Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Floral Ontogenetic Approach to Questions of Homology within the Cyperoideae (Cyperaceae)

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within the Cyperoideae, which comprise all Cyperaceae except the Mapanioideae, several questions of homology are discussed and reinterpreted based on results of our SEM and LM floral ontogenetic studies. In all species studied, spikelets are interpreted as being indeterminate, with spirally to distichously arranged glumes, each subtending (or not) a flower. Floral development starts with the formation of two lateral stamen primordia, simultaneously with, or followed by the formation of a third, abaxial stamen primordium. Perianth parts, if present, originate only after the formation of the androecium, simultaneously with the appearance of an annular ovary primordium, surrounding a central ovule primordium. Perianth parts vary in number and morphology, and, where present, perianth development follows a general pattern. Three (or two) stigma primordia are formed on the top of the rising ovary wall. In dimerous gynoecia, stigma primordia originate either dorsiventrally, resulting in a laterally flattened ovary/nutlet, or laterally, resulting in a dorsiventrally flattened ovary/nutlet. We conclude that in all species studied the spikelet and floral development occurs according to a general, scirpoid, ontogenetic pattern, which we illustrate using new spikelet and floral ontogenetic results in Eleocharis palustris and other species. Spikelet and floral ontogeny in species with apparently deviating morphologies, can be traced back to the general ontogenetic pattern.

Resumen

Varias preguntas sobre homología para las Cyperoideae, que incluyen todas las Cyperaceae excepto las Mapanioideae, se discuten e interpretan con base en estudios de ontogenia floral realizados con SEM y LM. En todas las especies estudiadas, las espiguillas son indeterminadas con glumas arregladas en espiral o dicotomicamente, cada una sosteniendo (o no) una flor. El desarrollo floral comienza con la formación de dos primordios estaminales laterales, simultáneamente con o seguido por la formación del tercer primordio estaminal abaxial. Si se desarrollan las partes del perianto, se originan solo después de la formación del androceo, simultáneamente con el desarrollo del primordio anular del ovario que envuelve al primordio central del óvulo. Cuando están presentes las partes del perianto, varían en número y morfología y el desarrollo sigue un patrón general. Se forman tres (o dos) primordios del estigma en el ápice de la pared del ovario en desarrollo. En gineceos dímeros, los primordios de los estigmas se originan dorsiventralmente resultando en una nuececilla/ovario comprimido lateralmente, o se originan lateralmente, resultando en una nuececilla/ovario comprimido dorsiventralmente. Concluimos que, tanto el desarrollo floral, como el de las espiguillas en todas las especies estudiadas, siguen un patrón ontogenético general scirpoide que se ilustra con los resultados obtenidos para Eleocharis palustris y otros especies. La ontogenia floral y de las espiguillas en especies con morfologías aparentemente atípicas, puede estar reducida al patrón ontogenetico general.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • APG. 2003. An update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 399–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. 1957. Floral histogenesis in the Monocotyledons. 2. The Cyperaceae. Australian Journal of Botany 5: 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaser, H. W. 1941. Studies in the morphology of the Cyperaceae I. Morphology of flowers. A. Scirpoid genera. American Journal of Botany 28: 542–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruhl, J. J. 1991. Comparative development of some taxonomically critical floral/inflorescence features in Cyperaceae. Australian Journal of Botany 39: 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruhl, J. J. 1995. Sedge genera of the world: relationships and a new classification of the Cyperaceae. Australian Systematic Botany 8: 125–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celakovsky, L. 1887. Ueber die ährchenachtige Partial-inflorescenzen der Rhynchosporeen. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft V.I: 148–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronquist, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, R. M. T., H. T. Clifford, & P. F. Yeo. 1985. The families of the monocotyledons. Structure, evolution, and taxonomy, 407–414. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiten, L. T. 1976. Inflorescence units in the Cyperaceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 63: 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetghebeur, P. 1986. Genera Cyperacearum. Een bijdrage tot de kennis van de morfologie, systematiek en fylogenese van de Cyperaceae-genera. PhD thesis, Groep Plantkunde, Rijksuniversiteit Gent. Gent.

  • ———. 1998. Cyperaceae. Pages 141–190. In: Kubitzki K. (Ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants IV Flowering plants—Monocotyledons. Springer, Berlin.

  • Haines, R. W. 1967. Prophylls and branching in Cyperaceae. Journal of the East African Natural History Society XXVI (1): 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, R. W. & K. A. Lye. 1976. Studies in African Cyperaceae XIV. The genus Hellmuthia Steud. Botaniska Notiser 129:61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, R. W. & K. A. Lye. 1983. The sedges and rushes of East Africa. East African National History Society, Nairobi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holttum, R. E. 1948. The spikelet in Cyperaceae. Botanical Review 14:525–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, K. S. & E. M. Lord. 1988. Growth of anthers in Lilium longiflorum: a kinematic analysis. Planta 173: 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern, J. H. 1962. New look at some Cyperaceae mainly from the tropical standpoint. Advancement of Science 19: 141–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubitzki, K. 1987. Origin and significance of trimerous flowers. Taxon 36(1): 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukkonen, I. 1967. Spikelet morphology and anatomy of Uncinia Pers. (Cyperaceae). Kew Bulletin 21: 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1984. On the inflorescence structure in the family Cyperaceae. Annales Botanici Fennici 21: 257–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. Definition of descriptive terms for the Cyperaceae. Annales Botanici Fennici 31: 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kükenthal, G. 1941. Vorarbeiten zu einer monographie der Rhynchosporoideae. X. Feddes Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis 50(1–5): 19–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauder, G. V. 1994. Homology, form, and function. In: B. K. Hall (Ed.) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leins, P. 2000. Blüte und Frucht. Morphologie, Entwicklungsgeschichte, Phylogenie, Funktion, Ökologie. E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nägele u. Obermiller). Stuttgart, Germany.

  • Lersten, N. R. 2004. Flowering plant embryology. Blackwell, IA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mattfeld, J. 1938. Das morphologische Wesen und die phylogenetische Bedeutung der Blumenblätter. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 56: 86–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meert, M. & P. Goetghebeur. 1979. Comparative floral morphology of Bisboeckelereae and Cariceae (Cyperaceae) on the basis of the anthoid concept. Bulletin van de Koninklijke Belgische Botanische Vereniging/Bulletin de la Société Royale de Botanique Belge 112: 128–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeuse, A. D. J. 1975. Interpretative floral morphology of the Cyperaceae on the basis of the anthoid concept. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 24: 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora, L. E. 1960. Beitrage zur Entwicklungsgeschichte und vergleichende Morphologie der Cyperaceen. Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen 35: 253–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora-Osejo, L. E. 1987. Consideraciones sobre la naturaleza morfologica de las flores de algunes generos de las Cyperaceae. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 16: 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muasya, A. M. 1998. A synopsis of Fuirena (Cyperaceae) for the flora of tropical East Africa. Kew Bulletin 53: 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———, D. A. Simpson, A. Culham & M. W. Chase. 1998. An assessment of suprageneric phylogeny in Cyperaceae using rbcL DNA sequences. Plant Systematics and Evolution 211: 257–271.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ———, ———, G. A. Verboom, P. Goetghebeur, R. F. C. Naczi, M. W. Chase & E. Smets. Phylogeny of Cyperaceae based on DNA sequence data: current progress and future prospects. Botanical Review (this volume)

  • ———, J. J. Bruhl, D. A. Simpson, A. Culham & M. W. Chase. 2000. Suprageneric phylogeny of Cyperaceae: a combined analysis. In K.L. Wilson and D.A. Morrison (Eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution, 593–601. CSIRO, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, A. Vrijdaghs, D. A. Simpson, M. W. Chase, P. Goetghebeur & E. Smets. What is a genus in Cypereae: phylogeny, character homology assessment and generic circumscription. Botanical Review (this volume B)

  • Nelson, G. 1994. Homology and systematics. In: Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Ed. B. K. Hall, Academic press, Inc. San Diego, California.

  • Pax, F. 1886. Beitrage zur Morphologie und Systematik der Cyperaceen. Botanische Jahrbüche VII: 287–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: K. A. Joysey & A. E. Friday (Eds.) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payer, J. B. 1857. Traité d'organogénie comparée de la fleur. Masson: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plunkett, G. M., D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis & R. E. Brooks. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships between Juncaceae and Cyperaceae based on rbcL sequence data. American Journal of Botany 82: 520–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynal, J. 1971. Quelques notes morphologiques sur les Cypéracées. Mitteilungen der Botanische Staatssammlung München 10: 589–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remane, A. 1952. Die Grundlage des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichende Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Akademische Verlagsgelellschaft, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynders, M., P. Goetghebeur & L. Majesky. 2005. Nutlet anatomy, a key character in the taxonomy of Pycreus (Cyperaceae). Doctoraatssymposium faculteit Wetenschappen, U. Gent. Book of abstracts: p. 113.

  • Richards, J. 2002. Flower and spikelet morphology in sawgrass, Cladium jamaicense Crantz (Cyperaceae). Annals of Botany 90: 361–367.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ———, J. J. Bruhl & K. L. Wilson. 2006. Flower or spikelet? Understanding the morphology and development of reproductive structures in Exocarya (Cyperaceae, Mapanioideae, Chrysitricheae). American Journal of Botany 93(9): 1241–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudall, P. J. & R. M. Bateman. 2003. Evolution of zygomorphy in monocot flowers: iterative patterns and developmental constraints. New Phytologist 162: 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R. 1973. Organogenesis of flowers. A photographic text-atlas. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 207 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1984. Homology—a continuing challenge. Systematic Botany 9(4): 382–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. Homology, homeosis, and process morphology in plants. In: B.K. Hall (Ed.) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. L. & J. S. Faulkner. 1976. The inflorescence of Carex and related genera. Botanical Review 42: 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, X. 1890. Neue Untersuchungen über den Blüthenanschluss. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig pp. 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönland, S. 1922. South African Cyperaceae. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa 3, Pretoria, S. Africa.

  • Simpson, D. 1995. Relationships within Cyperales. In: Rudall P. J., Cribb P. J., Cutler D. F., Humphries C. J. (Editors). Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, UK. pp. 497–509.

  • Simpson, D. A., A. M. Muasya, M. Alves, J. J. Bruhl, S. Dhooge, M. W. Chase, C. A. Furness, K. Ghamkhar, P. Goetghebeur, T. R. Hodkinson, A. D. Marchant, R. Nieuborg, A. A. Reznicek, E. H. Roalson, E. Smets, J. R. Starr, W. W. Thomas, K. L. Wilson & X. Zhang. 2007. Phylogeny of Cyperaceae based on DNA sequence data—a new rbcL analysis. In: MonocotsIII/Grasses IV. Claremont, CA: Aliso 23: 00–00, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden.

  • Timonen, T. 1993. Synflorescence structure of some hetero-, homo-, and monostachyae sedges (Carex, Cyperaceae). Annales Botanici Fennici 30: 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Inflorescence structure in the sedge tribe Cariceae (Cyperaceae). Publications in Botany from the University of Helsinki 26: 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troll, W. 1959. Allgemeine Botanik. Ein Lehrbuch auf vergleidend-biologischer Grundlage. Ferdinand Enke Verlag Stuttgart, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vegetti, A. C. 2003. Synflorescence typology in Cyperaceae. Annales Botanici Fennici 40: 35–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrijdaghs, A., P. Goetghebeur, E. Smets & P. Caris. 2003a. The Schoenus L. spikelet a rhipidium? A floral ontogenetic approach. In: Bayer, C., Dressler, S., Schneider, J. & G. Zizka (eds.) 16th International Symposium Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, 17th International Senckenberg Conference. Abstracts: 24. Palmarum Hortus Francofurtensis 7, Frankfurt am Main.

  • ———, P. Goetghebeur, E. Smets & P. Caris. 2003b. The orientation of the developing gynoecium of Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl. In: Bayer, C., Dressler, S., Schneider, J. & G. Zizka (eds.) 16th International Symposium Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, 17th International Senckenberg Conference. Abstracts: 24. Palmarum Hortus Francofurtensis 7, Frankfurt am Main.

  • ———, P. Goetghebeur, A. M. Muasya, E. Smets & P. Caris. 2004. The nature of the perianth in Fuirena (Cyperaceae). South African Journal of Botany 70(4): 587–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, P. Caris, P. Goetghebeur & E. Smets. 2005a. Floral Ontogeny in Scirpus, Eriophorum, and Dulichium (Cyperaceae), with special reference to the perianth. Annals of Botany 95: 1199–1209.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ———, P. Goetghebeur, A. M. Muasya, P. Caris & E. Smets. 2005b. Floral ontogeny in Ficinia Schrad. and Isolepis R.Br. (Cyperaceae), with focus on the nature and origin of the gynophore. Annals of Botany 96: 1247–1264.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ———, P. Goetghebeur, E. Smets & A. M. Muasya. 2006. The lateral floral scales in Hellmuthia (Cyperaceae, Cyperoideae) and Paramapania (Cyperaceae, Mapanioideae), a floral ontogenetic study. Annals of Botany 98: 619–630.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ———, P. Goetghebeur, E. Smets & P. Caris. 2007. The Schoenus spikelet: a rhipidium? A floral ontogenetic answer. In J. T. Columbus, E. A. Friar, J. M. Porter, L. M. Prince, and M. G. Simpson [eds.], Monocots: comparative biology and evolution—Poales. Aliso 23: 00–00. Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weberling, F. 1992. Morphology of flowers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., K. L. Wilson & J. J. Bruhl. 2004. Sympodial structure of spikelets in the tribe Schoeneae (Cyperaceae). American Journal of Botany 91: 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the organisers of the symposium “Sedges have edges—phylogenetic relationships and evolution” at the XVII International Botanical Congress in Vienna, Austria 2005. We thank Marcel Verhaegen, for assistance with SEM observations at the National Botanic Garden of Belgium in Meise, Anja Vandeperre (Laboratory of Systematics, K.U. Leuven), for professional help with the LM preparations and drawings, and professor Dr. Hilda Flores (University of Mexico) for translating the abstract in Spanish. This work was supported financially by research grants of the K.U. Leuven (0T/05/35) and the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen, Belgium, G.0268.04). A.M. Muasya was a visiting postdoctoral fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen, Belgium) and of the K.U. Leuven.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Plant Systematics, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, K.U. Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

    A. Vrijdaghs, P. Caris, A. Nagels & E. Smets

  2. Botany Department, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa

    A. M. Muasya

  3. Research Group Spermatophytes, Department of Biology, Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000, Gent, Belgium

    P. Goetghebeur

  4. National Herbarium of The Netherlands, Leiden University Branch, P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands

    E. Smets

Authors
  1. A. Vrijdaghs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. M. Muasya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Goetghebeur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Caris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Nagels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. Smets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Vrijdaghs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vrijdaghs, A., Muasya, A.M., Goetghebeur, P. et al. A Floral Ontogenetic Approach to Questions of Homology within the Cyperoideae (Cyperaceae). Bot. Rev 75, 30–51 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-008-9021-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-008-9021-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation