4.4 Review

Comparative floral morphology and anatomy of Anacardiaceae and Burseraceae (Sapindales), with a special focus on gynoecium structure and evolution

期刊

BOTANICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 159, 期 4, 页码 499-571

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00959.x

关键词

androecium; diplostemony; floral structure; malvids; obdiplostemony; perianth; ponticulus; resin canals; rosids; stigmatic head

资金

  1. The Georges-und-Claraz-Schenkung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anacardiaceae and Burseraceae are traditionally distinguished by the number of ovules (1 vs. 2) per locule and the direction of ovule curvature (syntropous vs. antitropous). Recent molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that these families are sister groups in Sapindales after having been separated in different orders for a long time. We present a comparative morphological study of the flower structure in both families. The major clades, usually supported in molecular phylogenetic analyses, are well supported by floral structure. In Anacardiaceae, there is a tendency to gynoecium reduction to a single fertile carpel (particularly in Anacardioideae). The single ovule has a long and unusually differentiated funicle, which connects with the stylar pollen tube transmitting tract in all representatives studied. In Anacardiaceae-Spondiadoideae, there is a tendency to form an extensive synascidiate zone, with a massive remnant of the floral apex in the centre; these features are also present in Beiselia (Burseraceae) and Kirkiaceae (sister to Anacardiaceae plus Burseraceae) and may represent a synapomorphy or apomorphic tendency for the three families. In core Burseraceae, gynoecium structure is much less diverse than in Anacardiaceae and has probably retained more plesiomorphies. Differences in proportions of parts of the ovules in Anacardiaceae and Burseraceae are linked with the different direction of ovule curvature. (C) 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 159, 499-571.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据