Abstract
This review builds upon previous classifications of angiosperm female gametophytes but offers two new perspectives. Firstly, the course of development is compared to an algorithm: a predetermined set of rules that produces a mature female gametophyte. This analogy allows hypotheses to be developed as to what changes in the “developmental program” are responsible for variant forms of development. Secondly, the review recognizes that the four meiotic products of a megaspore mother cell have different genetic constitutions and may have conflicting interests. In most cases, only one member of a megaspore tetrad gives rise to a functional egg. This megaspore is called the germinal spore. The other members of the tetrad are called somatic spores. Somatic spores do not give rise to functional eggs and, therefore, cannot leave direct genetic descendants.
Non-monosporic embryo sacs are genetic chimeras containing derivatives of more than one megaspore nucleus. Conflict may arise within such embryo sacs between the derivatives of the germinal megaspore nucleus and the derivatives of somatic megaspore nuclei. “Antipodal eggs” and chalazal “strike” are interpreted as evidence of this conflict. The behavior of somatic spores and their derivatives is often variable for different embryo sacs produced by the same sporophyte. This has created difficulties for existing classifications of embryo sac “types” because more than one type is sometimes recognized within a species. A new classification of developmental algorithms is presented that emphasizes the fate of the germinal spore and its derivatives.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Überblick baut sich auf vorangehende Klassifizierungen des weiblichen Gametophyten der Angiospermen auf, zeigt aber zwei neue Perspektiven auf. Erstens wird der Entwicklungsverlauf vergleichen mit einem Algorithmus: eine vorbestimmte Reihe von Regeln, die den entwickelten weiblichen Gametophyten hervorbringen. Diese Analogie erlaubt, die Hypothese aufzustellen, daß eine Änderung im “Entwicklungs-Programm” verantwortlich ist für verschiedene Formen der Entwicklung. Zweitens zeigt dieser Überblick, daß die vier meiotischen Produkte der Megasporenmutterzelle unterschiedliche genetische Zusammensetzung und vielleicht widersprüchliche Interessen haben. Meistens entwickelt sich nur aus einer Zelle der Megasporentetrade eine funktionsfähige Eizelle. Diese Megaspore wird “Keimspore” gennant. Die übrigen drei Megasporen werden als “somalische Sporen” bezeichnet. Aus den somatischen Sporen können sich keine funktionsfähigen Eizellen und somit keine direkten genetischen Nachkommen bilden.
Nicht-monospore Embryosäcke sind genetische Chimären, die Derivate von mehr als einem Megasporennukleus enthalten. Konflikte können innerhalb dieser Embryosäcke entstehen zwischen Derivaten des Keim-Megasporennukleus und Derivaten des somatischen Sporennukleus. Die “Antipodialeizellen” und der “Teilungsstreik” der chalazalen Kerne werden als Beweis für diesen Konflikt interpretiert. Das Verhalten der somatischen Sporen und ihrer Derivate ist oft variable für verschiedene Embryosäcke, die vom gleichen Sporophyten produziert wurden. Dies verursachte Schwierigkeiten in der bestehende Klassifizierung der Embryosack-Typen, weil manchmal mehr als ein Typus innerhalb einer Art auftreten kann. Eine neue Klassifizierung auf Grund des algorithmischen Entwicklungsverlaufes wird hier vorgestellt, der die Entwicklung der Keimspore und ihrer Derivate hervorhebt.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Arekal, G. D. &C. R. Nagendran. 1976. Embryo sac ofHydrobryopsis sessilis (Podostemaceae)—Origin, organization and significance. Bot. Notiser128: 332–338.
— &G. W. Shivamurthy. 1978. Female gametophyte in two species ofBalanophora— A reinvestigation. Phytomorphology28: 7–13.
Bambacioni-Mezzetti, V. 1931. Nuove ricerche sull’embriologia delle Gigliacee. Ann. di Bot. (Roma)19: 365–382.
Battaglia, E. 1951. The male and female gametophytes of angiosperms—An interpretation. Phytomorphology1: 86–116.
—. 1971. The embryo sac of Podostemaceae—An interpretation. Caryologia24: 403–420.
Bhandari, N. N. &P. Chitralekha. 1989. Cellularization of the female gametophyte inRanunculus sceleratus. Canad. J. Bot.67: 1325–1330.
— &S. C. A. Vohra. 1983. Embryology and affinities of Viscaceae. Pages 69–86in M. Calder & P. Bernhardt (eds.), The biology of mistletoes. Academic Press Australia, Sydney.
Bhatnagar, S. P. & A. K. Bhatnagar. 1986. Review of embryology of angiosperms, B. M. Johri (ed.) 1984. Phytomorphology36: 174–177.
— &B. M. Johri. 1983. Embryology of Loranthaceae. Pages 47–68in M. Calder & P. Bernhardt (eds.), The biology of mistletoes. Academic Press Australia, Sydney.
Björnstad, I. N. 1970. Comparative embryology of Asparagiodeae—Polygonateae, Liliaceae. Nytt Mag. Bott.17: 169–207.
Bouman, F. 1984. The ovule. Pages 123–157in B. M. Johri (ed.), Embryology of angiosperms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Boyes, J. W. 1939. Development of the embryo sac ofPlumbagella micrantha. Amer. J. Bot. 26: 539–547.
— &E. Battaglia. 1951. The tetrasporic embryo sacs ofPlumbago coccinea, P. scandens, andCeratostigma willmottianum. Bot. Gaz.112: 485–489.
Briggs, C. L., M. Westoby, P. M. Selkirk &R. J. Oldfield. 1987. Embryology of early abortion due to limited maternal resources inPisum sativum L. Ann. Bot.59: 611–619.
Brown, W. H. 1908. The nature of the embryo sac ofPeperomia. Bot. Gaz.46: 445–460.
Cass, D. D. 1972. Occurrence and development of a filiform apparatus in the egg ofPlumbago capensis. Amer. J. Bot.59: 279–283.
—,D. J. Peteya &B. L. Robertson. 1985. Megagametophyte development inHordeum vulgare. 1. Early megagametogenesis and the nature of cell wall formation. Canad. J. Bot.63:2164–2171.
—,——. 1986. Megagametophyte development inHordeum vulgare. 2. Later stages of wall development and morphological aspects of megagametophyte cell differentiation. Canad. J. Bot.64: 2327–2336.
Charnov, E. L. 1979. Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sexual selection. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA76: 2480–2484.
Cooper, D. C. 1939. Development of megagametophyte inErythronium albidum. Bot. Gaz.100: 862–867.
Corner, E. J. H. 1976. The seeds of dicotyledons. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cosmides, L. M. &J. Tooby. 1981. Cytoplasmic inheritance and intragenomic conflict. J. Theor. Biol.89: 83–129.
Dahlgren, K. V. O. 1928. Die embryologie einiger Alismatazeen. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.22: 1–17.
—. 1934. Die Embryosackentwicklung vonEchinodorus macrophyllus undSagittaria sagittifolia. Planta21: 602–612.
Dahlgren, R. M. T. 1980. A revised system of classification of the angiosperms. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.80:91–124.
—,H. T. Clifford &P. F. Yeo. 1985. The families of the monocotyledons. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Davis, G. L. 1966. Systematic embryology of the angiosperms. John Wiley, New York.
Eberhard, W. G. 1980. Evolutionary consequences of intracellular organelle competition. Quart. Rev. Biol.55: 231–249.
Ekdahl, I. 1941. Die Entwicklung von Embryosack und Embryo beiUlmus glabra Huds. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.35: 143–156.
Erdtman, G. 1966. Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy. Vol. 1 (corrected reprint). Hafher, New York.
Fagerlind, F. 1938. Wo kommen tetrasporische durch drei Teilungsschritte vollentwickelte Embryosäcke unter den Angiospermen vor? Bot. Notiser1938: 461–498.
—. 1939a. Kritische und revidierende Untersuchungen über das Vorkommen desAdoxa (“Lilium”) Typs. Acta Horti Berg.13: 1–49.
—. 1939b. Drei Beispiele des Fritillaria-Typs. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.33: 188–204.
—. 1939c. Die Entwicklung des Embryosäckes beiPeperomia pellucida. Ark. f. Bot.29A(17): 1–15.
—. 1944. Die tetrasporische Angiospermen-Embryosack und dessen Bedeutung für das Verständnis der Entwicklungsmechanik und Phylogenie des Embryosacks. Ark. f. Bot.31A(11): 1–71.
Fisher, G. C. 1914. Seed development in the genusPeperomia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club41: 137–156, 221–241.
Grallert, B. &M. Sipiczki. 1989. Initiation of the second meiotic division inSchizosaccharomyces pombe shares common functions with that of mitosis. Curr. Genet.15: 231–233.
Haig, D. 1986. Conflicts among megaspores. J. Theor. Biol.123: 471–480.
—. 1987. Kin conflict in seed plants. Trends Ecol. Evol.2: 337–340.
— &M. Westoby. 1989. Parent-specific gene expression and the triploid endosperm. Amer. Naturalist134: 147–155.
Haque, A. 1951. The embryo sac ofErythronium americanum. Bot. Gaz.112: 495–500.
Harling, G. 1950. Embryological studies in the Compositae. I. Anthemideae—Anthemidinae. Acta Horti Berg.15: 135–168.
—. 1951a. Embryological studies in the Compositae. II. Anthemideae—Chrysantheminae. Acta Horti Berg.16: 1–56.
—. 1951b. Embryological studies in the Compositae. III. Astereae. Acta Horti Berg.16: 73–120.
Haupt, A. W. 1934. Ovule and embryo sac ofPlumbago capensis. Bot. Gaz.95: 649–659.
Herr, J. M., Jr. 1984. Embryology and taxonomy. Pages 645–696in B. M. Johri (ed.), Embryology of angiosperms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Hjelmqvist, H. &F. Grazi. 1965. Studies on variation in embryo sac development. Bot. Notiser118: 329–360.
Howe, T. D. 1975. The female gametophyte of three species ofGrindelia and ofPrionopsis ciliata (Compositae). Amer. J. Bot.62: 273–279.
Johnson, D. S. 1900. On the endosperm and embryo ofPeperomia pellucida. Bot. Gaz.30: 1–11.
—. 1902. On the development of certain Piperaceae. Bot. Gaz.34: 321–340.
—. 1910. Studies in the development of the Piperaceae I. The suppression and extension of sporogenous tissue in the flower ofPiper betel L. var.monoicum. C. DC. J. Exp. Zool. 9:715–749.
—. 1914. Studies of the development of the Piperaceae II. The structure and seeddevelopment ofPeperomia hispidula. Amer. J. Bot.1: 323–339, 357–397.
Johnston, S. A., T. P. M. den Nijs, S. J. Peloquin &R. E. Hanneman, Jr. 1980. The significance of genic balance to endosperm development in interspecific crosses. Theor. Appl. Genet.57: 5–9.
Johri, B. M. 1935a. Studies in the family Alismaceae. I.Limnophyton obtusifolium. Miq. J. Indian Bot. Soc.14: 49–66.
—. 1935b. Studies in the family Alismaceae. II.Sagittaria sagittifolia L. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B.1: 340–348.
—. 1935c. Studies in the family Alismaceae. III.Sagittaria guayanensis H.B.K. andS. latifolia Willd. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B.2: 33–48.
—. 1936a. The life-history ofButomopsis lanceolata Kunth. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B. 4: 139–162.
—. 1936b. Studies in the family Alismaceae. IV.Alisma plantago L.;Alisma plantagoaquatica L. andSagittaria graminea Mich. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B.4: 128–138.
—. 1938a. The embryo sac ofHydrocleis nymphoides Buchen. Beih. Bot. Ztbl.48A: 165–172.
—. 1938b. The embryo sac ofLimnocharis emarginata L. New Phytol.37: 279–285.
— &R. N. Kapil. 1953. Contribution to the morphology and life history ofAcalypha indica L. Phytomorphology3: 137–151.
— &D. Kak. 1954. The embryology ofTamarix Linn. Phytomorphology4: 230–247.
Kanta, K. 1962. Morphology and embryology ofPiper nigrum L. Phytomorphology12: 207–221.
Kapil, R. N. 1960. Embryology ofAcalypha Linn. Phytomorphology10: 174–184.
— &A. K. Bhatnagar. 1981. Ultrastructure and biology of female gametophyte in flowering plants. Int. Rev. Cytol.70: 291–341.
Kennell, J. C. &H. T. Horner. 1985. Influence of the soybean male-sterile gene (ms 1) on the development of the female gametophyte. Canad. J. Genet. Cytol.27: 200–209.
Kermicle, J. L. 1971. Pleiotropic effects on seed development of the indeterminate gametophyte gene in maize. Amer. J. Bot.58: 1–7.
Lin, B-Y. 1978. Structural modifications of the female gametophyte associated with the indeterminate gametophyte (ig) mutant in maize. Canad. J. Genet. Cytol.20: 249–257.
—. 1981. Megagametogenetic alterations associated with the indeterminate gametophyte mutation in maize. Rev. Brasil. Biol.41: 557–563.
—. 1984. Ploidy barrier to endosperm development in maize. Genetics107: 103–115.
Maheshwari, P. 1946a. The Fritillaria type of embryo sac: A critical review. J. Indian Bot. Soc. (M. O. P. Iyengar Commem. Vol.): 101–119.
—. 1946b. The Adoxa type of embryo sac: A critical review. Lloydia9: 73–113.
—. 1950. An introduction to the embryology of angiosperms. McGraw-Hill, New York.
— &B. M. Johri. 1941. The embryo-sac ofAcalypha indica L. Beih. Bot. Ztbl.16: 125–136.
— &B. Singh. 1943. Studies in the family Alismaceae. V. The embryology ofMachaerocarpus californicus (Torr.) Small. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B.9: 311–322.
Maheshwari, S. C. 1955. The occurrence of bisporic embryo sacs in angiosperms—A critical review. Phytomorphology5: 67–99.
Martinoli, G. O. 1939. Contributo all’embriologia delle Asteraceae. N. G. Bot. Ital.46: 259–298.
Mathur, K. &R. Khan. 1941. The development of the embryo sac inVogelia indica. Lamk. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B.13: 360–368.
Mathur, N. 1956. The embryology ofLimnanthes. Phytomorphology6: 41–50.
Mauritzon, J. 1936. Zur Embryologie der Berberidaceen. Medd. Göteborgs Bot. Trädgård11: 1–17.
Modilewski, J. 1908. Zur Embryobildung vonGunnera chilensis. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges.26: 550–556.
Mukkada, A. J. 1964. An addition to the bisporic embryo sacs—TheDicraea type. New Phytol.63: 289–292.
Nagendran, C. R. 1974. Is the embryo sac of Podostemaceae bisporic? Current Sci.43: 259–261.
—,G. D. Arekal &K. Subramanyam. 1977. Embryo sac studies in three Indian species ofPolypleurum (Podostemaceae). Plant Syst. Evol.128: 215–226.
Newcomb, W. 1973. The development of the embryo sac of sunflowerHelianthus annuus before fertilization. Canad. J. Bot.51: 863–878.
Nikiticheva, Z. I., M. S. Yakovlev &T. A. Plyushch. 1981. [The development of the ovule, embryo sac and endosperm in the species ofPeperomia]. Bot. Zhur.66: 1388–1397 (in Russian).
Nogler, G. A. 1984. Gametophytic apomixis. Pages 475–518in B. M. Johri (ed.), Embryology of angiosperms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Palser, B. F. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: Embryology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 621–646.
Philipson, W. R. 1987. The treatment of isolated genera. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.95: 19–25.
Queller, D. C. 1983. Kin selection and conflict in seed maturation. J. Theor. Biol.100: 153–172.
—. 1984. Models of kin selection on seed provisioning. Heredity53: 151–165.
Rao, P. N. 1970. Euphorbiaceae. Bull. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad.41: 136–141.
Romanov, I. D. 1938. Eine neue Form des Embryosackes von Adoxa-typus beiTulipa tetraphylla undT. ostrovskiana. Compt. Rend. (Doklady) Acad. des Sci. U.R.S.S.19:113–115.
—. 1939. Two new forms of embryo-sack in the genusTulipa. Compt. Rend. (Doklady) Acad. des Sci. U.R.S.S.22: 139–141.
—. 1959. The embryo sac and pollen morphology inTulipa (abstract). Proc. 9th Inter. Congr. Bot.23:331–332.
Roper, R. B. 1952. The embryo sac ofButomus umbellatus L. Phytomorphology2: 61–74.
Russell, S. D. 1979. Fine structure of megagametophyte devleopment inZea mays. Canad. J. Bot.57: 1093–1110.
—. 1982. Fertilization inPlumbago zeylanica: Entry and discharge of the pollen tube in the embryo sac. Canad. J. Bot.60: 2219–2230.
— &D. D. Cass. 1988. Fertilization inPlumbagella micrantha. Amer. J. Bot.75: 778–781.
Rutishauser, A. 1935. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und zytologische Untersuchungen anKorthalsella dacrydii (Ridl.) Dans. Ber. Schweiz. Bot. Ges.44: 389–436.
—. 1969. Embryologie und Fortpflanzungsbiologie der Angiospermen. Springer-Verlag, Wien.
Samuels, J. A. 1912. Etudes sur le développement du sac embryonnaire et sur la fécondation duGunnera macrophylla Bl. Arch. f. Zellf.8: 52–120.
Satina, S. &A. F. Blakeslee. 1935. Cytological effects of a gene inDatura which causes dyad formation in sporogenesis. Bot. Gaz.96: 521–532.
Shattuck, C. H. 1905. A morphological study ofUlmus americana. Bot. Gaz.40: 209–223.
Schnarf, K. 1929. Embryologie der Angiospermen, Handbuch der Pflanzenanatomie Bd. X/2. Borntraeger, Berlin.
Smith, F. H. 1955. Megagametophyte development in five species ofErythronium. Amer. J. Bot.42:213–224.
Smith, R. W. 1911. The tetranucleate embryo sac ofClintonia. Bot. Gaz.52: 209–216.
Stephens, E. L. 1909. The embryo-sac and embryo of certain Penaeaceae. Ann. Bot.23: 363–378.
Subba Rao, A. M. 1940. Studies in the Malpighiaceae. I. Embryo sac development and embryogeny in the generaHiptage, Banisteria andStigmatophyllum. J. Indian Bot. Soc.18: 145–156.
Subramanyam, K. 1967. Some aspects of the embryology ofSedum chrysanthum (Boissier) Raymond-Hamlet with a discussion of its systematic position. Phytomorphology17:240–247.
Thathachar, T. 1952. Morphological studies in the Euphorbiaceae: I.Acalypha lanceolata Willd. Phytomorphology2: 197–201.
Tobe, H. &P. H. Raven. 1984. The embryology and relationships of Penaeaceae (Myrtales). Plant Syst. Evol.146: 181–195.
Walker, R. I. 1950. Megasporogenesis and development of megagametophyte inUlmus. Amer. J. Bot.37: 47–52.
Westoby, M. &B. Rice. 1982. Evolution of the seed plants and inclusive fitness of plant tissues. Evolution36: 713–724.
Willemse, M. T. M. &J. L. van Went. 1984. The female gametophyte. Pages 159–196in B. M. Johri (ed.), Embryology of angiosperms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Willson, M. F. &N. Burley. 1983. Mate choice in plants. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Wright, S. 1969. Evolution and the genetics of populations. Vol. 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haig, D. New perspectives on the angiosperm female gametophyte. Bot. Rev 56, 236–274 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858326
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858326