgren, R. 1980, A revised system of classification of the angiosperms, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 80:91–124.Google Scholar
  49. Dahlgren, R., 1983, General aspects of angiosperm evolution and macrosystematics, Nord. J. Bot. 3:119–149.Google Scholar
  50. Dahlgren, R., and Clifford, H. T., 1981, Some conclusions from a comparative study of the monocotyledons and related dicotyledonous orders, Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 94:203–227.Google Scholar
  51. Dahlgren, R., and Clifford, H. T., 1982, The Monocotyledons: A Comparative Study, Academic, London.Google Scholar
  52. Darwin, C., 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Murray, London.Google Scholar
  53. Daumann, E., 1970, Das Blütennektarium der Monocotyledonen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner systematischen und phylogenetischen Bedeutung, Feddes Repert. 80:463–590.Google Scholar
  54. Davis, G. L., 1966, Systematic Embryology of the Angiosperms, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  55. De Vos, M., 1972, The genus Romulea in South Africa, J. S. Afr. Bot. (Suppl.) 9:1–307.Google Scholar
  56. Dilcher, D. L., 1979, Early angiosperm reproduction: An introductory report, Rev. Paleobot. Palynol. 27:291–328.Google Scholar
  57. Dressier, R. L., 1981, The Orchids—Natural History and Classification, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  58. Duncan, T., 1980, Cladistics for the practicing taxonomists—An eclectic view, Syst. Bot. 5:136–148.Google Scholar
  59. Eastop, V., 1979, Stenorrhyncha as angiosperm taxonomists, Symb. Bot. Ups. 22:120–134.Google Scholar
  60. Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J., 1980, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  61. El-Gazzar, A., and Hamza, M. K., 1975, On the monocots-dicots distinction, Publ. Cairo Univ. Herb. 6:15–28.Google Scholar
  62. Emberger, L., 1960, Traité de Botanique, Vol. II, Les végétaux vasculaires (M. Chaudefaut and L. Emberger, eds.), Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
  63. Engler, A., 1919, Araceae, Das Pflanzenreich 4(23A).Google Scholar
  64. Erdtman, G., 1952, Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy: Angiosperms, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  65. Estabrook, G. F., 1972, Cladistic methodology: A discussion of the theoretical basis for the induction of evolutionary history, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3:427–456.Google Scholar
  66. Estabrook, G. F., 1977. Does common equal primitive?, Syst. Bot. 2:36–42.Google Scholar
  67. Estabrook, G. F., 1978, Some concepts for the estimation of evolutionary relationships, Syst. Bot. 3:146–158.Google Scholar
  68. Estabrook, G. F., and McMorris, F. R., 1980, When is one estimate of evolutionary relationships a refinement of another?, J. Math. Biol. 10:367–373.Google Scholar
  69. Estabrook, G. F., Johnson, C. S., and McMorris, F. R., 1975, An idealized concept of the cladistic character, Math. Biosci. 23:263–272.Google Scholar
  70. Estabrook, G. F., Johnson, C. S., and McMorris, F. R., 1976a, An algebraic analysis of cladistic characters, Discrete Math. 16:141–147.Google Scholar
  71. Estabrook, G. F., Johnson, C. S., and McMorris, F. R., 1976b, A mathematical foundation for the analysis of cladistic character compatibility, Math. Biosci. 29:181–187.Google Scholar
  72. Farris, J. S., and Kluge, G., 1979, A botanical clique, Syst. Zool. 28:400–411.Google Scholar
  73. Felsenstein, J., 1978, Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading, Syst. Zool. 27:401–410.Google Scholar
  74. Felsenstein, J., 1979, Alternative methods of phylogenetic inference and their relationship, Syst. Zool. 28:49–62.Google Scholar
  75. Felsenstein, J., 1981, A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 16:183–196.Google Scholar
  76. Funk, V. A., 1981, Special concerns in estimating plant phylogenies, in: Advances in Cladistics (V. A. Funk and D. M. Brooks, eds.), pp. 73–86, New York Botanical Gardens, New York.Google Scholar
  77. Funk, V. A., and Stussey, T. F., 1978, Cladistics for the practicing taxonomist, Syst. Bot. 3:159–178.Google Scholar
  78. Goldblatt, P., 1977, The genus Moraea in the winter rainfall region of Southern Africa, Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 63:657–786.Google Scholar
  79. Gornall, R. J., Bohm, B. A., and Dahlgren, R., 1979, The distribution of flavonoids in the angiosperms, Bot. Not. 132:1–30.Google Scholar
  80. Gould, S. J., 1980, Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?, Paleobiology 6:119–130.Google Scholar
  81. Haines, R. W., and Lye, K. A., 1975, Seedlings of Nymphaeaceae, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 70:255–265.Google Scholar
  82. Hamann, U., 1961, Merkmalsbestand und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der “Farinosae,” Willdenowia 2:639–768.Google Scholar
  83. Hamann, U., 1962a, Weiteres über Merkmalsbestand und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der “Farinosae,” Willdenowia 3:169–207.Google Scholar
  84. Hamann, U., 1962b, Beitrag zur Embryologie der Centrolepidaceae mit Bemerkungen über den Bau der Blüten und Blütenstände und die systematische Stellung der Familie, Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 75:153–171.Google Scholar
  85. Hamann, U., 1966, Embryologische, morphologisch-anatomische und systematische Untersuchungen an Philydraceen, Willdenowia 4:1–178.Google Scholar
  86. Hamann, U., 1975, Neue Untersuchungen zur Embryologie und Systematik der Centrolepidaceae, Bot. Jahrb. 96:154–191.Google Scholar
  87. Hamann, U., 1976, Hydatellaceae—A new family of Monocotyledoneae, N. Z. J. Bot. 14:193–196.Google Scholar
  88. Harborne, J. B., 1973, Flavonoids as systematic markers in the angiosperms, in: Chemistry in Botanical Classification (G. Bendz and J. Santesson, eds.), pp. 103–115, Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  89. Harris, P. J., and Hartley, R. D., 1980, Phenolic constituents of the cell walls of monocotyledons, Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 8:153–160.Google Scholar
  90. Hennig, W., 1950, Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik, Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  91. Hennig, W., 1966, Phylogenetic Systematics, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  92. Hennig, W., 1969, Die Stammesgeischichte der Insekten, Kramer, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  93. Heslop-Harrison, Y., and Shivanna, K. R., 1977, The receptive surface of the angiosperm stigma, Ann. Bot. 41:1233–1258.Google Scholar
  94. Hickey, L. J., and Doyle, J. A., 1977, Early Cretaceous fossil evidence for angiosperm evolution, Bot. Rev. 43:3–104.Google Scholar
  95. Holttum, R. E., 1967, Comparative morphology, taxonomy and evolution, Phytomorphology 17:36–41.Google Scholar
  96. Huber, H., 1969, Die Samenmerkmale und Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Liliiflorae Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München. 8:219–538.Google Scholar
  97. Huber, H., 1977, The treatment of the monocotyledons in an evolutionary system of classification, Plant Syst. Evol., Suppl. 1 1977:285–298.Google Scholar
  98. Hull, D. L., 1966, Phylogenetic numericlature, Syst. Zool. 15:14–17.Google Scholar
  99. Hull, D. L., 1967, Certainty and circularity in evolutionary taxonomy, Evolution 21:174–189.Google Scholar
  100. Hull, D. L., 1970, Contemporary systematic philosophies, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1:19–54.Google Scholar
  101. Hull, D. L., 1979, The limits of cladism, Syst. Zool. 28:416–440.Google Scholar
  102. Hutchinson, J., 1934, The Families of Flowering Plants, II, Monocotyledons, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  103. Hutchinson, J., 1959, The Families of Flowering Plants, II, Monocotyledons, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  104. Huxley, I., 1958, Evolutionary processes and taxonomy with special reference to grades, Upps. Univ. Årsskrift 1958:21–38.Google Scholar
  105. Inamdar, J. A., and Aleykutty, K. M., 1979, Studies on Cabomba aquatica (Cabombaceae), Plant Syst. Evol. 132:161–166.Google Scholar
  106. Krajncic, B., and Dévidé, Z., 1979, Flower development in Spirodela polyrrhiza (Lemna-ceae), Plant Syst. Evol. 132:305–312.Google Scholar
  107. Leavitt, R. G., 1904, Trichomes of the root in vascular cryptogams and angiosperms, Proc. Boston Nat. Hist. Soc. 31:273–313.Google Scholar
  108. Martin, A. C., 1946, The comparative internal morphology of seeds, Am. Midl. Nat. 36:513–660.Google Scholar
  109. Mayr, E., 1974, Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Z. Zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch. 12:94–128.Google Scholar
  110. McMorris, F. R., 1975, Compatibility criteria for cladistic and qualitative taxonomic characters, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference Numerical Taxonomy (G. F. Estabrook ed.), pp. 399–429, Freeman, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  111. McNeill, J., 1978, Purposeful phenetics, Syst. Zool. 28:465–482.Google Scholar
  112. Meacham, C. A., 1980, Phylogeny of the Berberidaceae with an evaluation of classifications, Syst. Bot. 5:149–172.Google Scholar
  113. Meacham, C. A., 1981, A manual method for character compatibility analysis, Taxon 30:591–600.Google Scholar
  114. Meeuse, A. D. J., 1978, Nectarial secretion, floral evolution, and the pollination syndrome in early Angiosperms, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Ser. C Biol. Med. Sci. 81:300–326.Google Scholar
  115. Metcalfe, C. R., 1971, Anatomy of the Monocotyledons, Vol. V, Cyperaceae, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  116. Mitter, C., 1981. “Cladistics” in botany. Syst. Zool. 30:373–376.Google Scholar
  117. Moore, H. E., Jr., 1953, The genus Milia (Amaryllidaceae-Allieae) and its allies, Gentes Herb. 8:269–294.Google Scholar
  118. Muller, J., 1981, Fossil pollen records of extant angiosperms, Bot. Rev. 47:1–146.Google Scholar
  119. Müller-Doblies, D., 1968, Über die Verwandtschaft von Typha und Sparganium im Inflo-rescenz-und Blütenbau, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 89:451–562.Google Scholar
  120. Nelson, G. J., 1970, Outline of a theory of comparative biology. Syst. Zool. 19:373–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Nelson, G. J., 1971, Paraphyly and polyphyly: Redefinitions. Syst. Zool. 21:471–472.Google Scholar
  122. Nelson, G. J., 1972, Comments on Hennig’s “Phylogenesc systematics” and its influence on ichthyology, Syst. Zool. 21:364–374.Google Scholar
  123. Nelson, G. J., 1974, Classification as an expression of phylogenetic relationships. Syst. Zool. 22:344–359.Google Scholar
  124. Nelson, G., 1978, Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology, and the Biogenetic Law, Syst. Zool. 27:324–345.Google Scholar
  125. Nelson, G., and Platnick, N., 1981, Systematics and Bio geography, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  126. Patterson, C., 1978, Evolution. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  127. Rasmussen, F. N., 1982, The gynostemium of the neottioid orchids, Opera Bot. 65:1–97.Google Scholar
  128. Rieppel, O., 1978, Ontogeny and the recognition of primitive character states, Zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch. 17:57–61.Google Scholar
  129. Sattler, R., and Singh, V., 1978, Floral organogenesis of Echinodorus amazonicus Rataj and floral construction of the Alismatales, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 77:141–156.Google Scholar
  130. Savile, D. B. O., 1979, Fungi as aids in higher plant classification, Bot. Rev. 45:377–503.Google Scholar
  131. Seigler, D. S., 1977, Plant systematics and alkaloids, Alkaloids 16:1–82.Google Scholar
  132. Simpson, G. G., 1961, Principles of Animal Taxonomy, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  133. Singh, V., and Sattler, R., 1977, Development of the inflorescence and flower in Sagittaria cuneata, Can. J. Bot. 55:1087–1105.Google Scholar
  134. Slater, J. A., 1976, Monocots and chinch-bugs: A study of host plant relationships in the Lygaeid subfamily Blissinae (Hemiptera: Lygidae), Biotropica 8:143–165.Google Scholar
  135. Sneath, P., and Sokal, R., 1962, Numerical taxonomy, Nature 4818:855–856.Google Scholar
  136. Stanley, S. M., 1979, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, Freeman, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  137. Stant, M. Y., 1964, Anatomy of the Alismataceae, J. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 59:1–42.Google Scholar
  138. Stant, M. Y., 1967, Anatomy of Butomaceae, J. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 60:31–60.Google Scholar
  139. Steenis, C. G. G. J., 1982, Pentastemona, a new 5-merous genus of monoctyledons from North Sumatra, Blumea 28:151–163.Google Scholar
  140. Stebbins, G. L., 1974, Flowering Plants: Evolution above the Species Level, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  141. Stevens, P. F., 1980, Evolutionary polarity of character states, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:333–358.Google Scholar
  142. Stevens, P. F., 1981, On ends and means, or how polarity criteria can be assessed, Syst. Bot. 6:186–188.Google Scholar
  143. Takhtajan, A., 1969, Flowering Plants. Origin and Dispersal, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  144. Takhtajan, A., 1980, Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta) Bot. Rev. 46:295–359.Google Scholar
  145. Tattersall, I., and Eldredge, N., 1977, Fact, theory, and fantasy in human paleontology, Am. Sci. 65:204–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. Thanikaimoni, G., 1978, Pollen morphological terms: Proposed definitions—1, in: IV International Palyn. Conference, Lucknow (1976–1977), Vol. 1, pp. 228–239.Google Scholar
  147. Thorne, R. F., 1976, A phylogenetic classification of the Angiospermae, Evol. Biol. 9:35–106.Google Scholar
  148. Tomlinson, P. B., 1962, Phylogeny of the Scitamineae—Morphological and anatomical considerations, Evolution 16:192–213.Google Scholar
  149. Tomlinson, P. B., 1969, Anatomy of the Monocotyledons. III. Commelinales-Zingiberales, (C. R. Metcalfe, ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  150. Tomlinson, P. B., 1974, Development of the stomatal complex as a taxonomic character in the monocotyledons, Taxon 23:109–128.Google Scholar
  151. Tomlinson, P. B., 1982, Anatomy of the Monocotyledons. VII. Helobiae (Alismatales), (C. R. Metcalfe, ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  152. Uhl, N. W., and Moore, H. E., 1980, Androecial development in six polyandrous genera representing five major groups of palms; Ann. Bot. 45:57–70.Google Scholar
  153. Untawale, A. G., and Bhasin, R. K., 1973, On endothecial thickenings in some monoco-tyledonous families, Curr. Sci. 42:398–400.Google Scholar
  154. Utech, F. H., and Kawano, S., 1976, Biosystematic studies on Disporum (Liliaceae-Polygonatae): IV. Floral biology of D. sessile D. Don and D. smilacinum A. Gray from Japan, Bot. Mag. Tokyo 89:159–171.Google Scholar
  155. Van Steenis, C. G. G. J., 1982, Pentastemona, a new 5-merous genus of monocotyledons from North Sumatra, Blumea 28:151–163.Google Scholar
  156. Van Tieghem, P., 1887, Structure de la racine et disposition des radicelles dans Centrole-pidées, Eriocaulées, Joncées, Mayacées, et Xyridées, J. Bot. 1:305–315.Google Scholar
  157. Van Tieghem, P., and Duliot, H., 1888, Récherches comparatives sur l’origine des membres endogénes dans les plantes vasculaires, Ann. Sci. Nat., Ser. 7 8:1–666.Google Scholar
  158. Velenovsky, J., 1907, Vergleichende Morphologie der Pflanzen, II, Rivnat, Prague.Google Scholar
  159. Von Staudermann, W., 1924, Die Haare der Monocotyledonen, Bot. Archiv 8:105–184.Google Scholar
  160. Walker, J. W., 1975, Comparative pollen morphology and phylogeny of the Ranalean complex, in: The Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (C. B. Beck, ed.), pp. 241–299, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  161. Walker, J. W., 1976, Evolutionary significance of the exine in the pollen of primitive angiosperms, in: The Evolutionary Significance of the Exine (I. K. Ferguson and J. Muller, eds.), pp. 251–308, Academic, London.Google Scholar
  162. Wagner, P., 1977, Vessel types of monocotyledons: A survey, Bot. Not. 130:383–402.Google Scholar
  163. Watrous, L. E., and Wheeler, Q. D., 1981, The out-group comparison method of character analyses, Syst. Zool. 30:1–11.Google Scholar
  164. Wernham, H. F., 1912, Floral evolution: With particular reference to the sympetalous dicotyledons.—IX. Summary and conclusion. Evolutionary genealogy and some principles of classification, New Phytol. 11:373–397.Google Scholar
  165. Wheeler, Q. D., 1981, The ins and outs of character analysis: A response to Crisci and Stussey, Syst. Bot. 6:297–306.Google Scholar
  166. Wilder, G. J., and Harris, D. H., 1982, Laticifers in Cyclanthus bipartitus Poit. (Cyclanthaceae), Bot. Gaz. 143:84–93.Google Scholar
  167. Wiley, E. O., 1978, The evolutionary species concept reconsidered, Syst. Zool. 27:17–26.Google Scholar
  168. Wiley, E. O., 1979, An annotated Linnean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems, Syst. Zool. 28:308–337.Google Scholar
  169. Wiley, E. O., 1980, Phylogenetic systematics and vicariance biogeography, Syst. Bot. 5:194–220.Google Scholar
  170. Wiley, E. O., 1981, Phylogenetics, I Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  171. Wunderlich, R., 1959, Zur Frage der Phylogenie der Endospermtypen bei den Angiospermen, Oest. Bot. Z. 106:203–293.Google Scholar
  172. Yakolev, M. S., and Zhukova, G. Y., 1980, Chlorophyll in embryos of angiosperm seeds, a review: Bot. Notiser 133:323–336.Google Scholar
  173. Young, D. A., 1981, Are the angiosperms primitively vesselless?, Syst. Bot. 6:313–330.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf Dahlgren
    • 1
  • Finn N. Rasmussen
    • 2
  1. 1.Botanical MuseumUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Systematic BotanyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations