Skip to main content
Log in

The piperales and the monocots

Alternate hypotheses for the origin of monocotyledonous flowers

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The Piperales (in a narrow sense) possess a suite of characters which are common among monocots but rare or uncommon among dicots. The concordance of these characters in the Piperales argues against convergence and that the Piperales, like the Nymphaeales, are more closely related to the monocots than other living dicots. Because the Piperales, Arales, and some Najadales exhibit relationships that span the most profound dichotomy in angiosperms, it is argued that these plants represent very ancient lineages. A comparative overview of their flowers has led to a hypothesis suggesting that simple flowers, similar to those of the Chloranthaceae, came together by the loss of internodes to form the three-parted flowers of the Piperales and many monocots. To account for the commonly seen arrangements of floral parts in these plants it is postulated that the ancestral simple flowers had a single small bract, two stamens, and a single adaxial pistil. Evidence from the Lactoridaceae, Saururaceae, Potamogetonaceae, Alismatales, and others is cited in support of this hypothesis. Evidence for the later development of the corolla comes from ontogenetic studies in the Alismatales. Some flowers in the Juncaginaceae and Cyperaceae suggest that unisexual simple flowers came together to form three-parted flowers in other lineages, such as the Liliales. The present theory and the strobilus hypothesis are contrasted and discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Abbe, E. C. 1972. The inflorescence and flower in maleMyrica esculenta var.farquhariana. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville)133: 206–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, J. S. 1952. Embryology ofLilaea subulata with a discussion of its systematic position. Phytomorphology2: 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Airy Shaw, H. K. 1973. A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns, by J. C. Willis. 8th edition. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1245 pp.

  • Aston, H. I. 1973. Aquatic plants of Australia. Melbourne Univ. Press, Carlton. 368 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balfour, E. 1957. The development of the vascular system inMacropiper excelsa, 1. The embryo and the seedling. Phytomorphology7: 354–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. 1958. Floral histogenesis in the monocotyledons III. The Juncaceae. Austral. J. Bot.6: 285–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1961. The interpretation of the angiosperm flower. Austral. J. Sci.24: 64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bate-Smith, E. C. 1962. The phenolic constituents of plants and their taxonomic significance. I. Dicotyledons. J. Linn. Soc. Bot.58: 95–173.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, H. D. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: Ultrastructure. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 647–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, G. &J. D. Hooker. 1883. Genera Plantarum, vol. 3. Reeve & Co., London. 1258 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessey, C. E. 1915. The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.2: 109–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, W. 1972. Evolutionary trends in the Central American species ofPiper. Brittonia24: 356–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlquist, S. 1964. Morphology and relationship of Lactoridaceae. Aliso5: 421–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1969. Toward acceptable evolutionary interpretations in floral anatomy. Phytomorphology19: 332–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celakovsky, L. J. 1897. Ueber den phylogenetischen Entwicklungsgang der Blüthe und über den Ursprung der Blumenkrone. 1er. Theil. Sitzungsber. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss. Prag. Math.-Naturwiss. Cl.1896: 1–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1901. Ueber den phylogenetischen Entwicklungs gang der Blüthe und über den Ursprung der Blumenkrone. 2er. Theil Sitzungsber. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss. Prag. Math.-Naturwiss. Cl.1900: 1–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanda, S. 1966. On the pollen morphology of the Centrolepidaceae, Restionaceae, and Flagellariaceae with special reference to taxonomy. Grana Palynol.6: 355–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, W. A. &A. Ahmed. 1973. Studies in the Alismataceae IV. Developmental morphology ofRanalisma humile and comparisons with two members of the Butomaceae,Hydrocleis nymphoides andButomus umbellatus. Canad. J. Bot.51: 899–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheadle, V. I. 1942. The occurrence and types of vessels in the various organs of the plant in the Monocotyledonae. Amer. J. Bot.29: 441–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheadle, V. I. &H. Kosakai. 1974. A note on vessels in Hypolytreae of Cyperaceae. Blumea22: 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975. Vessels in Juncales. II. Centrolepidaceae and Restionaceae. Amer. J. Bot.62: 1017–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, C. B. 1909. Illustrations of Cyperaceae. Williams & Norgate, London. 144 tab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constance, L. 1953. The systematics of the Angiosperms.In: A Century of Progress in the Natural Sciences. Calif. Acad. Sci., San Francisco. 405–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordemoy, J. de. 1863. Monographie du groupe des Chloranthacees. Adansonia3: 280–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, E. J. H. 1946. Centrifugal Stamens. J. Arnold Arbor.27: 423–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croizat, L. 1964. Thoughts on high systematics, phylogeny and floral morphology, with a note on the Angiospermae. Candollea19: 17–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croizat, L. 1973. Les Euphorbiacees vues en elles-memes et dans leurs rapports envers l’angiospermie en general. Mem. Soc. Brot.23: 5–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronquist, A. 1968. The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 396 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1969a. On the relation between taxonomy and evolution. Taxon18: 177–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1969b. Broad features of the system of Angiosperms. Taxon18: 188–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1974. Thoughts on the origin of the Monocotyledons. Birbal Sahni Inst. Palaeobot. Spec. Publ. 1: 19–24.

  • Cutter, E. G. 1959. On a theory of phyllotaxis and histogenesis. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc.34: 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, R. 1975. A system of classification of the angiosperms to be used to demonstrate the distribution of characters. Bot. Not.128: 119–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. L. 1966. Systematic Embryology of the Angiosperms. John Wiley, New York. 528 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartog, C. 1957. Alismataceae. Fl. Males. Bull. Ser. 1,5: 317–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deyl, M. 1955. The evolution of the plants and the taxonomy of Monocotyledons. Sborn. Nár. Mus. v Praze, Řada B, Přir. Vědy 11 B, no. 6. (Bot. no. 3) 1–143.

  • Dilcher, D. L., W. L. Crepet, &C. D. Beeker. 1976. Reproductive and vegetative morphology of a cretaceous angiosperm. Science191: 854–856.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. A. 1969. Cretaceous angiosperm pollen of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and its evolutionary significance. J. Arnold Arbor.50: 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1973. Fossil evidence on early evolution of the monocotyledons. Quart. Rev. Biol.48: 399–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. A. &L. J. Hickey. 1976. Pollen and leaves from the mid-cretaceous Potomac group and their bearing on early angiosperm evolution.In: Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms, ed. by C. B. Beck. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 139–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eames, A. J. 1961. Morphology of the Angiosperms. McGraw-Hill, New York. 518 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. G. 1920. Flower and seed ofHedyosmum nutans. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville)70: 409–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, L. 1945. Zur kenntnis der Homologieverhältnisse in der angiospermen Blüte. Bot. Not.1945: 438–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrendorfer, F., F. Krendl, E. Habeier, &W. Sauer. 1968. Chromosome numbers and evolution in primitive angiosperms. Taxon17: 337–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichler, A. W. 1875. Bluthendiagramme, 1er Theil. Engelmann, Leipzig. (reprinted O. Koeltz, Eppenhain. 1954) 348 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1878. Bluthendiagramme, 2er Theil. Engelmann, Leipzig. (reprinted O. Koeltz, Eppenhain. 1954) 575 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emberger, L. 1951. L’origine de la fleur. Experientia7: 161–168.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Emberger, L. inM. Chadefaud &L. Emberger. 1960. Traite de Botanique (Systematique). Tome 2, Les Végétaux Vasculaires. Masson et Cie. Edit., Paris. 1539 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endress, P. K. 1971. Bau der weiblichen Blüten vonHedyosmum mexicanum Cordemoy (Chloranthaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst.91: 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1973. Arils and aril-like structures in woody Ranales. New Phytol.72: 1159–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975. Nachbarliche Formbeziehungen mit Hüllfunktion im Infloreszenz- und Blütenbereich. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.96: 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engler, A. 1926.In: Engler, A. & K. Prantl, Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, 2nd. edition, vol. 14a. Engelmann, Leipzig. 167 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdtman, G. 1952. Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy, Angiosperms. Almquist & Wiksell, Stockholm 539 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyde, R. H. 1975. The foliar theory of the flower. Amer. Sci.63: 430–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyde, R., D. H. Nicolson, &P. Sherwin. 1967. A survey of floral anatomy in Araceae. Amer. J. Bot.54: 478–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamerro, J. C. 1968. Observaciones sobre la biologia floral y morfologia de la PotamogetonaceaRuppia cirrhosa (Peteg.) Grande (=R. spiralis L. ex Dum.). Darwiniana14: 575–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. D. 1974. Chemotaxonomy of Flowering Plants, 4 vols. McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press, Montreal. 2372 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, E. M., Jr. &G. E. Corson, Jr. 1971. The shoot apex in seed plants. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster)37: 143–229.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gottsberger, G. 1970. Beiträge zur Biologie von Annonaceen-Blüten. Oesterr. Bot. Z.118: 237–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. The structure and function of the primitive Angiosperm flower —a discussion. Acta. Bot. Neerl.23: 461–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillarmod, A. J. &W. Marais. 1972. A new species ofAponogeton (Aponogetonaceae). Kew Bull.27: 563–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttenberg, H. v. &R. Muller-Schroder. 1958. Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung des Embryos und der Keimpflanze vonNuphar luteum Smith. Planta51: 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, R. &K. A. Lye. 1975. Seedlings of Nymphaeaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.70: 255–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, U. 1962. Beitrag zur Embryologie der Centrolepidaceae mit Bemerkungen über den Bau der Blüten und Blütenstande und die systematische Stellung der Familie. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.75: 153–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1965. Neue Untersuchungen zur Embryologie und Systematik der Centrolepidaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.96: 154–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harling, G. 1946. Studien über den Blütenbau und die Embryologie der Familie Cyclanthaceae. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr.40: 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegnauer, R. 1963. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Bd. 2, Chemische Reihe Bd. 16. Birkhauser, Basel & Stuttgart. 540 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1964. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Bd. 3, Chemische Reihe Bd. 18. Birkhauser, Basel & Stuttgart. 743 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1971. Pflanzenstoffe und Pflanzensystematik. Naturwiss. Wochenschr.58: 585–598.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1973. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Bd. 6, Chemische Reihe Bd. 21. Birkhauser, Basel & Stuttgart. 882 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinsbroek, P. G. &W. A. van Neel. 1969. Note on the bearing of the pattern of vascular bundles on the morphology of the stamens ofVictoria ama- zonica (Poepp.) Sowerby. Proc. Koninkl. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch.72: 431–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, L. J. &J. A. Wolfe. 1975. The bases of Angiosperm phytogeny: vegetative morphology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 538–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiepko, P. 1965. Vergleichend-morphologische und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen über das Perianth bei den Polycarpicae. I. und II. Teil. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.84: 359–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1966. Das Blütendiagram vonDrimys winteri J. R. et G. Forst. (Winteraceae). Willdenowia4: 221–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, A. W. 1906. The morphology and seedling structure of the geophilous species ofPeperomia, together with some views on the origin of monocotyledons. Ann. Bot. (London)20: 395–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1938. The monocotylous seedlings of certain dicotyledons. With special reference to the Gesneriaceae. Ann. Bot. (London) n.s.2: 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffstadt, R. E. 1916. The vascular anatomy ofPiper methysticum. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville)62: 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, T. 1905.Anemopsis californica (Nutt.) H. & A., an anatomical study. Amer. J. Sci. ser. 4,19: 76–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1926.Saururus cernuus, a morphological study. Amer. J. Sci. ser. 5,12: 162–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holttum, R. E. 1948. The spikelet in Cyperaceae. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster)14: 525–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, J. D. 1886. Flora of British India. vol. 5 (part 13). Reeve & Co., London. 910 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. 1970. Some observations on the nodes of woody plants with special reference to the problem of the ‘split lateral’ versus the ‘common gap’.In: New Research in Plant Anatomy, edited by N. K. B. Robson, D. F. Cutter, & M. Gregory. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.63, suppl. 1: 195–214.

  • Hughes, N. F. 1976. Palaeobiology of Angiosperm Origins. Problems of Mesozoic seed-plant evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, London. 242 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J. 1973. The Families of Flowering Plants. 3rd edition. Oxford Univ. Press, London. 968 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihlenfeldt, H.-D. 1960. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche, morphologische und systematische Untersuchungen anMesembryanthemum. Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni. Veg.63: 1–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johow, F. 1896. Estudios sobre la Flora de las Islas de Juan Fernandez. Imp. Cervantes, Santiago. 287 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. R. 1973. The problem of leaf morphology and evolution in the monocotyledons. Quart. Rev. Biol.48: 437–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, R. O. 1969. How to Know Pollen and Spores. W. C. Brown, Dubuque, 249 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, R. B. 1965. Development and vasculature of the androecium in the Butomaceae. Abstract. Amer. J. Bot.52: 624.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1967a. Development and vasculature of the flowers ofLophotocarpus calycinus andSagittaria latifolia. Amer. J. Bot.54: 914–920.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1967b. Ontogeny and anatomy of the flower ofLimnocharis flava (Butomaceae). Amer. J. Bot.54: 1223–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1968a. Floral development and vasculature inHydrocleis nymphoides (Butomaceae). Amer. J. Bot.55: 236–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1968b. Floral morphology and phylogeny in the Hydrocharitaceae. Phytomorphology18: 13–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1976. Conduplicate and specialized carpels in Alismatales. Amer. J. Bot.63: 175–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, J. H. 1962. New look at some Cyperaceae mainly from the tropical stand-point. Advancem. Sci.19(78): 141–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosakai, H., M. F. Moseley, Jr. &V. I. Cheadle. 1970. Morphological studies of Nymphaeaceae. V. DoesNelumbo have vessels? Amer. J. Bot.57: 487–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krassilov, V. 1973. Mesozoic plants and the problem of angiosperm ancestry. Lethaia6: 163–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubitzki, K. 1972. Probleme der Grossystematik der Blütenpflanzen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.85: 259–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubitzki, K. &N. Resnik. 1966. Flavonoid-Muster der Polycarpicae als systematisches Merkmal. 1. Ubersicht über die Familien. Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen42: 445–470.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuprianova, L. A. 1967. Palynological data for the history of the Chloranthaceae. Pollen et Spores9: 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, I. R. S. &J. R. Lawton. 1967. The morphology of the dormant embryo and young seedling ofDioscorea from Nigeria. Proc. Linn. Soc. London178: 153–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinfellner, W. 1956. Die blattartig flachen Staubblätter und ihre gestaltlichen Beziehungen zum Bautypus des Angiospermen-Staubblattes. Oesterr. Bot. Z.103: 246–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1963. Das Perigon der Liliaceen ist staminaler Herkunft. Oesterr. Bot. Z.110: 448–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leins, P. 1971. Das Androecium der Dikotylen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.84: 191–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975. Die Beziehungen zwischen multistaminaten und einfachen Androeceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.96: 231–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leins, P. &P. Stadler. 1973. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen am Androecium der Alismatales. Oesterr. Bot. Z.121: 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leppik, E. E. 1963. Reconstruction of a CretaceousMagnolia flower. Advanc. Front. Plant Sci.4: 74–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1968. Morphogenetic classification of flower types. Phytomorphology18: 451–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1971. Palaeontological evidence on the morphogenic development of flower types. Phytomorphology21: 164–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1972. Origin and evolution of bilateral symmetry in flowers. Evol. Biol.5: 49–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorougnon, G. 1973. Le vecteur pollinique chez lesMapania et lesHypolytrum, Cyperacees du sous-bois des forets tropicals ombrophiles. Bull. Jard. Bot. Etat.43: 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotsy, J. P. 1911. Vorträge über Botanische Stammesgeschichte III. Cormophyta-Siphonogama. (not seen). Jena.

  • Macdonald, A. D. 1974. Theoretical problems of interpreting floral organogenesis ofLaportea canadensis. Canad. J. Bot.52: 639–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, A. D. &R. Sattler. 1973. Floral development ofMyrica gale and the controversy over floral concepts. Canad. J. Bot.52: 1965–1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, R. P. 1933. Systematic anatomy of the woods of the Magnoliales. Trop. Woods34: 3–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maheshwari, P. &R. N. Kapil. 1966. Some Indian contributions to the embryology of angiosperms. Phytomorphology16: 239–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar, G. P. &P. Pal. 1961. Developmental studies: VI. The morphology of the so-called stipule ofPiper (Piperaceae) from a comparative ontogenetical study of this structure inPiper betle, P. longum, P. nigrum, P. ornatum and two other species ofPiper and the morphology of the leaf-sheath ofScindapsus officinalis (Araceae). Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India, pt. B: Biol. Sci.27: 26–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markgraf, F. 1936. Blütenbau und Verwandtschaft bei den einfachsten Helobiae. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.54: 191–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattfeld, J. 1935. Zur Morphologie und Systematik der Cyperaceae. Proc. Int. Bot. Cong. Amsterdam, 322–330.

  • —. 1938. Das morphologische Wesen und die phylogenetische Bedeutung der Blumenblatter. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.56: 86–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maze, J., L. R. Böhm, &C. E. Beil. 1972. Studies on the relationships and evolution of supraspecific taxa utilizing developmental data. 1.Stipa lernmonii (Gramineae). Canad. J. Bot.50: 2327–2352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maze, J., N. G. Dengler, &L. R. Bohm. 1971. Comparative floret development inStipa tortilis andOryzopsis miliaceae (Gramineae). Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville)132: 273–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeuse, A. D. J. 1971. Interpretative gynoecial morphology of the Lactoridaceae and the Winteraceae —a reassessment. Acta Bot. Need.20: 221–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1972. Facts and fiction in floral morphology with special reference to the Polycarpicae. 1, 2, 3. Acta Bot. Neerl.21: 113–127, 235–252, 351–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. Taxonomic affinities between Piperales and Polycarpicae and their implications in interpretative floral morphology. Advances Plant Morph.1972: 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975a. Aspects of the evolution of the monocotyledons. Acta Bot. Neerl.24: 421–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975b. Interpretative floral morphology of the Cyperaceae on the basis of the Anthoid concept. Acta Bot. Neerl.24: 291–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975c. Floral evolution as the key to Angiosperm descent. Acta Bot. Indica3: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melchior, H., editor. 1964. Engler’s Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, 12th edition, vol. 2. Geb. Borntraeger, Berlin. 666 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melville, R. 1962. A new theory of the Angiosperm flower: 1, the Gynoecium. Kew Bull.16: 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1963. A new theory of the Angiosperm flower: II, the Androecium. Kew Bull.17: 1–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1969. Floral structure and evolution. 1. The Magnoliales. Kew Bull.23: 133–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, C. R. &L. Chalk. 1950. Anatomy of the Dicotyledons, 2 vols. Oxford Univ. Press, London. 1500 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miki, S. 1937. The origin ofNajas andPotamogeton. Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)51: 472–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, H. E., Jr. &N. W. Uhl. 1973. Palms and the origin and evolution of the monocotyledons. Quart. Rev. Biol.48: 414–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, M. F. 1958. Morphological studies of the Nymphaeaceae I. The nature of the stamens. Phytomorphology8: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. Some thoughts of a phylogenetic anatomist on the evolution of the flower. I. Advances Plant Morph.1972: 394–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J. 1970. Palynological evidence on early differentiation of Angiosperms. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc.45: 417–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair, P. K. K. 1974. Pollen morphology and phylogenetic classification of primitive angiosperms. Advances Plant Morph.1972: 255–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozeran, R. 1955. Contribution à l’étude de quelques structures florales. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. ser. 11,16: 1–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkin, J. 1923. The strobilus theory of Angiosperm descent. Proc. Linn. Soc. London.135: 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. N. 1975. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand, 10. Chloranthaceae. New Zealand J. Bot.13: 141–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipson, W. R. 1974. Ovular morphology and the major classification of the dicotyledons. Bot. J. Linn. Soc.68: 89–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantefol, L. 1948. L’ontogenie de la fleur. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. ser. 11,9: 35–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posluszny, U. &R. Sattler. 1973. Floral development ofPotamogeton densus. Canad. J. Bot.51: 647–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974a. Floral development ofPotamogeton richardsonii. Amer. J. Bot.61: 209–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974b. Floral development ofRuppia maritima var.maritima. Canad. J. Bot.52: 1607–1612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prance, G. T. &J. R. Arias. 1975. A study of the floral biology ofVictoria amazonica (Poepp.) Sowerby (Nymphaeaceae). Acta Amazonica5: 109–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puri, V. 1951. The role of floral anatomy in the solution of morphological problems. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster)17: 471–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raju, M. V. S. 1961. Morphology and anatomy of the Saururaceae. 1. Floral anatomy and embryology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.48: 107–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Y. S. 1953. Karyo-systematic studies in Helobiales. 1. Butomaceae. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India19: 563–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. H., D. W. Kyhos, &M. S. Cave. 1971. Chromosome numbers and relationships in Annoniflorae. Taxon20: 479–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rensch, B. 1959. Evolution above the Species Level. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 419 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritterbusch, A. 1971. Morphologische Untersuchungen zur Wuchsform vonPhilodendron. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.90: 527–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivieres, R. 1957. La valeur de la fleur d’Uticeae. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. Paris244: 653–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohweder, O. &E. Treu-Koene. 1971. Bau und morphologische Bedeutung der InflorenzHouttuynia cordata Thunb. (Saururaceae). Vierteljahrsschr. der Naturf. Ges. Zurich116: 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. 1927. Contribution à l’anatomie comparée des piperacées. Mem. Acad. Roy. Sci. Belgique, Cl. Sci. (8°) ser. 2,9: 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1928. Reprint of the abovein: Arch. Bot. Univ. Liege7: 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastrapradja, S. 1968. On the morphology of the flowers inPeperomia (Piperaceae) species. Ann. Bogor.4: 235–244. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastri, R. L. N. 1969. Comparative morphology and phylogeny of the Ranales. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc.44: 291–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R. 1965. Perianth development ofPotamogeton richardsonii. Amer. J. Bot.52: 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1973. Organogenesis of Flowers. A photographic text-atlas. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto & Buffalo. 207 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R. &V. Singh. 1973. Floral development ofHydrocleis nymphoides. Canad. J. Bot.51: 2455–2458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, R. 1972. Floral bundle fusion and vascular conservatism. Taxon21: 429–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze-Motel, W. 1959. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und vergleichend-morphologische Untersuchungen in Blütenbereich der Cyperaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.78: 129–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selling, O. H. 1947. Aponogetonaceae in the Cretaceous of South America. Svensk Bot. Tidskr.41: 182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semple, K. S. 1974. Pollination in Piperaceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.61: 868–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S. 1975. Cytotaxonomy of Liliales. Feddes Repert. Beih.86: 255–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. L. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 247 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V. 1966. Morphological and anatomical studies in Helobiae. VI. Vascular anatomy of the flower of Alismaceae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India, Sect. B, Biol. Sci.36: 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V. &R. Sattler. 1972. Floral development ofAlisma triviale. Canad. J. Bot.50: 619–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1973. Nonspiral androecium and gynoecium ofSagittaria latifolia. Canad. J. Bot.51: 1093–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. Floral development ofButomus umbellatus. Canad. J. Bot.52: 223–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. C. 1972. An appraisal of the orders and families of primitive extant families of Angiosperms. J. Ind. Bot. Soc. Golden Jubilee Vol.50a: 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stant, M. Y. 1967. Anatomy of Butomaceae. J. Linn. Soc. Bot.60: 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, G. L. 1967. Adaptive radiation and trends of evolution in higher plants. Evol. Biol.1: 101–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1970. Adaptive radiation of reproductive characters in Angiosperms. 1. Pollination mechanisms. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst.1: 307–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1973a. Morphogenesis, vascularization, and phylogeny in Angiosperms. Breviora, no. 418: 1–19.

  • —. 1973b. Evolutionary trends in the inflorescence of Angiosperms. Flora162: 501–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. Flowering Plants. Evolution above the species level. Belknap Press, Cambridge. 399 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steward, A. N. 1958. Manual of Vascular Plants of the Lower Yangtze Valley, China. Oregon State College, Corvallis. 621 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suessenguth, K. 1921. Beiträge zur Frage des systematischen Anschlusses der Monocotylen. Beih. Bot. Centralbl.38, pt. 2: 1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy, B. G. L. 1953. The morphology and relationships of the Chloranthaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.34: 375–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy, B. G. L. &I. W. Bailey. 1950.Sarcandra, a vesselless genus of the Chloranthaceae. J. Arnold Arbor.31: 117–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy, B. G. L. &N. Parameswaran. 1963. The helobial endosperm. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc.38: 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhtajan, A. 1959. Die Evolution der Angiospermen. G. Fischer, Jena. 344 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1969. Flowering Plants, Origin and Dispersai. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. 310 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thien, L. 1974. Floral biology ofMagnolia. Amer. J. Bot.61: 1037–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, R. F. 1963. Some problems and guiding principles of angiosperm phylogeny. Amer. Naturalist97: 287–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. A phylogenetic classification of the Annoniflorae. Aliso8: 147–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, S. C. 1975a Development of the inflorescence apex and floral primordia inSaururus cernuus. Abstract. Amer. J. Bot.62: (suppl.) 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975b. Floral development inSaururus cernuus. 1. Floral initiation and stamen development. Amer. J. Bot.62: 993–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1976. Floral development inSaururus cernuus (Saururaceae). 2. Carpel initiation and floral vasculature. Amer. J. Bot.63: 289–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhl, N. Whitford. 1947. Studies in floral morphology and anatomy of certain members of the Helobiae. Thesis (Ph. D.), Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bruggen, H. W. E. 1969. Revision of the genusAponogeton (Aponogetonaceae). 3. The species of Australia. Blumea17: 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pijl, L. 1960. Ecological aspects of flower evolution. 1. Phyletic evolution. Evolution14: 403–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Heel, W. A. 1969. The synangial nature of pollen sacs on the strength of ‘congenital fusion’ and ‘conservatism of the vascular bundle system’, with special reference to some Malvales. 1 and 2. Proc. Kon. Nederl. Akad. Weten. Amst. ser. c.72: 172–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Steenis, C. G. G. J. 1948. Aponogetonaceae. Fl. Males. Bull. ser. 1,4: 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijayaraghavan, M. R. 1964. Morphology and embryology of a vesselless dicotyledon,Sarcandra irvingbaileyi Swamy, and systematic position of the Chloranthaceae. Phytomorphology14: 429–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vink, W. 1970. The Winteraceae of the Old World.Pseudowintera andDrimys, morphology and taxonomy. Blumea18: 225–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, I. W. 1974. Aperture evolution in the pollen of primitive Angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot.61: 1112–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1976. Comparative pollen morphology and phylogeny of the Ranalean complex.In: Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms. ed. by C. B. Beck. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 241–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidlich, W. H. 1976. The organization of the vascular system in the stems of the Nymphaeaceae. 1.Nymphaea subgeneraCastalia andHydrocallis. Amer. J. Bot.63: 499–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, D. R. 1969. Wind pollination in the Angiosperms; evolutionary and environmental considerations. Evolution23: 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, G. 1974. Symmetry and development ofButomus umbellatus (Butomaceae) andLimnocharis flava (Limnocharitaceae). Amer. J. Bot.61: 379–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida, O. 1960. Embryologische Studien über Ordnung Piperales. 4. Embryologie vonPiper futokadsura Sieb. & Zucc. J. Coll. Arts Chiba Univ. Nat. Sci. Ser.3: 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, W. 1963. Gibt es ausser dem phylogenetischen System “naturliche” Systeme der Organismen? Biol. Zentralbl.82: 525–568.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burger, W.C. The piperales and the monocots. Bot. Rev 43, 345–393 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02860716

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02860716

Keywords

Navigation