A Phylogenetic Classification of the Homosporous Ferns

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon.More than probably any other group of plants, the pteridophytes, particularly the group of ferns, have long remained problematical from the point of view of taxonomy. This is scarcely surprising, as in this group the search is still continuing for a suitable set of catholic morphological features which are amenable to precise description, and which indicate the possible trends of evolution within the group. Also, the vast majority of these plants (nearly 90% of the number of known species) are strictly tropical with no temperate representatives, and these were morphologically almost unknown until recently. However, the revival of interest in the morphology of these plants in the present century has brought to light a wealth of information about them. The monumental morphological investigations undertaken by Prof. F. O. Bower early in the century proved beyond doubt that the taxonomic criteria used by earlier workers were inadequate to express phylogeny. The modern concept that taxonomy should also express phylogeny led to a reconsideration of the classification of these plants, and during the past three decades no less than seven systems came to be proposed (Christensen, 1938;Ching, 1940; Holttum, 1947; Copeland, 1947;Reimers, 1954; Alston, 1956; Pichi-Sermolli, 1958). All these differ from each other in quite substantial features, mainly due to the differences in the relative significance attributed to different morphological features by the various authors; the addition of fresh morphological data has also played a significant role in interpreting relationships of many groups.Of late, there have been significant additions to our knowledge relating to several morphological criteria of the pteridophytes. Among these are the chromosome counts and details of prothallial morphology, spore morphology and anatomy, which are now known for a vast number of genera. An analysis of these and other morphological criteria suggests that the current interpretations of taxonomy and evolution of the homosporous ferns are possibly not totally acceptable. A new scheme for the classification of these plants is therefore presented here:

Polyphyly of the fern family Tectariaceae sensu Ching: insights from cpDNA sequence data

“…However, Holttum [4] made tectarioids a subfamily (Tectarioideae) of Dennstaedtiaceae. Among polypods, close relationship between Tectariaceae and Dryopteridaceae has not been questioned substantially; both groups were placed in different subfamilies [5] , different tribes [6] or even in one tribe [7,8] . In the systematic arrangement of the Chinese fern families and genera, Ching [9] treated Dryopteridaceae and Tectariaceae as closely related but distinct families.…”

Blue Light Interference in the Phytochrome-controlled Germination of the Spores of Cheilanthes farinosa

“…Observations are reported on the spores of Cheilanthes farinosa (sexual diploid), a homosporous fern, belonging to the family Cheilanthaceae, order Schizaeales (12). The spores were collected from Chandigarh, India in the fall of 1971 and held in storage at 4 C. They were sown on the surface of 10 ml of a mineral salt medium (15) contained in 5 cm diameter Petri dishes, and allowed to imbibe in the dark for 4 days before irradiation.…”

A plastid phylogeny and character evolution of the Old World fern genus Pyrrosia (Polypodiaceae) with the description of a new genus: Hovenkampia (Polypodiaceae)

“…Baker, D. novo-guineae Christ (incl. D. crassifolium Brause), and D. piloselloides (Christensen, 1929;Copeland, 1947;Nayar, 1970;Pichi Sermolli, 1977a, 1977. Ravensberg and Hennipman (1986) studied the morphology and anatomy of all five species and related species of Pyrrosia and found that Drymoglossum is not monophyletic, but three out of the five species, D. heterophyllum, D. niphoboloides and D. piloselloides, did form a monophyletic group.…”

“…(Fig. 1A and B), and the three genera had been placed in subfamily Platycerioideae (Nayar, 1970). Additionally, Platycerioideae is characterized by two potential synapomorphies, heavily sclerified rhizomes and lack of pinnate dissection (Hovenkamp, 1986;Hennipman, 1990).…”