Plant Systematics

Simpson, Michael G.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374380-0.50001-4

Cited by 421 publications

(422 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

327

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These families have a long history of recognition, including past taxonomic treatments (e.g., Melchior, 1964a, c;Yatskievych & Mason, 1986), major Floras (e.g., Aubréville, 1959Hepper, 1963;Howard, 1989;Liogier, 1994;Sullivan, 2001;Yatskievych, 2001Yatskievych, , 2012Hofmann, 2004;Sklenář & al., 2005;Ricketson, 2012;Cecchi & Selvi, 2015a) and angiosperm classification systems (e.g., Cronquist, 1988;Heywood & al., 2007;Takhtajan, 2009). Some recent treatments have followed a broad circumscription of Boraginaceae (i.e., including traditional Boraginaceae, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, and Lenno aceae) as recommended by the APG systems (e.g., Judd & al., 2008;Mabberley, 2008;Stapf, 2009;Simpson, 2010;Reveal, 2011, 2016: 502-522 2012; Acevedo-Rodríguez & Strong, 2012;Nazaire & Hufford, 2012;Walden & Patterson, 2012;Walden & al., 2014). However, most recent studies of Boraginales or its subgroups favor the recognition of several families (Gasparino & Vitorino da Cruz Barros, 2009;Melo & al., 2009;Véliz Pérez & al., 2009;Luebert & al., 2010Luebert & al., , 2011aMelo & Semir 2010;Stapf & al., 2010;Weeks & al., 2010;CamposRíos & Chiang Cabrera, 2012;Miller, 2012Miller, , 2013a…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Familial classification of the Boraginales

Luebert

Cecchi

Frohlich

et al. 2016

TAXON

Self Cite

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Boraginales are now universally accepted as monophyletic and firmly placed in Lamiidae. However, a consensus about familial classification has remained elusive, with some advocating recognition of a single, widely variable family, and others proposing recognition of several distinct families. A consensus classification is proposed here, based on recent molecular phylogenetic studies, morphological characters, and taking nomenclatural stability into consideration. We suggest the recognition of eleven, morphologically well-defined and clearly monophyletic families, namely the Boraginaceae s.str., Codonaceae, Coldeniaceae fam. nov., Cordiaceae, Ehretiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, Lennoaceae, Namaceae, and Wellstediaceae. Descriptions, synonomy, a taxonomic key, and a list of genera for these eleven families are provided, including the new family Coldeniaceae (monogeneric) and Namaceae (segregated from Hydrophyllaceae and comprising Nama, Eriodictyon, Turricula, and Wigandia), the latter necessitating a revised circumscription of a more morphologically coherent Hydrophyllaceae. Keywords angiosperms; Boraginaceae; Boraginales; classification; family; plant taxonomy Boraginales Working Group • Families of Boraginales 503Version of Record TAXON 65 (3) • June 2016: 502-522 Boraginaceae in this traditional sense (Candolle, 1845; Bentham & Hooker, 1876;Gürke, 1893;Engler, 1898;Pilger & Krause, 1915) were subdivided into five subfamilies, namely Boraginoideae, Cordioideae, Ehretioideae, Heliotropioideae and Wellstedioideae. In pre-molecular times most scientists accepted this circumscription of Boraginaceae (e.g., Chadefaud & Emberger, 1960;Melchior, 1964b;Takhtajan, 1980Takhtajan, , 1997 Cronquist, 1981 Cronquist, , 1988Thorne, 1992), although some authors recognized one or the other subfamily at the family level. For example, Svensson (1925) andDi Fulvio (1978) removed Cordioideae, Heliotropioideae and Ehretioideae to Heliotropi aceae based on embryological studies, while Merxmüller (1960), Dahlgren (1980), and Takhtajan (1987) treated Wellstedioideae at the family level as Wellstediaceae. Conversely, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, and Lennoaceae were generally accepted as distinct families. However, the close relationships of these taxa to traditional Boraginaceae has been widely acknowledged by several authors (e.g., Jussieu, 1789; Baillon, 1891;Peter, 1893;Svensson, 1925; Chadefaud & Emberger, 1960; Melchior, 1964a, c;Takhtajan, 1980; Cronquist, 1981 Cronquist, , 1988. For example, Baillon (1891) defined the Boraginaceae as comprising nine series, which included both Boraginaceae and Hydrophyllaceae in their traditional circumscriptions. Chadefaud & Emberger (1960) considered Boraginaceae, Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, and Lennoaceae to form a natural group within the order Tubiflorales. Takhtajan (1980) included these same families in the suborder Boraginineae.On the other hand, three groups historically associated to Boraginaceae have been clearly sho...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Familial classification of the Boraginales

Luebert

Cecchi

Frohlich

et al. 2016

TAXON

Self Cite

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The adventitious shoots are woody branches that originate inside the secondary xylem, rapidly enlarge by growth of secondary xylem, depart at angles of 25°-35° from the main stem and generate another set of secondary or tertiary adventitious shoots, forming the complex branching system ( Figure 2). As reported to date, most of calamitaleans are similar to extant horsetails, characterised by an extensive underground rhizome system from which upright aerial axes form in a clonal growth strategy [10]. However, unlike recent relatives, our Permian specimen possessed a densely developed woody trunk that grew to a diameter of at least 25 cm (Figure 1(b)).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 78%

When horsetails became giants

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These lateral axes again form terminal flowers and this process is repeated several times. The basal flower matured first with subsequent maturation occurring from apex to base (Simpson, 2006) This pattern will cause flower maturity to occur at different times and leads to a discrete period of flower opening for both male and female flowers Initial fruit set for Jatropha reached as high as 92% for pistillate flowers. This indicates that individuals do not suffer from under-pollination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flowering and Fruit Set Under Malaysian Climate of <i>Jatropha curcas</i> L.

Alam¹,

Abdullah²,

Abdullah³

2011

American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem statement:In recent years Jatropha curcas has drawn the world's attention as it has the potential to replace fossil fuel as biodiesel. However, the biggest setback in Jatropha cultivation in Malaysia is the low percentage of fruit set and the high ratio of male to female flowers. In order to further understand the flowering and fruit characteristics of Jatropha, floral and fruit development timeline is needed in order to develop solutions for the problems in low fruit set. Approach: This study described the flowering behaviour of Jatropha curcas cultivated under Malaysia and tropical climate. Investigation was carried out by observing the floral morphology, flowering sequence of pistillates, floral anthesis time, flower daily anthesis, flowering and fruiting plant behaviour, flower sex and fruit set ratio. Floral reproductive organs were examined using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Results: Jatropha is monoecious and produces individual flowers in a dichasial cyme. Each Jatropha inflorescence has at least six compound cymes. Male flower anthesis started the earliest at 12.00 am and again at 6.10-6.46 am.

show abstract

Plant Systematics

Cited by 421 publications

References 2 publications

Familial classification of the Boraginales

Familial classification of the Boraginales

When horsetails became giants

Flowering and Fruit Set Under Malaysian Climate of <i>Jatropha curcas</i> L.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About