Comparative floral structure and systematics in Crossosomatales (Crossosomataceae, Stachyuraceae, Staphyleaceae, Aphloiaceae, Geissolomataceae, Ixerbaceae, Strasburgeriaceae)

Matthews, Merran L.; Endress, Peter K.

doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2005.00347.x

Cited by 57 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A few perforation plates with a single bar were observed in various places in secondary xylem of Velascoa recondita, but perforation plates are predominantly simple in that species. The number of bars per perforation plate in Stachyuraceae is greater than that reported by Metcalfe and Chalk (1950) or Matthews and Endress (2005).…”

Section: Vessel Elementscontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…The rays of Strasburgeriaceae, along with those of Ixerbaceae, might represent an apomorphy by rarely exceeding two cells in width. Because Ixerbaceae and Strasburgeriaceae seem closely related (Matthews and Endress 2005), such rays might represent a synapomorphy, but this feature is not a clearly definable one. The occurrence of unusually wide rays (''rays of two distinct widths'') in Aphloiaceae and Geissolomataceae might also represent apomorphies.…”

Section: Departures From Primitive Character Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The novelty of Crossosomatales derives from the fact that the seven component families were assigned to remarkably disparate places in frequently consulted phylogenies. A detailed history of the development of the concept of Crossosomatales, and citations of the relevant literature on the group are offered by Matthews and Endress (2005), and need not be repeated here. The diversity of orders to which the component families were assigned by earlier workers is indeed astonishing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The content of the families of Crossosomatales is defined as in Matthews and Endress (2005). Ixerbaceae is considered monogeneric.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Wood Anatomy of Crossosomatales: Patterns of Wood Evolution with Relation to Phylogeny and Ecology

Carlquist¹

2007

aliso

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The seven families hypothesized by Sosa and Chase to comprise Crossosomatales possess relatively long vessel elements with scalariform perforation plates and scalariform to opposite vessel-ray pitting; tracheids; diffuse axial parenchyma; and heterogeneous rays. These and other primitive character states do not indicate relationships, but they do not offer any evidence against the idea that Crossosomatales are a natural order. Departures from the primitive character states are related to ecological adaptations. Crossosomataceae have simple perforation plates (scalariform briefly at the beginning of the secondary xylem), a feature correlated with the seasonal aridity of habitats occupied by the family, the sole family of the order to exhibit such an ecological shift. Presence of tracheids (which confer embolism resistance to a wood) in ancestors of Crossosomataceae probably pre-adapted the family for entry into highly seasonal habitats. Minimal vessel grouping in all other genera shows that tracheid presence deters vessel grouping; tracheid presence also deters shortening of vessel elements. Autapomorphies are shown by Aphloiaceae (tracheid dimorphism, rays of two distinct widths); Crossosomataceae (perforation plates predominantly simple, lateral wall pitting of vessels alternate); Geissolomataceae (wide rays); Ixerbaceae (fiber-tracheid tendency); Staphyleaceae (adjacence of axial parenchyma to vessels); Stachyuraceae (simplification of perforation plates); and Strasburgeriaceae (large cell size). Although tracheid presence seems plesiomorphic in Crossosomatales, a degree of lability in density and size of bordered pits on imperforate tracheary elements probably occurs within this order and in other dicotyledon groups.

show abstract

Section: Vessel Elementscontrasting

confidence: 57%

Section: Departures From Primitive Character Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The content of the families of Crossosomatales is defined as in Matthews and Endress (2005). Ixerbaceae is considered monogeneric.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wood Anatomy of Crossosomatales: Patterns of Wood Evolution with Relation to Phylogeny and Ecology

Carlquist¹

2007

aliso

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The degree of perianth differentiation is linked with the phyllotaxis (spiral or whorled) and number of perianth parts. Based on evidence in Eupomatia, Endress (2003Endress ( , 2005 and Kim et al (2005b) discussed the difference between bracts and tepals in the basal angiosperms as categories with different levels of complexity. Endress demonstrated that the association of bracts (in the form of a calyptra) with tepals, in clades where petals have not yet evolved, could be considered analogous to the formation of sepals and petals.…”

Section: Perianth In the Basal Angiospermsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Origin and evolution of petals in angiosperms

Craene

2013

Plecevo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

REVIEWBackground and aims -The term 'petal' is loosely applied to a variety of showy non-homologous structures, generally situated in the second whorl of a differentiated perianth. Petaloid organs are extremely diverse throughout angiosperms with repeated derivations of petals, either by differentiation of a perianth, or derived from staminodes. The field of evo-devo has prompted re-analysis of concepts of homology and analogy amongst petals. Here the progress and challenges in understanding the nature of petals are reviewed in light of an influx of new data from phylogenetics, morphology and molecular genetics. Method and results -The complex web of homology concepts and criteria is discussed in connection to the petals, and terminology is subsequently defined. The variation and evolution of the perianth is then reviewed for the major clades of angiosperms. From this pan-angiosperm variation, we highlight and discuss several recurrent themes that complicate our ability to discern the evolution of the petal. In particular we emphasise the importance of developmental constraint, environmental stimuli, interrelationship between organs and cyclic patterns of loss and secondary gain of organs, and the development of a hypanthium or corona.Conclusions -A flexible approach to understanding 'petals' is proposed requiring consideration of the origin of the floral organ (stamen-derived or tepal-derived, or other), the functional role (sepaloid or petaloid organs), evolutionary history of the organismal lineage, and consideration of developmental forces acting on the whole flower. The variety and complex evolutionary history of the perianth may necessitate the exploration of petal development within phylogenetically quite restricted groups, combining data from morphology with evo-devo.

show abstract