The Botanical Review

, 73:67 | Cite as

An updated classification of the class Magnoliopsida (“Angiospermae”)

  • Robert F. Thorne
  • James L. Reveal

Abstract

The present classification of extant flowering plants (Magnoliopsida) updates and revises those presented previously by bringing together the vast majority of new information published since 1999. The extant members of Magnoliopsida are subdivided into 12 subclasses, 35 superorders, 87 orders, 40 suborders, 472 families, and 400 subfamilies. The number of genera and species for each accepted taxon is indicated, along with a statement of the taxonomic confidence that the taxon is worthy of recognition as outlined. Authorships and year of publication are provided for each accepted name and cited synonym. A rule change adopted in 2005 at the Vienna Botanical Congress has fundamentally altered authorships and valid places of publication for hundreds of names, and the full extent of the changes is unknown at present. Newly proposed names include subclass Malvidae; superorder Berberidopsidanae and Huerteanae; suborders Aralidiineae, Asphodelineae, Chloranthineae, Eriocaulineae, Hamamelidineae, Juglandineae, Myricineae, Papaverineae, and Xyridineae; and subfamilies Circaeasteroideae, Dampieroideae, Dasypogonoideae, Davidsonioideae, Ebenoideae, Goetzeoideae, Hesperocallidoideae, Hortonioideae, Isophysidoideae, Kingdonioideae, Laxmannioideae, Ledocarpoideae, Lilaeoideae, Lomandroideae, Morkillioideae, Octoknemoideae, Petunioideae, Phormioideae, Rhynchothecoideae, Sargentodoxoideae, Sclerophylacoideae, Siparunoideae, Sparattanthelioideae, Styloceratoideae, Tribeloideae, Tricyrtidoideae, and Xanthoceroideae.

Pertinent Literature

  1. Aagesen, L. &A. M. Sanso. 2003. The phylogeny of the Alstromeriaceae, based on morphology,rps16 intron, and rbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 47–69.Google Scholar
  2. Aerne, L. &M. Simpson. 2006. The vegetative anatomy of the Haemodoraceae and its systematic significance. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 270.Google Scholar
  3. Aguilar, J. F., P. A. Fryxell & R. K. Jansen. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships and classification of theSida generic alliance (Malvaceae) based on nrDNA ITS evidence. Syst. Bot. 28: 352–364.Google Scholar
  4. Ahmad, K. J. 1974. Cuticular studies in some species ofMendoncia andThunbergia (Acanthaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 69: 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Airy Shaw, H. K. 1965. On a new species of theSilvianthus Hook. f. and on the family Carlemanniaceae. Kew Bull. 19: 507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. —. 1973. A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns. Ed. 8. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Albach, D. C., M. M. Martínez-Ortega, M. A. Fischer &M. W. Chase. 2004. Evolution of Veroniceae: a phylogenetic perspective. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 91: 275–302.Google Scholar
  8. —,H. M. Meudt &B. Oxelman. 2005. Piecing together the “new” Plantaginaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. —,D. E. Soltis, M. W. Chase &P. S. Soltis. 2001a. Phylogenetic placement of the enigmatic angiospermHydrostachys. Taxon 50: 781–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. —,P. S. Soltis &D. E. Soltis. 2001b. Patterns of embryological and biochemical evolution in the asterids. Syst. Bot. 26: 242–262.Google Scholar
  11. —,—,— &R. G. Olmstead. 2001b. Phylogenetic analysis of the Asteridae based on sequences of 4 genes. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 163–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Albers, F. &U. Meve. 2001. A karyological survey of Asclepiadoideae, Periplocoideae, and Secamonoideae, and evolutionary considerations within Apocynaceae s.l. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 624–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Alejandra, J., P. S. Manos &E. A. Zimmer. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the perianthless Piperales: reconstructing the evolution of flora development. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Alford, M. H. 2006. Gerrardinaceae: a new family of African flowering plants unresolved among Bras-sicales, Huerteales, Malvales, and Sapindales. Taxon 55: 959–964.Google Scholar
  15. Al-Shehbaz, A., M. A. Beilstein &E. A. Kellogg. 2006. Systematics and phylogeny of the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae): an overview. Pl. Syst. Evol. 259: 89–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Anderberg, A. A., C. Rydin &M. Källersjö. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the order Ericales s.l.: analyses of molecular data from five genes from the plastid and mitochondrial genomes. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. —. 2000. Maesaceae, a new primuloid family in the order Ericales s.l. Taxon 49: 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Anderson, E. F. 2001. The cactus family. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  19. Andersson, L. &S. Andersson. 2000. A molecular phylogeny of Tropaeolaceae and its systematic implications. Taxon 49: 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. —,M. Kocsis &R. Eriksson. 2006. Relationships of the genusAzorella (Apiaceae) and other hydrocotyloids inferred from sequence variation in three plastid markers. Taxon 55: 270–280.Google Scholar
  21. Andersson, S. 2006. On the phylogeny of the genusCalceolaria (Calceolariaceae) as inferred from ITS and plastid matK sequences. Taxon 55: 125–137.Google Scholar
  22. Andreasen, K. &B. Bremer. 2000. Combined phylogenetic analysis in the Rubiaceae-Ixoroideae: morphology, nuclear and chloroplast DNA data. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1731–1748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Angiosperm Phytogeny Group. 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141: 399–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Applequist, W. L., W. L. Wagner, E. A. Zimmer &M. Nepokroeff. 2006. Molecular evidence resolving the systematic position ofHectorella (Portulacaceae). Syst. Bot. 31: 310–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. — &R. S. Wallace. 2000. Phylogeny of the Madagascan endemic family Didiereaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 221: 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ——. 2001. Phylogeny of the portulacaceous cohort based on ndhF sequence data. Syst. Bot. 26: 406–419.Google Scholar
  27. ——. 2002. Deletions in the plastid trnT-trnL intergenic spacer define clades within Cactaceae subfamily Cactoideae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 231: 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ——. 2003. Expanded circumscription of Didiereaceae and its division into three subfamilies. Adansonia, ser. 3, 25: 13–16.Google Scholar
  29. Asmussen, C. B. &M. W. Chase. 2001. Coding and noncoding plastid DNA in palm systematics. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1103–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Azuma, H., J. G. Garcia-Franco, V. Rico-Gray &L. B. Thien. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the Magnoliaceae: the biogeography of tropical and temperate disjunctions. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2275–2285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Azuma, T., T. Kajita, J. Yokoyama &H. Ohashi. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships ofSalix (Salicaceae) based on rbcL sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Baas, P., S. Jansen &E. Smets. 2001. Vegetative anatomy and affinities ofDirachma socotrana (Dirachmaceae). Syst. Bot. 26: 231–241.Google Scholar
  33. Backlund, A. &N. Pyck. 1998. Diervillaceae and Linnaeaceae: two new families of caprifolioids. Taxon 47: 657–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Backlund, M., B. Oxelman &B. Bremen 2000. Phylogenetic relationships within the Gentianales based on ndhF and rbcL sequences, with particular reference to the Loganiaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1029–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Bailey, C. D., M. Koch, M. Mayer, M. Klaus, S. L. O’kane, S. I. Warwick, M. D. Windham &I. Al-Shehbaz. 2006. A global nrDNA ITS phylogeny for the Brassicaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 205–206.Google Scholar
  36. Baldwin, B. G., B. L. Wessa &J. L. Panero. 2002. Nuclear rDNA evidence for major lineages of helenioid Heliantheae (Compositae). Syst. Bot. 27: 161–198.Google Scholar
  37. Ballard, H. E. Jr.,M. Feng &J. K. Munzinger. 2002. Biogeographic patterns and trans-oceanic dispersai in the Violaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 175.Google Scholar
  38. —,G. Rothwell &R. Stockey. 2002. Reassessing relationships among aroids and duckweeds. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 113.Google Scholar
  39. Balthazar, M. von &P. K. Endress. 2002a. Didymelaceae—a comparison of female structures with Buxaceae and other basal eudicots. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 20.Google Scholar
  40. ——. 2002b. Reproductive structures and systematics of Buxaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 193–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. ——. 2002c. Development of inflorescences and flowers in Buxaceae and the problem of perianth interpretation. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 847–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. —,— &Y.-L. Qiu. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships in Buxaceae based on nuclear internal transcribed spacers and plastid dnhF sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161: 785–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. —,G. E. Schatz &P. K. Endress. 2003. Female flowers and inflorescences of Didymelaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 237: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Barfuss, M. H. J., R. Samuel, W. Till &T. F. Stuessy. 2005. Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Tillandsioideae (Bromeliaceae) based on DNA sequence data from seven plastid regions. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Barnes, R. W., R. S. Hill &J. C. Bradford. 2001. The history of Cunoniaceae in Australia from macro-fossil evidence. Austral. J. Bot. 49: 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Bartish, I. V., N. Jeppsson, H. Nybom &U. Swenson. 2002. Phylogeny ofHippophaë (Elaeagnaceae) inferred from parsimony analysis of chloroplast DNA and morphology. Syst. Bot. 27: 41–54.Google Scholar
  47. Baum, D. A., A. Yen, B. A. Whitlock, W. S. Alverson, R. Nyffeller, S. Smith &R. Oldham. 2002. Mode, locus, and tempo of evolution in Malvoideae and Bombacoideae (Malvaceae s.l.): evidence from multiple DNA sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 114.Google Scholar
  48. Beardsley, P. M. &R. G. Olmstead. 2002. Redefining Phrymaceae: the placement ofMimulus, tribe Mimuleae, andPhryma. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1093–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Behnke, H. D. 2000. Forms and sizes of sieve-element plastids and evolution of the monocotyledons. Pp. 163–188in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  50. —. 2003. Sieve-element plastids and evolution of monocotyledons with emphasis on Melanthiaceae sensu lato and Aristolochia-Asaroideae, a putative dicotyledon sister group. Bot. Rev. 68: 524–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Bell, C. D. &M. J. Donoghue. 2005. Dating the Dipsacales: comparing models, genes, and evolutionary implications. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. — &E. J. Edwards. 2002. Phylogeny and biogeography of Valerianaceae (Dipsacales) with special reference to the South American species. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 115.Google Scholar
  53. —,—,S.-T. Kim &M. J. Donoghue. 2001. Dipsacales phylogeny based on chloroplast sequences. Harvard Pap. Bot. 6: 481–499.Google Scholar
  54. Blarer, A., D. L. Nickrent &P. K. Endress. 2004. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Apodanthaceae (Rafflesiales). Pl. Syst. Evol. 245: 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Bobrov, A. V. F. Ch., P. K. Endress, A. P. Melikian, M. S. Romanov, A. N. Sorokin &A. P. Bejerano. 2005. Fruit structure ofAmborella trichopoda (Amborellaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 148: 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Bogler, D. J., J. C. Pires &J. Francisco-Ortega. 2006. Phylogeny of Agavaceae based on ndhF, rbcL, and ITS sequences: implications of molecular data for classification. Aliso 22: 313–328.Google Scholar
  57. Borg, A. J., L. A. McDade &J. Schönenberger. 2006. Molecular systematics and patterns of morphological evolution in Thunbergioideae (Acanthaceae). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 208.Google Scholar
  58. Borsch, T., W. Hilu, D. Quandt, V. Wilde, C. Neinhuis &W. Barthlott. 2003. Non-coding plastid trnT-trnF sequences reveal a well resolved phylogeny of basal angiosperms. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 558–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Boureau, E. 1958. Contribution à l’étude anatomique des espèces actuelles de Rhopalocarpaceae. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) sér. 2 30: 213–221.Google Scholar
  60. Bradford, J. &R. W. Barnes. 2001. Phylogenetics and classification of Cunoniaceae (Oxalidales) using chloroplast DNA sequences and morphology. Syst. Bot. 26: 354–385.Google Scholar
  61. Bremer, B., K. Bremer, N. Heidari, P. Erixon, R. G. Olmstead, A. A. Anderberg, M. Källersjö &E. Barkhordarian. 2002. Phylogenetics of asterids based on 3 coding and 3 non-coding chloroplast DNA markers and the utility of non-coding DNA at higher taxonomic levels. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 24: 274–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. — &J.-F. Manen. 2000. Phylogeny and classification of the subfamily Rubioideae-Rubiaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 225: 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Bremer, K. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the new ordinal system of the angiosperms. Pp. 125–133in B. Nordenstam, G. El-Ghazaly, M. Kassas & T. C. Laurent (eds.), Plant systematics for the 21st century. Portland Press, London.Google Scholar
  64. —. 2002a. Gondwanan evolution of the grass alliance of families (Poales). Evolution 56: 1374–1387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. —. 2002b. Scytopetalaceae are stipulate. Kew Bull. 57: 759–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. — &T. Janssen. 2006. Gondwanan origin of major monocot groups inferred from dispersal-vicariance analysis. Aliso 22: 22–27.Google Scholar
  67. —,A. Backlund, B. Sennblad, U. Swenson, K. Andreasen, M. Hjertson, J. Lundberg, M. Backlund &B. Bremer. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of 100+ genera and 50+ families of euasterids based on morphological and molecular data with notes on possible higher level morphological synapomorphies. Pl. Syst. Evol. 229: 137–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. —,B. Bremer &M. Thulin. 2003. Introduction to phylogeny and systematics of flowering plants. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 33(2): 1–102.Google Scholar
  69. —,E. M. Friis &B. Bremer. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic dating of asterid flowering plants shows early Cretaceous diversification. Syst. Biol. 53: 496–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Briggs, B. G. 2000. What is signiflcant-the Wollemi pine or the southern rushes? Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. — &L. A. S. Johnson. 1999. A guide to a new classification of Australian Restionaceae and allied families. Pp. 25–56in K. A. Meney & J. S. Pate (eds.), Australian rushes. University of Western Australian Press, Nedlands, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  72. ——. 2000. Hopkinsiaceae and Lyginiaceae, two new families of Poales in western Australia, with revisions ofHopkinsia andLyginia. Telopea 8: 477–502.Google Scholar
  73. ——. 2001. The genusDesmocladus (Restionaceae) and new species from the south of Western Australia and South Australia. Telopea 9: 227–245.Google Scholar
  74. —,A. D. Marchant, S. Gilmore &C. L. Porter. 2000. A molecular phylogeny of Restionaceae and allies. Pp. 661–671in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  75. Britton, T., B. Oxelman, A. Vinnersten &K. Bremen 2002. Phylogenetic dating with confidence intervals using mean path lengths. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 24: 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Brückner, C. 2000. Clarification of the carpel number in Papaverales, Capparales, and Berberidaceae. Bot. Rev. 66: 155–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. —. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. —. 2003. Further dogged defense of paraphyletic taxa. Taxon 52: 803–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Bruneau, A., F. Forest, P. S. Herendeen, B. B. Klitgaard &G. P. Lewis. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in the Caesalpinioideae (Leguminosae) as inferred from chloroplast trnL intron sequences. Syst. Bot. 26:487–514.Google Scholar
  80. Burge, D. 2006. Molecular systematics of the genusGarrya (Garryaceae): a phylogeny based upon nuclear gene sequences. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 209.Google Scholar
  81. Buzgó, M. &P. K. Endrcss. 2000. Floral structure and development of Acoraceae and its systematic relationships with basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 16: 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. —,D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, B. A. Hauser &B. Johansen. 2002. B-class organ identity in basal monocots. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 17.Google Scholar
  83. Caddick, L. R., P. J. Rudall &P. Wilkin. 2000a. Floral morphology and development in Dioscoreales. Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 111: 189–230.Google Scholar
  84. —,—,— &M. W. Chase. 2000b. Yams and their allies: systematics of Dioscoreales. Pp. 475–487in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  85. —,—,P. J. Rudall, T. A. J. Hedderson &M. W. Chase. 2002. Yams reclassified: a recircumscription of Dioscoreaceae and Dioscoreales. Taxon 51: 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Callmander, M. W., P. Chassot, P. Küpfer &P. P. Lowery II. 2003. Recognition ofMartellidendron, a new genus of Pandanaceae, and its biogeographic implications. Taxon 52: 747–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Cameron, K. M. 1998. Systematics of heteromycotrophic Petrosaviaceae. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 64.Google Scholar
  88. —. 2001. An expanded phylogenetic analysis of Orchidaceae using three plastid genes: rbcL, atpB, and psaB. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 104.Google Scholar
  89. —. 2002. Intertribal relationships within Orchidaceae as inferred from analyses of five plastid genes. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 116.Google Scholar
  90. —. 2003. On the phylogenetic position of the New Caledonian endemic families Paracryphiaceae, Oncothecaceae, and Strasburgeriaceae: a comparison of molecules and morphology. Bot. Rev. 68: 428–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. —. 2006. A comparison and combination of plastid atpB and rbcL gene sequences for inferring phylogenetic relationships within Orchidaceae. Aliso 22: 447–464.Google Scholar
  92. — &M. W. Chase. 2000. Nuclear 18S rDNa sequences of Orchidaceae confirm the subfamilial status and circumscription of Vanilloideae. Pp. 457–464in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  93. — &C. Fu. 2000. Untangling the catbriers: phylogenetic studies in Smilacaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 117(Abstr.).Google Scholar
  94. —,—,W. R. Anderson &H. G. Hills. 2001. Molecular systematics of Malpighiaceae: evidence from plastid rbcL and matK sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1847–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. —,— &P. J. Rudall. 2003. Recircumscription of the monocotyledonous family Petrosaviaceae to includeJaponolirion. Brittonia 55: 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. —,—,W. M. Whitten, P. J. Kores, D. C. Jarrell, V. A. Albert, T. Yukawa, H. G. Hills &D. H. Goldman. 1999. A phylogenetic analysis of the Orchidaceae: evidence from rbcL nucleotide sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. —,K. J. Wurdack &R. W. Jobson. 2002. Molecular evidence for the common origin of snaptraps among carnivorous plants. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1503–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Campbell, C. S., R. C. Evans, M. P. Arsenault &T. A. Dickinson. 2002. Phylogenetic insights into the Maloideae (Rosaceae) from chloroplast DNA. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 107.Google Scholar
  99. Caris, P., L. P. Ronse Decraene, E. Smets &D. Clinckemaillie. 2002. The uncertain systematic position ofSymplocos (Symplocaceae): evidence from a floral ontogenetic study. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. — &E. Smets. 2003. The relationship betweenSamolus L. and the Theophrastaceae: a floral ontogenetic approach. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 24 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  101. ——. 2004. A floral ontogenetic study on the sister group relationships between the genusSamolus (Primulaceae) and the Theophrastaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. ——. 2006. Floral ontogenetic patterns in Ericaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar
  103. Carlquist, S. 2000. Wood and bark anatomy ofTakhtajania (Winteraceae): phylogenetic and ecological implications. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. —. 2001a. Wood anatomy of Fouquieriaceae in relation to habit, ecology, and systematics: nature of meristems in wood and bark. Aliso 19: 137–163.Google Scholar
  105. —. 2001b. Wood and stem anatomy of Rhabdodendraceae is consistent with placement in Caryophyllales sensu lato. I. A. W. A. J. 22: 171–181.Google Scholar
  106. —. 2001c. Comparative wood anatomy. Systematic, ecological, and evolutionary aspects of dicotyledon wood. 2nd rev. ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  107. -. 2002. Wood anatomy and successive cambia inSimmondsia (Simmondsiaceae): evidence for inclusion in Caryophyllales s.l. Madroño 49: 158–164.Google Scholar
  108. —. 2003a. Wood anatomy of Polygonaceae: analysis of a family with exceptional wood diversity. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141:25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. —. 2003b. Wood anatomy of Aextoxicaceae and Berberidopsidaceae is compatible with their inclusion in Berberidopsidales. Syst. Bot. 28: 317–325.Google Scholar
  110. —. 2004. Wood and bark anatomy of Myricaceae: relationships, generic definitions, and ecological interpretations. Aliso 21: 7–29.Google Scholar
  111. —. 2005a. Wood and bark anatomy of Muntingiaceae: a phylogenetic comparison within Malvales s.l. Brittonia 57: 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. —. 2005b. Wood anatomy of Krameriaceae with comparisons with Zygophyllaceae: phylesis, ecology and systematics. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 149: 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. — &E. L. Schneider. 2001. Vegetative anatomy of the New Caledonian endemicAmborella trichopoda: relationships with the Illiciales and implications for vessel origin. Pacific Sci. 55: 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. ——. 2004. Perforation plate pit membrane remnants and other vessel details of Clethraceae: primitive features in wood of Ericales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. -.& S. Zona. 1988. Wood anatomy of Papaveraceae, with comments on vessel restriction patterns. I. A. W. A. Bull., n.s. 9: 253–267.Google Scholar
  116. Cayzer, L. W., M. D. Crisp &I. R. H. Telford. 2000a. Revision ofPittosporum (Pittosporaceae) in Australia. Austral. Syst. Bot. 13: 845–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. ——. 2000b.Auranticarpa, a new genus of Pittosporaceae from northern Australia. Austral. Syst. Bot. 13: 903–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Chadefaud, M. 1974. Sur la formule florale de la Capucine (Tropaeolum majus L.) Bull. Soc. Bot. France 121:347–355.Google Scholar
  119. Chan, R. &V. A. Funk. 2006. Is the tribe Arctoteae (Compositae: Cichorioideae) monophyletic? More data, more taxa, some answers, even more questions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 211.Google Scholar
  120. Chanderbali, A. S., H van der Werff. &S. S. Renner. 2001. Phylogeny and historical biogeography of Lauraceae: evidence from the chloroplast and nuclear genomes. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Chandler, G. T. &G. M. Plunkett. 2002. Recent advances in the resolution of intra-ordinal affinities in the Apiales: evidence from 26SrDNA. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 117.Google Scholar
  122. ——. 2004. Evolution in Apiales: nuclear and chloroplast markers together in (almost) perfect harmony. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 144: 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Chase, M. W. 2004. Monocot relationships: an overview. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1645–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. —,D. Soltis, R. G. Olmstead, D. Morgan, D. H. Les, B. Mishler, M. R. Duvall, R. A. Price, H. G. Hills, Y-L. Qiu, K. A. Kron, J. H. Rettig, E. Conti, J. D. Palmer, J. R. Manhart, K. J. Sytsma, H. J. Michaels, W. J. Kress, K. G. Karol, W. D. Clark, M. Hedrén, B. S. Gaut, R. K. Jansen, K-J. Kim, C. F. Wimpee, J. F. Smith, G. R. Furnier, S. H. Straus, Q-Y. Xiang, G. M. Plunkett, P. S. Soltis, S. M. Swensen, S. E. Williams, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn, L. Eguiarte, E. Golenberg, G. H. Learn, S. W. Graham, S. C. H. Barrett, S. Dayanandan &V. A. Albert. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 528–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. —,A. de Bruijn, A. V. Cox, G. Reeves, P. J. Rudall, M. A. T. Johnson &L. E. Eguiarte. 2000. Phylogenetics of Asphodelaceae (Asparagales): an analysis of plastid rbcL and trnL-F DNA sequences. Ann. Bot. (London) 86: 935–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. —,M. F. Fay, D. S. Devey, O. Maurin, N. Rønsted, T. J. Davies Y. Pillon, G. Petersen, O. Seberg, M. U. Tamura, C. B. Asmussen, K. Hilu, T. Borsch, J. I Davis, D. W. Stevenson, J. C. Pires, T. J. Givnish, K. J. Sytsma, M. M. McPherson, S. W. Graham &H. S. Rai. 2006. Multigene analyses of monocot relationships: a summary. Aliso 22: 63–75.Google Scholar
  127. —,— &V. Savolainen. 2000. Higher-level classification in the angiosperms: new insights from the perspective of DNA sequence data. Taxon 49: 685–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. —,D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, P. J. Rudall, M. F. Fay, W. H. Hahn, S. Sullivan, J. Jospeh, M. Molvray, P. J. Kores, T. J. Givnish, K. J. Sytsma &J. C. Pires. 2000. Higher-level systematics of the monocotyledons: an assessment of current knowledge and a new classification. Pp. 3–16in K. A. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  129. —,S. Zmarzty, M. D. Lledó, K. J. Wurdack, S. M. Swensen &M. F. Fay. 2002. When in doubt, put it in Flacourtiaceae: a molecular phylogenetic analysis based on plastid rbcL DNA sequences. Kew Bull. 57: 141–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Chat, J., B. Jauregui, R. J. Petit &S. Nadot. 2004. Reticulate evolution in kiwifruit (Actinidia, Actinidiaceae) identified by comparing their maternal and paternal phylogenies. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 736–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Chatrou, L. W. 2003. Myristicineae, a new suborder within Magnoliales. Taxon 52: 277–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Cheek, M., S. A. Williams &M. Etuge. 2003.Kupea martinetugei, a new genus and species of Triuridaceae from western Cameroon. Kew Bull. 58: 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Chesselet, P., G. F. Smith &A. E. van Wyk. 2002. A new tribal classification of Mesembryanthemaceae: evidence from floral nectaries. Taxon 51: 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Civeyrel, L. &N. Rowe. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Secamonoideae based on the plastid gene matK, morphology, and biomechanics. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Clark, L. G. &J. K. Triplett. 2006. Phylogeny of the Bambusoideae (Poaceae): an update. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 212.Google Scholar
  136. —,N. Barker, L. Clark, J. Davis, M. Duvall, G. Guala, C. Hsiao, E. Kellogg, R. Mason-Gamer, S. Mathews, R. Soreng &R. Spangler. 1998. Proposal for a subfamilial reclassification of the Poaceae. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 15.Google Scholar
  137. —,M. Kobayashi, S. Mathews, R. E. Spangler &E. A. Kellogg. 2000. The Puelioideae, a new subfamily of Poaceae. Syst. Bot. 25: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Columbus, J. T., E. A. Friar, J. M. Porter, L. M. Prince & M. G. Simpson (eds.). 2006. Monocots: comparative biology and evolution. Excluding Poales. Aliso 22: 1–735.Google Scholar
  139. —,M. S. Kinney, M. E. S. Delgado &J. M. Porter. 2000. Phylogenetics ofBouteloua and relatives (Gramineae: Chloridoideae): cladistic parsimony analysis of internal transcribed spacer (nrDNA) and trnL-F (cpDNA) sequences. Pp. 189–194in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  140. Conran, J. G. 1995. Family distributions in the Liliiflorae and their biogeographical implications. J. Biogeogr. 22: 1023–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. —. 1999. Anatomy and morphology ofBehnia (Behniaceae) and its relationships within Lilianae: Asparagales. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 131: 115–129.Google Scholar
  142. — &A. Temby. 2000. Embryology and affinities of the Boryaceae (Asparagales). Pp. 401–406in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  143. —,M. W. Chase &P. J. Rudall. 1997. Two new monocotyledon families: Anemarrhenaceae and Behniacae (Lilianae: Asparagales). Kew Bull. 52: 995–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. —,A. Houben &A. Lowrie. 2002. Chromosome numbers in Byblidaceae. Austral. J. Bot. 50: 583–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. —,— &J. Moyle-Croft. 2002. A revision ofByblis (Byblidaceae) in south-western Australia. Nuytsia 15: 11–19.Google Scholar
  146. Conti, E., D. Baum &K. Sytsma. 1999. Phylogeny of Crypteroniaceae and related families: implications for morphology and biogeography, P. 250in Abstracts. XVI International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, August 1–7, 1999. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.Google Scholar
  147. —,T. Eriksson, J. Schoenenberger, K. J. Sytsma &D. A. Baum. 2002. Molecular evidence for Early Tertiary out-of-India dispersal in Crypteroniaceae (Myrtales). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 175.Google Scholar
  148. Corbett, S. L. &S. R. Manchester. 2002. Phytogeographic history ofAilanthus Desf. (Simaroubaceae) based on fossil fruits. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 55.Google Scholar
  149. Correia, E. &H. Freitas. 2002.Drosophyllum lusitanicum, an endangered west Mediterranean endemic carnivorous plant: threats and its ability to control available resources. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Coskun, F., L. Jianhua &C. R. Parks. 2001. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the genusTilia (Tiliaceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 107–108.Google Scholar
  151. Crane, P. R., E. M. Friis &K. R. Pederson. 1995. The origin and early diversification of angiosperms. Nature 374: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. —,P. Herendeen &E. M. Friis. 2004. Fossils and plant phylogeny. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1683–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Crawford, D. J. 2000. Plant macromolecular systematics in the past 50 years: one view. Taxon 49: 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. —,E. Landolt, D. H. Les &R. T. Kimball. 2006. Speciation in duckweeds (Lemnaceae): phylogenetic and ecological inferences. Aliso 22: 231–242.Google Scholar
  155. Crayn, D. M., K. A. Kron, P. A. Gadek &C. J. Quinn. 1998. Phylogenetics and evolution of epacrids: a molecular analysis using the plastid gene rbcL with a reappraisal of the position ofLebetanthus. Austral. J. Bot. 46: 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. — &C. J. Quinn. 2000. The evolution of the atpB-rbcL intergeneric spacer in the epacrids (Ericales) and its systematic and evolutionary implications. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 16: 238–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. —,M. Rossetto &D. J. Maynard. 2006. Molecular phylogeny and dating reveals an Oligo-Miocene radiation of dry-adapted shrubs (former Tremandraceae) from rainforest tree progenitors (Elaeocarpaceae) in Australia. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 1328–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. —,R. G. Terry, J. A. C. Smith &K. Winter. 2000. Molecular systematic investigations in Pitcairnioideae (Bromeliaceae) as a basis for understanding the evolution of crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM). Pp. 569–579in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  159. Crepet, W. L., K. C. Nixon &M. A. Gandolfo. 2004. Fossil evidence and phylogeny: the age of major angiosperm clades based on mesofossil and macrofossil evidence from Cretaceous deposits. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1666–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Cribb, P. 1997. The genusCypripedium. Timber Press, Oregon.Google Scholar
  161. — &T. Cox. 1998. Phylogeny of the Cypripedioideae. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 17.Google Scholar
  162. — &A. E. Van Wyk. 1988. Structures and relationships of families endemic to or centered in southern Africa. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 25: 1–94.Google Scholar
  163. Crozier, B. S. 2004. Subfamilies of Cactaceae Juss. including Blossfeldioideae subfam. nov. Phytologia 86: 52–64.Google Scholar
  164. Cuénoud, P., V. Savolainen, L. W. Chatrou, M. Powell, R. J. Grayer &M. W. Chase. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Caryophyllales based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid rbcL, atpB, and matK DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Dahlgren, R. 1983. General aspects of angiosperm evolution and macrosystematics. Nordic J. Bot. 3: 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Datwyler, S. L. &G. D. Weibling. 2004. On the origin of the fig: phylogenetic relationships of Moraceae from ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 767–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Davis, C. C., W. R. Anderson &M. J. Donogue. 2001. Phylogeny of Malpighiaceae: evidence from chloroplast ndhF and trnL-F nucleotide sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1830–1846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. — &M. W. Chase. 2004. Elatinaceae are sister to Malpighiaceae; Peridiscaceae belong to Saxifragales. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. —,C. D. Bell, S. Mathews &M. J. Donogue. 2002. Laurasian migration explains Gondwanan disjunctions: evidence from Malpighiaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 176.Google Scholar
  170. —,P.W. Fritsch, J. Li &M. J. Donoghue. 2002. Phylogeny and biogeography ofCercis (Fabaceae): evidence from nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF sequence data. Syst. Bot. 27: 289–302.Google Scholar
  171. Davis, J. I. 2006. Molecular phylogenies and pollen evolution in Annonaceae (Magnoliales). Botany 2006, Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 217.Google Scholar
  172. — &P. K. Endress. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S121-S153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. — &A. Igersheim. 2000b. Gynoecium structure and evolution in basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S211-S223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. — &R. J. Soreng. 2007 A phylogenetic analysis of the grasses (Poaceae), with attention to subfamily Pooideae and structural features of the plastid and nuclear genomes, including an intron loss in GBSSI. Aliso 23: 335–348.Google Scholar
  175. —,G. Petersen, O. Seberg, D. W. Stevenson. C. R. Hardy, M. P. Simmons, F. A. Michelangeli, D. H. Goldman, L. M. Campbell, C. D. Specht &J. I. Cohen. 2006. Are mitochondrial genes useful for the analysis of monocot relationships? Taxon 55: 857–870.Google Scholar
  176. —,D. W. Stevenson, L. Campbell, D. Goldman, C. Hardy, F. Michelangeli, M. Simmons &C. Specht. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships among the monocots, as inferred from morphology and nucleotide sequence variation in three genes. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 109.Google Scholar
  177. —,—,G. Petersen, O. Seberg, L. M. Campbell, J. V. Freudenstein, D. H. Goldman, C. R. Hardy, F. A. Michelangeli, M. P. Simmons, C. D. Specht, F. Vergara-Silva &M. Gandolfo. 2004. A phylogeny of the monocots, as inferred from rbcL and atpA sequence variation, and a comparison of methods for calculating jackknife and bootstrap values. Syst. Bot. 29: 467–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Denk, T. &B. Meller. 2001. Systematic significance of the cupule/nut complex in living and fossilFagus. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 869–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Deroin, T. 1999a. Functional impact of the vascular architecture of flowers in Annonaceae and Magnoliaceae, and its bearing on the interpretation of the magnoliaceous gynoecium. Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 68: 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. —. 1999b. Ontogeny and phylogeny in Convolvulaceae-Ipomoeae: preliminary comparative remarks on ovary morphology. Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 68: 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. —. 2000. Notes on the vascular anatomy of the fruit ofTakhtajania (Winteraceae) and its interpretation. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Detwyler, S. L. &G. D. Weiblin. 2004. On the origin of the fig; phylogenetic relationships of Moraceae from ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 767–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Devey, D. S., I. Leitch, P. J. Rudall, J. C. Pires, Y. Pillon &M. W. Chase. 2006. Systematics of Xanthorrhoeaceae sensu lato, with an emphasis onBulbine. Aliso 22: 345–351.Google Scholar
  184. De Wilde, W. J. J. O. 1971. The systematic position of tribe Paropsieae, in particular the genusAncistrothyrsus, and a key to the genera of Passifloraceae. Blumea 19: 99–104.Google Scholar
  185. Diane, N., H. Förther &H. H. Hilger. 2002. A systematic analysis ofHeliotropium, Tournfortia, and allied taxa of the Heliotropiaceae (Boraginales) based on ITS1 sequences and morphological data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. —,C. Jacob &H. H. Hilger. 2003. Leaf anatomy and foliar trichomes in Heliotropiaceae and their systematic relevance. Flora 198: 468–485.Google Scholar
  187. Dickinson, T., R. C. Evans &C. S. Campbell. 2002. Rosaceae classification and phylogeny: introduction and overview. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 107.Google Scholar
  188. Dilcher, D. L. 2001. Paleobotany: some aspects of non-flowering and flowering plant evolution. Taxon 50: 697–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Donoghue, M. J., B. G. Baldwin, J. Li &R. C. Winkworth. 2004a.Viburnum phylogeny based on chloroplast trnK intron and nuclear ribosomal ITS DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 29: 188–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. —,C. D. Bell &R. C. Winkworth. 2004b. The evolution of reproductive characters in Dipsacales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S453-S464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. —,T. Eriksson, P. A. Reeves &R. G. Olmstead. 2001. Phylogeny and phylogenetic taxonomy of Dipsacales, with special reference toSinadoxa andTetradoxa (Adoxaceae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 6: 459–479.Google Scholar
  192. Doust, A. N. 2000. Comparative floral ontogeny in Winteraceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. — &A. N. Drinnan. 2004. Floral development and molecular phylogeny support the generic status ofTasmannia (Winteraceae). Amer. J. Bot. 91: 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. — &P. F. Stevens. 2005. A reinterpretation of the staminate flowers ofHaptanthus. Syst. Bot. 30: 779–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Doweld, A. 2001. Prosyllabus tracheophytorum. Tentamen systematis plantarum vascularium (Tracheophyta). GEOS, Moscow.Google Scholar
  196. —. 2007. New syllabus of plant families. GEOS, Moscow.Google Scholar
  197. Downie, S. R., D. S. Katz-Downie &M. F. Watson. 2000a. A phylogeny of the flowering plant family Apiaceae based on chloroplast DNA rpl16 and rpoC1 intron sequences: towards a suprageneric classification of subfamily Apioideae. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. —— &K. Spalik. 2000b. A phylogeny of Apiaceae tribe Scandiceae: evidence from nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. —,G. M. Plunkett, M. F. Watson, K. Spalik, D. S. Katz-Downie, C. M. Valiejo-Roman, E. I. Terentieva, A. V. Troitsky, B.-Y. Lee, J. Lahham &A. El-Oqlah. 2001. Tribes and clades within Apiaceae subfamily Apioideae: the contribution of molecular data. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 301–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. —,M. F. Watson, K. Spalik &D. S. Katz-Downie. 2000. Molecular systematics of Old World Apioideae (Apiaceae): relationships among some members of tribe Peucedaneae sensu lato, the placement of several island-endemic species, and resolution within the apioid superclade. Canad. J. Bot. 78: 506–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Doyle, J. A. 2000a. Paleobotany, relationships, and geographic history of Winteraceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. —. 2000b. Congruence of molecular phylogenies and the Early Cretaceous angiosperm record. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 67–68 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  203. —. 2001. Significance of molecular phylogenetic analyses for paleobotanical investigations on the origin of angiosperms. Palaeobotanist 50: 167–188.Google Scholar
  204. —. 2005. Carpels inBrasenia (Cabombaceae) are completely-ascidiate despite a long stigmatic crest. Ann. Bot. 96: 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. —. 2006. Molecular phylogenies and pollen evolution in Annonaceae (Magnoliales). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 217.Google Scholar
  206. — &P. K. Endress. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S121-S153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. — &A. Igersheim. 2000. Gynoecium structure and evolution in basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S211-S223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. —,H. Eklund &P. S. Herendeen. 2003. Floral evolution in Chloranthaceae: implications of a morphological phylogenetic analysis. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S365-S382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. —,H. Sauquet, T. Scharaschkin &A. Le Thomas. 2004. Phylogeny, molecular and fossil dating, and biogeographic history of Annonaceae and Myristicaceae (Magnoliales). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4 Suppl.): S55-S67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Drábková, L., J. Kirschner &C. Vicek. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships withinLuzula DC. andJuncus L. (Juncaceae): a comparison of phylogenetic signals of trnL-trnF intergeneric spacer, trnL intron and rbcL plastome sequence data. Cladistics 22: 132–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Dransfield, J., N. W. Uhl, C. B. Asmussen, W. J. Baker, M. M. Harley &C. E. Lewis. 2005. A new phylogenetic classification of the palm family, Arecaceae. Kew Bull. 60: 559–569.Google Scholar
  212. Duangjai, S., B. Wallnoefer, R. Samuel, J. Munzinger &M. W. Chase. 2006a. Phylogenetic relationships and infrafamilial classification of Ebenaceae s.l. based on six plastid markers. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 218–219.Google Scholar
  213. —,—,—,——. 2006b. Generic delimitation and relationships in Ebenaceae sensu lato: evidence from six plastid DNA regions. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 1808–1817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Duvall, M. R. 2001. An anatomical study of anther development inAcorus L.: phylogenetic implications. Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. — &A. J. Bricker. 2002. Nuclear-cytoplasmic incongruence among monocots and related paleoherb dicots. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 121–122.Google Scholar
  216. — &J. I Davis, L. G. Clark, J. D. Noll, D. H. Goldman &J. G. Sànchez-Ken. 2007. Phylogeny of the grasses (Poaceae) revisited. Aliso 23: 237–247.Google Scholar
  217. —,S. Mathews, N. Mohammad &T. Russell. 2006. Placing the monocots: conflicting signal from trigenomic analyses. Aliso 22: 79–90.Google Scholar
  218. —,J. D. Noll &A. H. Minn. 2001. Phylogenetics of Paniceae (Poaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1988–1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Eddie, W. M. M., T. Shulkina, J. Gaskin, R. C. Haberle &R. K. Jansen. 2003. Phylogeny of Campanulaceae s. str. inferred from ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 554–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Ehrendorfer, F. &M. Lambrou. 2000. Chromosomes ofTakhtajania, other Winteraceae, and Canellaceae: phylogenetic implications. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. Eklund, H., J. A. Doyle &P. S. Herendeen. 2004. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of living and fossil Chloranthaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 107–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. Endress, M. E. &W. D. Stevens. 2001. The renaissance of the Apocynaceae s.l. Recent advances in systematics, phylogeny, and evolution: introduction. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Endress, P. K. 2003a. Morphology and angiosperm systematics in the molecular era. Bot. Rev. 68: 545–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. —. 2003b. Early floral development and nature of the calytra in Eupomatiaceae (Magnoliales). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. —. 2003c. What should a “complete” morphological phylogenetic analysis entail? Pp. 133–164. In T. F. Stuessey, E. Hörandl & E. Mayer (eds.), Deep morphology: towards a renaissance of morphology in plant systematics. Gantner, Ruggell, Liechtenstein.Google Scholar
  226. —. 2004a. Biologie und Evolution der Blüten basaler Blütenpflanzen. Leopoldina 49: 467–486.Google Scholar
  227. —. 2004b. Heterodichogamy of a novel type inHernandia (Hernandiaceae) and its structural basis. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 753–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. —. 2004c. Structure and relationships of basal relictual angiosperms. Austral. Syst. Bot. 17: 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. —. 2005a. Links between embryology and evolutionary floral morphology. Curr. Sci. 89: 749–754.Google Scholar
  230. —. 2005b. The role of morphology in angiosperm evolutionary studies. Nova Acta Leop. 92: 221–238.Google Scholar
  231. —. 2005c. Carpels inBrasenia (Cabombaceae) are completely ascidiate despite a long stigmatic crest. Ann. Bot. (London) 96: 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. — &A. Igersheim. 2000. Floral structure ofAmborella, the earliest branching extant angiosperm. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 364 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  233. — &D. M. Sutter. 2002. Female flowers and cupules of Balanopaceae, an enigmatic rosid family. Botany 2002. Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 10.Google Scholar
  234. —,P. Baas &M. Gregory. 2000. Systematic plant morphology and anatomy—50 years of progress. Taxon 49: 401–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. —,A. Igersheim, F. B. Sampson &G. E. Schatz. 2000. Floral structure ofTakhtajania and its systematic position in Winteraceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Erbar, C. &P. Leins. 1996. Distribution of the character states “early sympetaly” and “late sympetaly” within the “Sympetalae Tetracyclicae” and presumably allied groups. Bot. Acta 109: 427–440.Google Scholar
  237. Eriksson, T., M. S. Hibbs, A. D. Yoder, C. F. Delwiche &M. J. Donoghue. 2003. The phylogeny of Rosoideae (Rosaceae) based on sequences of the internal transcribed spacers (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA and the trnL/F region of chloroplast DNA. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. —,J. E. E. Smedmark, M. S. Hibbs &P. Ostensson. 2002. Phylogeny of Rosoideae (Rosaceae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.Google Scholar
  239. Erwin, D. M. &H. E. Schorn. 2000. Revision ofLyonothamnus A. Gray (Rosaceae) from the Neogene of western North America. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161: 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Esser, H.-J. 2003. Variation in fruit characters of Euphorbiaceae—is there another subfamily? Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 149 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
  241. Evans, R. C., L. A. Alice, C. S. Campbell, E. A. Kellogg &T. A. Dickinson. 2000. The granule-bound starch synthase (GBSSI) gene in the Rosaceae: multiple loci and phylogenetic utility. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 17: 388–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. — &C. S. Campbell. 2002. The origin of the apple subfamily (Maloideae: Rosaceae) is clarified by DNA sequence data from duplicated GBSSI genes. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1478–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. — &T. A. Dickinson. 2002. How do studies of comparative ontogeny and morphology aid in elucidation of relationships within the Rosaceae? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.Google Scholar
  244. —,C. S. Campbell, D. Potter, D. Morgan, T. Eriksson, L. Alice, S.-H. Oh, E. Bortiri, F. Gao, J. Smedmark &M. Arsenault. 2002. A Rosaceae phylogeny. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.Google Scholar
  245. Evans, T. M., R. B. Faden &M. G. Simpson. 2000a. Homoplasy in the Commelinaceae: a comparison of different classes of morphological characters. Pp. 557–566in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  246. —,—,— &K. J. Sytsma. 2000b. Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: I. A cladistic analysis of morphological data. Syst. Bot. 25: 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. —,K. J. Sytsma, R. B. Faden &T. J. Givnish. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: II. A cladistic analysis of rbcL sequences and morphology. Syst. Bot. 28: 270–292.Google Scholar
  248. Fan, C. &Q.-Y. Xiang. 2003. Phylogenetic analyses of Cornales based on 26S rRNA and combined 26S rDNA-matK-rbcL sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1357–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. Farmer, S. B. 2006. Phylogenetic analyses and biogeography of Trilliaceae. Aliso 22: 579–592Google Scholar
  250. — &E. E. Schilling. 2002. Phylogenetic analyses of Trilliaceae based on morphological and molecular data. Syst. Bot. 27: 674–692.Google Scholar
  251. —,P. J. Rudall, S. Sullivan, K. L. Stobart, A. Y. de Bruijn, F. Qamaruz-Zaman, W.-P. Hong, J. Joseph, W. J. Hahn, J. G. Conran &M. W. Chase. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of Asparagales based on four plastid DNA regions. Pp. 360–371in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  252. Fay, M. F., B. Bremer, G. T. Prance, M. van der Bank, D. Bridson &M. W. Chase. 2000. Plastid rbcL sequence data showDialypetalanthus to be a member of Rubiaceae. Kew Bull. 55: 853–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  253. —,M. W. Chase, N. Rønsted, D. S. Devey, Y. Pillon, J. C. Pires, G. Petersen, O. Seberg &J. I Davis. 2006a. Phylogenetics of Liliales: summarized evidence from combined analyses of five plastid and one mitochondrial loci. Aliso 22: 559–565.Google Scholar
  254. —,P. J. Rudall &M. W. Chase. 2006b. Molecular studies of subfamily Gilliesioideae (Alliaceae). Aliso 22: 367–371.Google Scholar
  255. —,P. J. Rudall, S. Sullivan, K. L. Stobart, A. Y. de Bruijn, G. Reeves, F. Qamaruz-Zaman, W.-P. Hong, J. Joseph, W. J. Hahn, J. G. Conran &M. W. Chase. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of Asparagales based on four plastid DNA regions. Pp. 360–371in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  256. Feild, T. S., N. C. Arens &T. E. Dawson. 2003. The ancestral ecology of angiosperms: emerging perspectives from extant basal lineages. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(3 Suppl.): S129-S142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. —,M. A. Zwieniecki &N. M. Holbrook. 2000. Winteraceae evolution: an ecophysiological perspective. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. Feng, C., D. Thomas &J. Q.-Y. Jenny. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships and biogeography of Alangiaceae—integrating evidence from DNA sequences, morphology, and fossils. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 23.Google Scholar
  259. Figlar, R. B. &H. P. Nooteboom. 2004. Notes on Magnoliaceae. Blumea 49: 87–100.Google Scholar
  260. Fior, S., P. O. Karis &A. A. Anderberg. 2003. Phylogeny, taxonomy, and systematic position ofClethra (Clethraceae, Ericales) with notes on biogeography: evidence from plastid and nuclear DNA sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 997–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  261. Fishbein, M. 2001. Evolutionary innovation and diversification in the flowers of Asclepiadaceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 603–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. — &D. E. Soltis. 2004. Further resolution of the rapid radiation of Saxifragales (Angiosperms, Eudicots) supported by mixed-model Bayesian analysis. Syst. Bot. 29: 853–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  263. Fiz, O., M. L. Alarcón &J. J. Aldasoro. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships and evolution inErodium (Geraniaceae) based on trnL-trnF sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 739–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. Floyd, S. K. &W. E. Friedman. 2001. Developmental evolution of endosperm in basal angiosperms: evidence fromAmborella (Amborellaceae),Nuphar (Nymphaeaceae), andIllicium (Illiciaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  265. Forest, F., A. Bruneau, J. A. Hawkins, T. Kajita, J. J. Doyle &P. R. Crane. 2002. The sister of the Leguminosae revealed phylogenetic relationships in the Fabales determined using trnL and rbcL sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 124.Google Scholar
  266. —,V. Savolainen, M. W. Chase, R. Lupia, A. Bruneau &P. R. Crane. 2005. Teasing apart molecularversus fossil-based error estimates when dating phylogenetic trees: a case study in the birch family (Betulaceae). Syst. Bot. 30: 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  267. Forrest, L. L. &P. M. Hollingsworth. 2003. A recircumscription ofBegonia based on nuclear ribosomal sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 241: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. —,M. Hughes &P. M. Hollingsworth. 2005. A phylogeny ofBegonia using nuclear ribosomal sequence data and morphological characters. Syst. Bot. 30: 671–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  269. Fortune Hopkins, H. C. &R. D. Hoogland. 2002. Cunoniaceae. Fl. Males. 16: 53–165.Google Scholar
  270. Freudenstein, J. V. &M. W. Chase. 2001. Analysis of mitochondrialnadlb-c intron sequences in Orchidaceae: utility and coding of length-change characters. Syst. Bot. 26: 643–657.Google Scholar
  271. — &D. M. Senyo. 1999. What does morphology tell us about orchid relationships?—a cladistic analysis. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  272. —,— &M. W. Chase. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA and relationships in the Orchidaceae. Pp. 421–429in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  273. —,C. van den Berg, D. H. Fukuhara, T. H. Nagamasu &H. Okada. 2003. Floral vasculature, sporogenesis and gametophyte development inPentastemona egregia (Stemonaceae). Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 73: 83–90.Google Scholar
  274. —,—,D. H. Goldman, P. J. Kores, M. Molvray &M. W. Chase. 2004. An expanded plastid DNA phylogeny of Orchidaceae and analysis of jackknife branch support strategy. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  275. —,—,W. M. Whjitten, K. M. Cameron, D. H. Goldman &M. W. Chase. 2001. A multilocus combined analysis of Epidendroideae (Orchidaceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 113.Google Scholar
  276. Friedman, W. B., W. N. Gallup &J. H. Williams. 2003. Female gametophyte development inKadsura: implications for Schisandraceae, Austrobaileyales, and the early evolution of flowering plants. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S293-S305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  277. Friis, E. M., J. A. Doyle, P. K. Endress &Q. Leng. 2003. Archaefructus—angiosperm precursor or specialized early angiosperm? Trends Pl. Sci. 8: 369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. —,K. R. Pedersen &P. R. Crane. 2000. Reproductive structure and organization of basal angiosperms from the Early Cretaceous (Barremian or Aptian) of western Portugal. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S169-S182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. Fritsch, E. M., B. C. Cruz, F. Almeda, Y. Yang &S. Shi. 2006. Phylogeny ofSymplocos based on DNA sequences of the chloroplast trnC-trnD intergenic region. Syst. Bot. 31: 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. Fritsch, P. W. 2001. Phylogeny and biogeography of the flowering plant genusStyrax (Styracaceae) based on chloroplast DNA restriction sites and DNA sequences of the internal transcribed spacer region. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 129: 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. —,F. Almeda &S. R. Manchester. 2006a. Phylogeny and classification of Symplocaceae: stasis, ranks, and the fossil record. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 67.Google Scholar
  282. —,B. C. Cruz, F. Almeda, Y. Wang &S. Shi. 2006b. Phylogeny ofSymplocos based on DNA sequences of the chloroplast trnC-trnD intergenic region. Syst. Bot. 31: 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  283. —,C. M. Morton, T. Chen &C. Meldrum. 2001. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Styracaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162(6 Suppl.): S95-S116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  284. Fukuhara, T., H. Nagamasu &H. Okada. 2003. Floral vasculature, sporogenesis and gametophyte development inPentastemona egregia (Stemonaceae). Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 73: 83–90.Google Scholar
  285. Funk, V. A., R. Chan &S. C. Keeley. 2004. Insights into the evolution of the tribe Arctoteae (Compositae: subfamily Cichorioideae s.s.) using trnL-F, ndhF, and ITS. Taxon 53: 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  286. — &H.-G. Kim. 2001. An evaluation of the proposed sister group relationships of the tribe Liabeae (Compositae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 114.Google Scholar
  287. Furness, C. A. &P. J. Rudall. 1999. Microsporogenesis in monocotyledons. Ann. Bot. (London) 84: 475–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  288. ——. 2000. The systematic significance of simultaneous cytokinesis during microsporogenesis in monocotyledons. Pp. 189–193in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  289. ——. 2001. The tapetum in basal angiosperms: early diversity. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  290. ——. 2003. Apertures with lids: distribution and significance of operculate pollen in monocotyledons. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 835–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  291. ——. 2006a. Comparative structure and development of pollen and tapetum in Pandanales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 167:331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  292. ——. 2006b. The operculum in pollen of monocotyledons. Aliso 22: 191–196.Google Scholar
  293. —— &A. Eastman. 2002. Contribution of pollen and tapetal characters to the systematics of Triuridaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 235: 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  294. Fuse, S. &M. N. Tamura. 2000. A phylogenetic analysis of the plastid matK gene with emphasis on Melanthiaceae sensu lato. Pl. Biol. 2: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  295. Gandolfo, M. A., K. C. Nixon &W. L. Crepet. 2000. Monocotyledons: a review of their Early Cretaceous records. Pp. 44–51in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  296. —,——. 2002. Triuridaceae fossil flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1940–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  297. Gengler-Nowak, K. 2002. Phenetic analyses of morphological traits in theMalesherbia humilis complex (Malesherbiaceae). Taxon 51: 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  298. —. 2003. Molecular phylogeny and taxonomy of Malesherbiaceae. Syst. Bot. 28: 333–344.Google Scholar
  299. Geuten, K., E. Smets, P. Schols, Y.-M. Yuan, S. Janssens, P. Küpfer &N. Pyck. 2004. Conflicting phylogenies of balsaminoid families and the polytomy in Ericales: combining data in a Bayesian framework. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 31: 711–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  300. Gillespie, E., C. Bush &K. A. Kron. 2006. Phylogeny of Ericoideae (Ericaceae) based on multiple nuclear and chloroplast genes. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 67.Google Scholar
  301. Giulietti, A. M., V. L. Scatena, P. T. Sano, L. R. Parra, L. P. de Queiroz, R. M. Harley, N. L. Menezes, A. M. B. Ysepon, A. Salatino, M. L. Salatino, W. Vilegas, L. C. Santos, C. V. Ricci, M. C. P. Bonfim &E. B. Miranda. 2000. Multidisciplinary studies on neotropical Eriocaulaceae. Pp. 580–589in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  302. Giussani, L. M., J. H. Cota-Sanchez, E Zuloaga &E. A. Kellogg. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the subfamily Panicoideae (Poaceae) shows multiple origins of C4 photosynthesis. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1993–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  303. Givnish, T. J., T. M. Evans, J. C. Pires &K. J. Sytsma. 1999. Polyphyly and convergent morphological evolution in Commelinales and Commelinidae: evidence from rbcL sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 12: 360–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  304. —,—,M. L. Zjhra, P. E. Berry &K. J. Sytsma. 2000a. Molecular evolution, adaptive radiation, and geographic diversification in the amphiatlantic family Rapateaceae: evidence from ndhF sequences and morphology. Evolution 54: 1915–1937.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  305. —,—,K. Millam, P. Berry, J. Hall &K. Sytsma. 2002. South American-African disjunctions in Rapateaceae and Bromeliaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 176.Google Scholar
  306. —,K. C. Millam &K, J. Sytsma. 2000b. Phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary patterns in Bromeliaceae based on ndhF sequence variation. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 130 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  307. ——,T. M. Evans, J. C. Hall, J. C. Pires, P. E. Berry &K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Ancient vicariance or recent long-distance dispersal? Inferences about phylogeny and South American-African disjunctions in Rapateaceae and Bromeliaceae based on ndhF sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4): S35-S54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  308. —,J. C. Pires, S. W. Graham, M. C. McPherson, L. M. Prince, H. S. Rai, T. B. Patterson, E. H. Roalson, T. M. Evans, W. J. Hahn, K. C. Millam, A. W. Meerow, M. Molvray, P. J. Kores, H. E. O’Brien, J. C. Hall, W. J. Kress &K. J. Sytsma. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships of monocots based on the highly informative plastid gene ndhF: evidence for widespread concerted convergence. Aliso 22: 28–51.Google Scholar
  309. —,—,—,W. J. Hahn, D. H. Benzing &E. M. Burkhardt. 1997. Molecular evolution and adaptive radiation inBrocchinia (Bromeliaceae: Pitcairnioideae) atop tepuis of the Guayana Shield. Pp 259–311in T. J. Givnish & K. J. Sytsma (eds.), Molecular evolution and adaptive radiation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  310. Goertzen, L. R., J. J. Cannone, R. R. Gitell &R. K. Jansen. 2003. ITS secondary structure for a sequence alignment and phylogeny of the Asteraceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 29: 216–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  311. Goldberg, A. 2003. Character variation in angiosperm families. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 47: 1–185.Google Scholar
  312. — &H. A. Alden. 2005. Taxonomy ofHaptanthus Goldberg & C. Nelson. Syst. Bot. 30: 773–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  313. — &S. C. Nelson S. 1989.Haptanthus, a new dicotyledonous genus from Honduras. Syst. Bot. 14: 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  314. Goldblatt, P., T. J. Davies, J. C. Manning, M. van der Bank &V. Savolainen. 2006. Phylogeny of Iridaceae subfamily Crocoideae based on a combined multigene plastid DNA analysis. Aliso 22: 399–411.Google Scholar
  315. Gomez-Martinez, R. &A. Culham. 2000. Phylogeny of the subfamily Panicoideae with emphasis on the tribe Paniceae: evidence from the trnL-F cpDNA region. Pp. 136–140in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  316. González, F. &P. J. Rudall. 2001. The questionable affinities ofLactoris: evidence from branching pattern, inflorescence morphology, and stipule development. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2143–2150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  317. —,— &C. A. Furness. 2001. Microsporogenesis and systematics of Aristolochiaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 137: 221–242.Google Scholar
  318. Gottschling, M., N. Diane, H. H. Hilger &M. Weigend. 2004. Testing hypotheses on disjunctions present in the primarily woody Boraginales: Ehretiaceae, Cordiaceae, and Heliotropaceae, inferred from ITS1 sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4): S123-S135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  319. — &H. H. Hilger. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis and character evolution ofEhretia andBourreria (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales) based on ITS1 sequences. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 123: 249–268.Google Scholar
  320. —,—,M. Wolf &N. Diane. 2001. Secondary structure of the ITS1 transcript and its application in a reconstruction of the phylogeny of Boraginales. Pl. Biol. 3: 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  321. —,J. S. Miller, M. Weigend &H. H. Hilger. 2005. Congruence of a phylogeny of Cordiaceae (Boraginales) inferred from ITS1 sequence data with morphology, ecology, and biogeography. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 92: 425–437.Google Scholar
  322. Govaerts, R. &D. G. Frodin. 2002. World checklist and bibliography of Araceae (and Acoraceae). Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  323. —,— &T. D. Pennington. 2002. World checklist and bibliography of Sapotaceae. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  324. Graham, S. A. &T. B. Cavalcanti. 2001. New chromosome counts in the Lythraceae and a review of chromosome numbers in the family. Syst. Bot. 26: 445–458.Google Scholar
  325. —,J. Hall, K. Sytsma &S.-H. Shi. 2005. Phylogenetic analysis of the Lythraceae based on four gene regions and morphology. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 995–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  326. Graham, S. W., D. Cherniawsky, V. L. Biron &H. S. Rai. 2001. Commelinoid monocot phylogeny revisited, using a large chloroplast data set. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 116.Google Scholar
  327. — &R. G. Olmstead. 2000. Utility of 17 chloroplast genes for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1712–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  328. —,J. R. Kohn, B. R. Morton, J. E. Eckenwalder &S. C. H. Barrett. 1998. Phylogenetic congruence and discordance among one morphological and three molecular data sets from Pontederiaceae. Syst. Biol. 47: 545–567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  329. —,J. M. Zgurski, M. A. McPherson, D. M. Cherniawsky, J. M. Saarela, E. F. C. Horne, S. Y. Smith, W. A. Wong, H. E. O’Brien, V. L. Biron, J. C. Pires, R. G. Olmstead, M. W. Chase &H. S. Rai. 2006. Robust inference of monocot deep phylogeny using an expanded multigene plastid data set. Aliso 22: 3–21.Google Scholar
  330. Grass Phylogeny Working Group. 2000. A phylogeny of the grass family (Poaceae), as inferred from eight character sets. Pp. 3–7in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  331. —. 2001. Phylogeny and subfamilial classification of the grasses (Poaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 373–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  332. Grayum, M. H. 1993. Comparative external pollen ultrastructure of Araceae and putatively related taxa. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 43: 1–167.Google Scholar
  333. Green, E. P. &F. T. Short (eds.). 2003. World atlas of seagrasses. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  334. Greenwood, D. R. &J. G. Conran. 2000. The Australian Cretaceous and Tertiary monocot fossil record. Pp. 52–59in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  335. Greuter, W., J. McNeil, F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T. S. Filguiras, D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, P. Trehane, N. J. Turland & D. L. Hawksworth (eds.). 2000. International code of botanical nomenclature (St. Louis code) adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, Missouri, July–August 1999. Regnum Veg. 138: 1–474.Google Scholar
  336. Griffith, M. P. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the Opuntioideae (Cactaceae) based on nrITS sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.Google Scholar
  337. Grimaldi, D. 1999. The co-radiations of pollinating insects and angiosperms in the Cretaceous. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 373–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  338. Gunter, L. E., G. Kochert &D. E. Giannasi. 1994. Phylogenetic relationship of the Juglandaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 192: 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  339. Gustafsson, M. H. G. 1995. Petal venation in the Asterales and related orders. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 118: 1–18.Google Scholar
  340. —,V. Bittrick &P. F. Stevens. 2002. Phylogeny of Clusiaceae based on rbcL sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 1045–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  341. —,A. S.-R. Pepper, V. A. Albert &M. Källersjö. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the Barnadesioideae (Asteraceae). Nordic J. Bot. 21: 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  342. Hall, J. C., H. H. Iltis &K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Molecular phylogenetics of core Brassicales, placement of orphan generaEmblingia, Forchhammeria, Tirania, and character evolution. Syst. Bot. 29: 654–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  343. — &K. J. Sytsma. 2002. A new placement of members of tribe Stixeae (Capparaceae) based on DNA sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.Google Scholar
  344. —,— &H. H. Iltis. 2002. Phylogeny of Capparaceae and Brassicaceae based on chloroplast sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1826–1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  345. Harborne, J. B., C. A. Williams, B. G. Briggs &L. A. S. Johnson. 2000. Flavonoid patterns and the phylogeny of the Restionaceae. Pp. 672–675in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  346. Hardy, C. R. &R. B. Faden. 2004.Plowmanianthus, a new genus of Commelinaceae with five new species from tropical America. Syst. Bot. 29: 316–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  347. Harley, M. M. &M. S. Zavada. 2000. Pollen of the monocotyledons: selecting characters for cladistic analysis. Pp. 194–213in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  348. Harley, R. M. 2003. Validation of the name Lamioideae (Labiatae). Kew Bull. 58: 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  349. Harrington, M. G., K. J. Edwards, S. A. Johnson, M. W. Chase &P. A. Gadek. 2005. Phylogenetic inference in Sapindaceae sensu lato using plastid matK and rbcL DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 30: 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  350. Harris, P. J. 1998b. Cell-wall compositions of the Poaceae and related families. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 59.Google Scholar
  351. —. 2000. Composition of monocotyledon cell walls: implications for biosystematics. Pp. 114–126in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  352. Hartog, C. den. 2002. Potamogetonaceae, Zosteraceae, and Cymodoceaceae. Fl. Males. 16: 167–216.Google Scholar
  353. Hayashi, K., S. Yoshida, H. Kato, F. H. Utech, D. F. Whigham &S. Kawano. 1998. Molecular systematics of the genusUvularia and selected Liliales based on matK and rbcL gene sequence data. Pl. Spec. Biol. 13: 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  354. Hayes, V., E. L. Schneider &S. Carlquist. 2000. Floral development ofNelumbo nucifera (Nelumbonaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S183-S191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  355. Haynes, R. R. 1998b. Cell-wall compositions of the Poaceae and related families. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 59.Google Scholar
  356. — &L. B. Holm-Nielsen. 2001. The genera of Hydrocharitaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 201–275Google Scholar
  357. He, Z.-C, J.-Q. Li &H.-C. Wang. 2004. Karyomorphology ofDavidia involucrata andCamptotheca acuminata, with special reference to their systematic positions. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 144: 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  358. Heads, M. 2003. Ericaceae in Malesia: vicariance biogeography, terrane tectonics and ecology. Telopea 10: 211–449.Google Scholar
  359. Hempel, A. L., P. A. Reeves, R. G. Olmstead &R. K. Jansen. 1995. Implication of rbcL sequence data for higher order relationships of Loasaceae and the anomalous aquatic plantHydrostachys (Hydrostachyaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 194: 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  360. Henderson, F. M. &D. W. Stevenson. 2006. A phylogenetic study of Arecaceae based on seedling morphological and anatomical data. Aliso 22: 251–264.Google Scholar
  361. Henry, A. M. &K. B. Pigg. 2001. Hamamelidaceous infructescences from the Late Paleocene Almont, North Dakota flora. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 72.Google Scholar
  362. Henwood, M. J. &J. M. Hart. 2001. Towards an understanding of the phylogenetic relationships of Australian Hydrocotyloideae (Apiaceae). Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  363. Herber, B. E. 2002. Pollen morphology of the Thymelaeaceae in relation to its taxonomy. Pl. Syst. Evol. 232: 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  364. Herbert, J., M. W. Chase, M. Möller &R. J. Abbott. 2006. Nuclear and plastid DNA sequences confirm the placement of the enigmaticCanacomyrica monticola in Myricaceae. Taxon 55: 349–357.Google Scholar
  365. Herendeen, P. S. &S. Wing. 2001. Papilionoid legume fruits and leaves from the Paleocene of north-western Wyoming. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 65.Google Scholar
  366. Hermsen, E. J., W. L. Crepet &K. C. Nixon. 2000. A new fossil saxifragoid from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 69 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  367. Hershkovitz, M. A. 2000. Ribosomal DNA evidence and disjunctions of western American Portulacaceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 15: 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  368. Hesse, M. 2001. Pollen characters ofAmborella trichopoda (Amborellaceae): a reinvestigation. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  369. —. 2006. Pollen wall ultrastructure of Araceae and Lemnaceae in relation to molecular classifications. Aliso 22: 204–208.Google Scholar
  370. Hickey, L. J. &J. A. Doyle. 1977. Early Cretaceous fossil evidence for angiosperm evolution. Bot. Rev. 43: 3–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  371. Hilger, H. H. &N. Diane. 2003. A systematic analysis of Heliotropiaceae (Boraginales) based on trnL and ITS1 sequence data. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 125: 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  372. Hilu, K. W. 2000a. Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Chloridoideae (Poaceae) based on matK sequences: a preliminary assessment. Pp. 173–179in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett, Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  373. —. 2000b. Contributions of prolamin size diversity and structure to the systematics of the Poaceae. Pp. 241–247in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett, Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  374. — &L. A. Alice. 2001. A phylogeny of Chloridoideae (Poaceae) based on matK sequences. Syst. Bot. 26: 386–405.Google Scholar
  375. —,— &H. Liang. 1999. Phylogeny of Poaceae inferred from matK sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  376. —,T. Borsch, K. Müller, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, V. Savolainen, M. W. Chase, M. P. Powell, L. A. Alice, R. Evans, H. Sauquet, C. Heinhuis, T. A. B. Slotta, J. G. Rohwer, C. S. Campbell &L. W. Chatrou. 2003. Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence information. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1758–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  377. —,J. Rohwer, C. Neinhuis, T. Slotta, B. Gemeinholzer, M. Wink &L. A. Alice. 2000. Insight into the evolution of angiosperms: evidence from matK sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 133 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  378. —,—,V. Savolainen, P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, M. W. Chase. K. Muller, T. Slotta, M. Powell, L. Chatrou, J. G. Rohwer, H. Sauquet, P. Cuenoud, C. Neinhuis &L. A. Alice. 2001. Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence data. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 118.Google Scholar
  379. Ho, T.-N &S.-W Liu. 2001. A worldwide monograph ofGentiana. Science Press, Beijing, New York.Google Scholar
  380. Hoch, P. C. &W. L. Wagner. 2006. Toward a new classification for Onagraceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 226.Google Scholar
  381. Hodkinson, T. R., N. Salamin, M. W. Chase, Y. Bouchenak-Khelladi, S. A. Renvoize &V. Savolainen. 2007. Large trees, supertrees, and diversification of the grass family. Aliso 23: 248–258.Google Scholar
  382. Hoogland, R. D. &J. L. Reveal. 2005. Index nominum supragenericorum plantarum vascularum. Bot. Rev. 71: 1–291.Google Scholar
  383. Horn, J. W. 2002. Phylogenetics of the Dilleniaceae. Botany 2002, Abstracts: 128.Google Scholar
  384. —. 2004. The morphology and relationships of the Sphaerosepalaceae (Malvales). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 144: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  385. Horres, R., K. Schulte, K. Weising &G. Zizka. 2007. Systematics of Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae)—evidence from molecular and anatomical studies. Aliso 23: 27–43.Google Scholar
  386. Huang, M., K. Freudenstein &D. J. Crawford. 2002. Systematics ofTrichostema L. (Lamiaceae): evidence from ITS, ndhF, and morphology. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 128.Google Scholar
  387. Huang, S.-F., R. E. Ricklefs &P. H. Raven. 2002. Phylogeny and historical biogeography ofAcer I.—study history of the infrageneric classification. Taiwania 47: 203–218.Google Scholar
  388. Huang, Y.-L. &S.-H. Shi. 2002. Phylogenetics of Lythraceae sensu lato: a preliminary analysis based on chloroplast rbcL, gene, psaA-ycf 3 spacer, and nuclear rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  389. —,M. M. McMahon, A. M. Sherwood, G. Reeves &M. W. Chase. 2003. The major clades of Loasaceae: phylogenetic analysis using the plastid matK and trnL-trnF regions. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1215–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  390. Hufford, L. D., M. M. McMahon, R. O’Quinn &M. E. Poston. 2005. A phylogenetic analysis of Loasaceae subfamily Loasoideae based on plastid DNA sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  391. —,M. L. Moody &D. E. Soltis. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of Hydrangeaceae based on sequences of the plastid gene matK and their combination with rbcL and morphological data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 835–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  392. Huguet, V., M. Gouy, P. Normand, J. F. Zimpfer &M. P. Fernandez. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of Myricaceae: a reexamination of host-symbiont specificity. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 34: 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  393. Igersheim, A., M. Buzgo &P. K. Endress. 2001. Gynoecium diversity and systematics in basal monocots. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 136: 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  394. Islam, M. B., M. P. Simmons &R. H. Archer. 2006. Phylogeny of theElaeodendron group (Celastraceae) inferred from morphological characters and nuclear and plastid genes. Syst. Bot. 31: 512–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  395. Jacobs, S. W. L. &J. Everett (eds.). 2000. Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  396. —,J. D. Kingston &L. L. Jacobs. 1999. The origin of grass-dominated ecosystems. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 590–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  397. Jansen, R. K., C. Zhengqiu, D. Hansen, S. Dastidar, C. Peñaflor, R. Timme, K. Hansen, R. C. Haberle, T. W. Chumley, M. M. Guisinger-Bellian, H. Daniell, S.-B. Lee, L. A. Rabeson, R. Peery, C. W. Depamphilis, J. Lee-Bens-Mack, J. R. McNeal, J. Boore &J. V. Kuehl. 2006. Phylogeny of angiosperms based on whole chloroplast genome sequences. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 227–228.Google Scholar
  398. Jansen, S., P. Baas &E. Smets. 2001. Vestured pits: their occurrence and systematic importance to eudicots. Taxon 50: 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  399. —,F. Piesschaert &E. Smets. 2000a. Wood anatomy of Elaeagnaceae, with comments on vestured pits, helical thickenings, and systematic relationships. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  400. —,E. Robbrecht, H. Beeckman &E. Smets. 2002. A survey of the systematic wood anatomy of the Rubiaceae. I. A. W. A. J. 23: 1–67.Google Scholar
  401. —,L. P. Ronse Decraene &E. Smets. 2000b. On the wood and stem anatomy ofMonococcus echinolphorus (Phytolaccaceae s.l.). Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 70: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  402. Janssens, S., K. Geuten, Y.-M. Yuan, Y. Song, P. Küpfer &E. Smets. 2006. Phylogenetics ofImpatiens andHydrocera (Balsaminaceae) using chloroplast atpB-rbcL spacer sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  403. —,F. Lens, S. Dressler, K. Geuten, E. Smets &S. Vinckier. 2005. Palynological variation in balsaminoid Ericales. II. Balsaminaceae, Tetrameristaceae, Pellicieraceae and general conclusions. Ann. Bot. (London) 96: 1061–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  404. Jaramillo, M. A. &P. S. Manos. 2001. Phylogeny and patterns of floral diversity in the genusPiper (Piperaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 88: 706–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  405. Jeffrey, C. 2004. Systema compositarum (Asteracearum) nova. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 89(12): 1817–1822.Google Scholar
  406. Jeong, S. C., N. J. Ritchie &D. D. Myrold. 1999. Molecular phytogenies of plants andFrankia support multiple origins of actinorhizal symbioses. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 13: 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  407. Jessup, L. W. 2002. A new species ofEupomatia R. Br. (Eupomatiaceae) from Queensland. Austrobaileya 6: 333–335.Google Scholar
  408. Jian, S., P. S. Soltis, A. Dhingra, R. Li, Y.-L. Qiu, M.-J. Yoo, C. Bell &D. E. Soltis. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships and diversification within Saxifragales based on molecular data. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 229.Google Scholar
  409. Jobson, R. W., J. Playford, K. M. Cameron &V. A. Albert. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics of Lentibulariaceae inferred from plastid rps16 intron and trnL-F DNA sequences: implications for character evolution and biogeography. Syst. Bot. 28: 157–171.Google Scholar
  410. Johansen, L. B. 2005. Phylogeny ofOrchidantha (Lowiaceae) and the Zingiberales based on six DNA regions. Syst. Bot. 30: 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  411. Johnson, L. A., C. Ferguson, R. Patterson, J. M. Porter, L. A. Prather &D. Wilken. 2006. From its roots to its shoots: insights into diversification patterns and processes in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 68.Google Scholar
  412. Joly, S., L. Brouillet &A. Bruneau. 2001. Phylogenetic implications of the multiple losses of the mitochondrialcoxll. 13 intron in the angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  413. Judd, W. S. 1997. The Flacourtiaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 10: 65–79.Google Scholar
  414. —. 2003. The genera of Ruscaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 7: 93–149.Google Scholar
  415. — &R. G. Olmstead. 2004. A survey of tricolpate (eudicot) phylogenetic relationships. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1627–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  416. Judziewicz, E. J. &L. G. Clark. 2007. Classification and biogeography of New World grasses: Anomochlooideae, Pharoideae, Ehrhartoideae, and Bambusoideae. Aliso 23: 303–314.Google Scholar
  417. —,R. J. Soreng, G. Davidse, P. M. Peterson, T. S. Filgueiras &F. O. Zuloaga. 2000. Catalogue of New World grasses (Poaceae): I. Subfamilies Anomochlooideae, Bambusoideae, Ehrhartoideae, and Pharoideae. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 39: 1–128.Google Scholar
  418. Kaderei, G., L. Mucina &H. Freitag. 2006. Phylogeny of Salicornioideae (Chenopodiaceae): diversification, biogeography, and evolutionary trends in leaf and flower morphology. Taxon 55: 617–642.Google Scholar
  419. Kadereit, J. W. (ed.). 2004. The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. VII. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons: Lamiales (except Acanthaceae including Avicenniaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  420. —,T. Borsch, K. Weising &H. Freitag. 2003. Phylogeny of Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 959–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  421. Kajita, T., H. Ohashi, Y. Tateishi, C. D. Bailey &J. J. Doyle. 2001. rbcL and legume phylogeny, with particular reference to Phaseoleae, Millettieae, and allies. Syst. Bot. 26: 515–536.Google Scholar
  422. Källersjö, M. &B. Ståhl. 2003. Phylogeny of Theophrastaceae (Ericales s. lat.). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  423. —,G. Bergqvist &A. A. Anderberg. 2000. Generic realignment in primuloid families of the Ericales s.l.: a phylogenetic analysis based on DNA sequences from three chloroplast genes and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1325–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  424. —,J. S. Farris, M. W. Chase, B. Bremer, M. F. Fay, C. J. Humphries, G. Petersen, O. Seberg &K. Bremen 1998. Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analysis of 2538 rbcL DNA sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants and flowering plants. Pl. Syst. Evol. 213: 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  425. Kapralov, M. V., H. Akhani, E. V. Vozncsenskaya, G. Edwards, V. Franceschi &E. H. Roalson. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships in the Salicornioideae/Suaedoideae/Salsoloideae s.l. (Chenopodiaceae) clade and a clarification of the phylogenetic position ofBienertia andAlexandra using multiple DNA sequence data sets. Syst. Bot. 31: 571–585.Google Scholar
  426. Kårehed, J. 2001. Multiple origin of the tropical forest tree family Icacinaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2259–2274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  427. —. 2002. Not just hollies—the expansion of Aquifoliales.In Evolutionary studies in asterids emphasising euasterids II. Ph.D. diss., Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  428. —. 2003. The family Pennantiaceae and its relationships to Apiales. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  429. —,J. Lundberg, B. Bremer &K. Bremen 1999. Evolution of the Australasian families Alseuosmiaceae, Argophyllaceae, and Phellinaceae. Syst. Bot. 24: 660–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  430. —,E. A. Powell &E. Gillespie. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships among the core Ericales based on multiple data partitions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 69Google Scholar
  431. Karol, K. G., Y. Suh, G. E. Schatz &E. A. Zimmer. 2000. Molecular evidence for the phylogenetic position ofTakhtajania in the Winteraceae: inference from nuclear ribosomal and chloroplast gene spacer sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 414–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  432. Käss, E. &M. Wink. 1995. Molecular phylogeny of the Papilionoideae (family Leguminosae): rbcL gene sequences versus chemical taxonomy. Bot. Acta 108: 149–162.Google Scholar
  433. Kato, M., Y. Kita &S. Koi. 2003. Molecular phylogeny, taxonomy and biogeography ofMalaccotristicha australis comb. nov. (syn.Tristicha australis) (Podostemaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 16: 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  434. Keating, R. C. 2000. Anatomy of the young vegetative shoot ofTakhtajania perrieri (Winteraceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  435. —. 2004. Vegetative anatomical data and the relationship to a revised classification of the genera of Araceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 91: 485–494.Google Scholar
  436. Kelchner, S. A., J. G. West, M. C. Crisp &R. J. Chinnock. 2001. The CaribbeanBontia daphnoides and its Australian family Myoporaceae (Lamiales): evidence of an extreme dispersal event from morphological data and rpl16 intron sequences. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 92.Google Scholar
  437. Kellogg, E. A. 2000. Molecular and morphological evolution in the Andropogoneae. Pp. 149–158in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  438. Kelly, L. M. &F. González. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Aristolochiaceae. Syst. Bot. 28: 236–249.Google Scholar
  439. Keras, L. E. 2003. Capparaceae. Pp. 36–56in K. Kubitzki & C. Bayer (eds.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. II. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Magnoliid, hamamelid and caryophyllid families. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  440. Kim, H.-G., V. A. Funk &E. A. Zimmer. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics of the Liabeae (Asteraceae-Cichorioideae) based on ITS and ndhF sequences. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 121.Google Scholar
  441. Kim, S., J. Koh, H. Ma, Y. Hu, P. K. Endress, B. A. Hauser, M. Buzgo, P. S. Soltis &D. E. Soltis. 2005. Sequence and expression studies of A-, B-, and E-class MADS-Box homologues inEupomatia (Eupomatiaceae): support for the bracteate origin of the calyptra. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  442. —,C.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim &Y. Suh. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in family Magnoliaceae inferred from ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 717–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  443. Kimball, R. T., D. J. Crawford, D. H. Les &E. Landolt. 2003. Out of Africa: molecular phylogenetics and biogeography ofWolffiella (Lemnaceae). J. Linn. Soc., Biol. 79: 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  444. Kite, G. C., R. J. Grayer, P. J. Rudall &M. S. J. Simmonds. 2000. The potential for chemical characters in monocotyledon systematics. Pp. 101–113in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.) Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  445. Klaassen, R. 1999. Wood anatomy of the Sapindaceae. I. A. W A. J. Suppl. 2: 1–214.Google Scholar
  446. Klak, C., T. A. Hedderson &H. P. Linder. 2003. A molecular systematic study of theLampranthus group (Aizoaceae) based on the chloroplast trnL-trnF and nuclear ITS and 5s NTS sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 70–85.Google Scholar
  447. —,A. Khunou, G. Reeves &T. Hedderson. 2003. A phylogenetic hypothesis for the Aizoaceae (Caryophyllales) based on four plastid DNA regions. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1433–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  448. Koch, M., I. A. Al-Shehbaz &K. Mummenhoff. 2003. Molecular systematics, evolution, and population biology in the mustard family (Brassicaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  449. —,B Haubold &T. Mitchell-Olds. 2001. Molecular systematics of the Brassicaceae: evidence from coding plastidic matK and nuclearChs sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 534–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  450. Kocyan, A. &P. K. Endress. 2001a. Floral structure and development ofApostasia andNeuwiedia (Apostasioideae) and their relationships to other Orchidaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 847–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  451. ——. 2001b. Floral structure and development and systematic aspects of some ‘lower’ Asparagales. Pl. Syst. Evol. 229: 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  452. —,Y.-L. Qiu, P. K. Endress &E. Conti. 2004. A phylogenetic analysis of Apostasioideae (Orchidaceae) based on ITS, trnL-F and matK sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 247: 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  453. Kong, H.-Z., Z.-D. Chen &A.-M. Lu. 2002. Phylogeny ofChloranthus (Chloranthaceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid trnL-F sequences data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 940–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  454. —,A.-M. Lu &P. K. Endress. 2002. Floral organogenesis ofChloranthus sessilifolius, with special emphasis on the morphological nature of the androecium ofChloranthus (Chloranthaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 232: 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  455. Kores, P. J., P. H. Weston, S. D. Hopper, A. P. Brown, K. M. Cameron &M. W. Chase. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of Diurideae (Orchidaceae) based on plastid DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1903–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  456. Kornhall, P., N. Heidari &B. Bremen 2001. Selagineae and Manuleeae, two tribes or one? Phylogenetic studies in the Scrophulariaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  457. Kosenko, V. N. 2001. Palynological data on the systematics of the superorder Lilianae. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 86(8): 1–17.Google Scholar
  458. Kress, W. J., L. M. Prince &K. J. Williams. 2002. The phylogeny and a new classification of the gingers (Zingiberaceae): evidence from molecular data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1682–1696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  459. — &C. D. Specht. 2006. The evolutionary and biogeographic origin and diversification of the tropical monocot order Zingiberales. Aliso 22: 621–631.Google Scholar
  460. Kristiansen, K. A., M. Cilieborg, L. Drabkova, T. Jorgensen, G. Petersen &O. Seberg. 2005. DNA taxonomy—the riddle ofOxychloë (Juncaceae). Syst. Bot. 30: 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  461. Kron, K. A. 2002. The distribution and diversification of tropicalVaccinium (blueberries) andGaultheria (wintergreens). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 177.Google Scholar
  462. —,E. A. Powell &E. Gillespie. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships among the core Ericales based on multiple data partitions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 69.Google Scholar
  463. —,P. F. Stevens, D. M. Crayn, A. A. Anderberg, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn &J. L. Luteyn. 2002. Phylogenetic classification of Ericaceae: molecular and morphological evidence. Bot. Rev. 68: 335–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  464. Krosnick, S. E. &J. V. Freudenstein. 2005. Monophyly and floral character homology of Old WorldPassiflora (subgenusDecaloba; supersectionDisemma). Syst. Bot. 30: 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  465. Kubitski, K. (ed.). 2004. The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. VI. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons: Celastrales, Oxalidales, Rosales, Cornales, Ericales. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  466. — &C. Bayer (eds.). 2003. The families and genera of vascular plants, Vol. V. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons: Malvales, Capparales, and non-betalain Caryophyllales. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  467. Kvacek, Z., S. R. Manchester &S-X. Guo. 2001. Trifoliolate leaves ofPlatanus bella (Heer) comb. n. from the Paleocene of North America, Greenland, and Asia and their relationships among extinct and extant Platanaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  468. Kyndt, T., E. Romeijn-Peeters, B. Van Groogenbroek, J. P. Romero-Motochi, G. Gheejsen &P. Goetghebeur. 2005a. Species relationships in the genusVasconsellea (Caricaceae) based on molecular and morphological evidence. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1033–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  469. —,B. Van Droogenbroeck, E. Romeijn-Peeters, J. P. Romero-Motochi, X. Scheldeman, P. Goetghebeur, P. Van Damme &G. Gheysen. 2005b. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of Caricaceae based on rDNA internal transcribed spacers and chloroplast sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 37: 442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  470. Lamb-Frye, A. S. &K. A. Kron. 2003. rbcL phylogeny and character evolution in Polygonaceae. Syst. Bot. 28: 326–332.Google Scholar
  471. Lamont, B. B., R. Wittkuhn &D. Korczynskyj. 2004. Ecology and ecophysiology of grasstrees. Austral. J. Bot. 52: 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  472. Larsen, K. 2002. Caryophyllaceae. Fl. Males. 16: 1–51.Google Scholar
  473. Lavin, M., R. T. Pennington, B. B. Klitgaard, J. I. Sprent, H. C. de Lima &P. E. Gasson. 2001. The dalbergioid legumes (Fabaceae): delimitation of a pantropical monophyletic clade. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 503–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  474. Lee, D. W., Y. K. Pin &L. F. Yew. 1975. Serological evidence on the distinctness of the monocotyledonous families Flagellariaceae, Hanguanaceae and Joinvilleaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 70: 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  475. Lee, J., B. G. Baldwin &L. D. Gottlieb. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among the primarily North American genera of Cichorieae (Compositae) based on analysis of 18S-26S nuclear rDNA ITS and ETS sequences. Syst. Bot. 28: 616–626.Google Scholar
  476. Lee, S. &J. Wen. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis ofPrunus and the Amygdaloideae (Rosaceae) using ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  477. Leitch, I. J. &L. Hanson. 2002. DNA C-values in seven families fill phylogenetic gaps in the basal angiosperms. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  478. Lendel, A., U. Eggli &R. Nyffeler. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships in the tribe Trichocereeae (Cactaceae) inferred from cpDNA sequence data analysis. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 233.Google Scholar
  479. Lens, F., S. Dressler, S. Vinckier, S. Janssens, S. Dessein, L. Van Evelghem &E. Smets. 2005. Palynological variation in balsaminoid Ericales. I. Marcgraviaceae. Ann. Bot. (London) 96: 1047–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  480. —,P. Baas, S. Jensen &E. Smets. 2006. The usefulness of systematic wood anatomy in Ericales. A case study in Lecythidaceae s.l. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 69.Google Scholar
  481. —,P. Gasson, E. Smets &S. Jansen. 2003a. Comparative wood anatomy of epacrids (Styphelioideae, Ericaceae s.l.) Ann. Bot. (London) 91: 835–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  482. —,S. Jansen, P. Caris, L. Serlet &E. Smets. 2005. Comparative wood anatomy of the primuloid clade (Ericales s.l.). Syst. Bot. 30: 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  483. —,L. van Evelghem, S. Huysmans, S. Jansen &E. Smets. 2003b. Wood anatomy and pollen morphology of Marcgraviaceae. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 60 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  484. Leopold, E. B. 2000. How well do pollen corroborate Eocene leaf taxa?—Florissant Formation, Colorado, a case study. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 70 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  485. Les, D. H. &D. J. Crawford. 1999.Landoltia (Lemnaceae), a new genus of duckweeds. Novon 9: 530–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  486. —,—,R. T. Kimball, M. L. Moody &E. Landolt. 2002a. Biogeography of cosmopolitan hydrophytes: a molecular appraisal of intercontinental disjunctions. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 177.Google Scholar
  487. —,—,E. Landolt, J. D. Gabel &R. T. Kimball. 2002b. Phylogeny and systematics of Lemnaceae, the duckweed family. Syst. Bot. 27: 221–240.Google Scholar
  488. —,M. L. Moody &S. W. L. Jacobs. 2005. Phylogeny and systematics ofAponogeton (Aponogetonaceae): the Australian species. Syst. Bot. 30: 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  489. —,—,— &R. J. Bayer. 2001. Systematics and taxonomy of Australian seagrasses (family Zosteraceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 123.Google Scholar
  490. —— &C. L. Soros. 2006. A reappraisal of phylogenetic relationships in the monocotyledon family Hydrocharitaceae (Alismatidae). Aliso 22: 211–230.Google Scholar
  491. Levin, R. A., W. L. Wagner, P. C. Hoch, W. J. Hahn, A. Rodriguez, D. A. Baum, L. Katinas, E. A. Ziurina &K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Paraphyly in tribe Onagreae: insights into phylogenetic relationships of Onagraceae based on nuclear and chloroplast sequence data. Syst. Bot. 29: 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  492. —,—,—,M. Nepokroeff, J. C. Pires, E. A. Zimmer &K. J. Sytsma. 2003. Family-level relationships of Onagraceae based on chloroplast rbcL and ndhF data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  493. Lewis, C. E. &J. J. Doyle. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of the nuclear gene malate synthase in the palm family (Arecaceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  494. Li, J. &A. L. Bogle. 2001. A new suprageneric classification system of the Hamamelidoideae based on morphology and sequences of nuclear and chloroplast DNA. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 499–515.Google Scholar
  495. — &J. G. Conran. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Magnoliaceae subfam. Magnolioideae: a morphological cladistic analysis. Pl. Syst. Evol. 242: 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  496. —,J. Alexander III,T. Ward, P. del Tredici &R. Nicolson. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Empetraceae inferred from sequences of chloroplast gene matK and nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS region. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 25: 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  497. —,Z.-D Chen, A.-M. Lu, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis &P. S. Manos. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships in Fagales based on DNA sequences from three genomes. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 311–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  498. —,J. Yue &S. Shoup. 2006. Phylogenetics ofAcer (Aceroideae, Sapindaceae) based on nucleotide sequences of two chloroplast non-coding regions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 511.Google Scholar
  499. Liede, S. 2001. Subtribe Astephaninae (Apocynaceae-Asclepiadoideae) reconsidered: new evidence based on cpDNA spacers. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 657–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  500. Linder, H. P. &N. P. Barker. 2000. Biogeography of the Danthonieae. Pp. 231–238in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  501. — &L. R. Caddick. 2001. Restionaceae seedlings: morphology, anatomy and systematic implications. Feddes Repert. 112: 59–80.Google Scholar
  502. —,B. G. Briggs &L. A. S. Johnson. 2000. Restionaceae: a morphological phylogeny. Pp. 653–660. In K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  503. —,P. Eldenäs &B. G. Briggs. 2003. Contrasting patterns of radiation in African and Australian Restionaceae. Evolution 57: 2688–2702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  504. Liston, A. 2003. A new interpretation of floral morphology inGarrya (Garryaceae). Taxon 52: 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  505. Litt, A. J. &M. Cheek. 2002.Korupodendron songweanum, a new genus and species of Vochysiaceae from west central Africa. Brittonia 54: 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  506. — &D. W. Stevenson. 2003a. Floral development and morphology of Vochysiaceae. I. The structure of the gynoecium. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1533–1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  507. ——. 2003b. Floral development and morphology of Vochysiacdeae. II. The position of the single fertile stamen. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1548–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  508. Liu, Z., G. Hao, T. Yibo, R. Leonard, L. Samuel, A. Lu &Z. Chen. 2006. Phytogeny and androecial evolution in Schisandraceae inferred from sequences of nrDNA ITS and cpDNA trnL-F regions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 23.Google Scholar
  509. Lledo, M. D., P. O. Karis, M. B. Crespo, M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2001. Phylogenetic position and taxonomic status of the genusAegialitis and subfamilies Staticoideae and Plumbaginoideae (Plumbaginaceae): evidence from plastid DNA sequences and morphology. Pl. Syst. Evol. 229: 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  510. Lohmann, L. G. 2006. Untangling the phytogeny of neotropical lianas (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 93: 304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  511. Loockerman, D. J., B. L. Turner &R. K. Jansen. 2003; Phylogenetic relationships within the Tageteae (Asteraceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF gene sequences. Syst. Bot. 28: 191–207.Google Scholar
  512. Lowrie, A., B. M. Plunkett &A. A. Oskolski. 2001. Early lineages in Apiales: insights from morphology, wood anatomy and molecular data. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  513. Lowry, P. P. II,T. Haevermans, J.-N. Labat, G. E. Schatz, J.-F. Leroy &A.-E. Wolf. 2000. Endemic families of Madagascar. V. A synoptic revision ofEremolaena, Pentachlaena andPerrierodendron (Sarcolaenaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 22: 11–31.Google Scholar
  514. Luckow, M., J. T. Miller, D. J. Murphy &T. Livshultz. 2002. A cladistic analysis of the subfamily Mimosoideae, Leguminosae, based on data from the chloroplast genes trnL and matK. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 134.Google Scholar
  515. Luna, I. &H. Ochogterena. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the genera of Theaceae based on morphology. Cladistics 20: 223–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  516. Lundberg, J. 2001. The asteralean affinity of the MauritianRoussea (Rousseaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 137: 267–276.Google Scholar
  517. — &K. Bremen 2003. A phylogenetic study of the order Asterales using one morphological and three molecular data sets. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 553–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  518. Lye, K. A. 2000. Achene structure and function of structure in Cyperaceae. Pp. 615–628in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  519. Ma, O. S. W. &R. M. K. Saunders. 2003. Comparative floral ontogeny ofMaesa (Maesaceae),Aegiceras (Myrsinaceae), andEmbelia (Myrsinaceae): taxonomic and phylogenetic implications. Pl. Syst. Evol. 243: 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  520. Mabberley, D. J. 1997. The plant-book. Ed. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  521. Macphail, M.K., A. D. Partridge &E. M. Truswell. 1999. Fossil pollen records of the problematical primitive angiosperm family Lactoridaceae in Australia. Pl. Syst. Evol. 214: 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  522. Magallon, S. 2000. Extinct and extant Hamamelidoideae: phytogeny and character evolution. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 141 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  523. —,P. R. Crane &P. S. Herendeen. 1999. Phylogenetic pattern, diversity, and diversification of eudicots. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 297–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  524. —,P. S. Herendeen &P. R. Crane. 2001.Androdecidua endressii gen. et sp. nov., from the Late Cretaceous of Georgia (United States): further floral diversity in Hamamelidoideae (Hamamelidaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 963–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  525. Malécot, V., D. L. Nickrent, P. Baas, L. van den Oever &D. Lobreau-Callen. 2004. A morphological cladistic analysis of Olacaceae. Syst. Bot. 29: 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  526. Manchester, S. R. 2001a. Leaves and fruits ofDavidia (Cornales) from the Paleocene of North America. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 67.Google Scholar
  527. —. 2001b. Leaves and fruits ofAesculus (Sapindales) from the Paleocene of North America. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 985–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  528. —. 2002. Leaves and fruit ofDavidia (Cornales) from the Paleocene of North America. Syst. Bot. 27: 368–382.Google Scholar
  529. — &M. J. Donoghue. 1995. Winged fruits of Linnaeeae (Caprifoliaceae) in the Tertiary of western North America:Diplodipelta gen. nov. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 156: 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  530. Manns, U. &A. A. Anderberg. 2005a. Molecular phylogeny ofAnagallis (Myrsinaceae) based on ITS, trnL-F, and ndhF sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 1019–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  531. ——. 2005b. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Crossosomatales (Crossosomataceae, Stachyuraceae, Staphyleaceae, Aphloiaceae, Geissolomataceae, Ixerbaceae, Strasburgeriaceae). J. Linn. Soc, Bot. 147: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  532. ——. 2005c. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Celastrales (Celastraceae, Parnassiaceae, Lepidobotryaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 149: 129–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  533. Manos, P. S. &D. E. Stone. 2001. Evolution, phylogeny, and systematics of the Juglandaceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 231–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  534. —,Z.-K. Zhou &C. H. Cannon. 2001. Systematics of Fagaceae: phylogenetic tests of reproductive trait evolution. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 1361–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  535. Martínez-Millán, M. S., R. S. Cevallos-Ferriz &T. Terrazas-Salgado. 2002. Leaf architecture of Anacardiaceae, phylogeny and biogeography. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 61.Google Scholar
  536. Martins, T. R. &T. J. Barkman. 2005. Reconstruction of Solanaceae phylogeny using the nuclear gene SAMT. Syst. Bot. 30: 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  537. Mast, A., P. H. Weston, E. Jones, H. Sauquet, D. Cantrill, G. Jordan &N. Barker. 2006. The timing of disjunctions in the southern hemisphere family Proteaceae: sensitivity analysis with 6 genes, multiple calibration points, and 70+ genera. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 24.Google Scholar
  538. Mathews, S. 2006. The positions ofCeratophyllum and Chloranthaceae inferred from phytochrome data. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 238.Google Scholar
  539. — &M. J. Donoghue. 2000. Basal angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochromes A and C. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S41-S55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  540. Matthews, M. L. &P. K. Endress. 2002a. Combination of Elaeocarpaceae and Tremandraceae supported by floral structure. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 12.Google Scholar
  541. ——. 2002b. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Oxalidales (Oxalidaceae, Connaraceae, Brunelliacerae, Cephalotaceae, Cunoniaceae, Elaeocarpaceae, Tremandraceae.) Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 321–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  542. ——. 2004. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Cucurbitales (Corynocarpaceae, Coriariaceae, Tetramelaceae, Datiscaceae, Begoniaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Anisophylleaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 145: 129–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  543. ——. 2005a. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Crossosomatales (Crossosomataceae, Stachyuraceae, Staphyleaceae, Aphloiaceae, Geissolomataceae, Ixerbaceae, Strasburgeriaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 147: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  544. ——. 2005b. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Celastrales (Celastraceae, Parnassiaceae, Lepidobotryaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 149: 129–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  545. ——. 2006. Malpighiales: comparative floral structure of Chrysobalanaceae s.l. and other supporting clades. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 102.Google Scholar
  546. —,—,J. Schönenberger &E. M. Friis. 2001. Anisophylleaceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.Google Scholar
  547. —,R. C. Tsai &E. A. Kellogg. 2000. Phylogenetic structure in the grass family (Poaceae): evidence from the nuclear gene phytochrome B. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  548. Mayuzumi, S. &H. Ohba. 2004. The phylogenetic position of eastern Asian Sedoideae (Crassulaceae) inferred from chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 29: 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  549. McCauley, R.A. 2002. Toward a preliminary phylogeny of the American Gomphrenoideae (Amaranthaceae): morphology and ITS1 sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 137–138.Google Scholar
  550. McClain, A. M. &S. R. Manchester. 2001.Dipteronia (Sapindaceae) from the Tertiary of North America and implications for the phytogeographic history of the Aceroideae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1316–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  551. McDade, L. A., T. F. Daniel &C. A. Kiel. 2006. Relationships among the major lineages of Acanthaceae s.l.: The big picture. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 238–239.Google Scholar
  552. McKinney, L. E. &N. H. Russell. 2002. Violaceae of the southeastern United States. Castanea 67: 369–379.Google Scholar
  553. McNeill, J., F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, D. L. Hawksworth, K. Marhold, D. H. Nicolson, J. Prado, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, J. H. Wiersema & N. J. Turland (eds.). 2006. International code of botanical nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress Vienna, Austria, July 2005. Regnum Veg. 146: 1–568.Google Scholar
  554. Mcpherson, M. A. &S. W. Graham. 2001. Inference of Asparagales phylogeny using a large chloroplast data set. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.Google Scholar
  555. —,M. F. Fay, M. W. Chase &S. W. Graham. 2004. Parallel loss of a slowly evolving intron from two closely related families in Asparagales. Syst. Bot. 29: 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  556. —,—,—,C. L. Guy, Q.-B. Li, D. Snijman &S.-L. Yang. 2000. Phylogeny of Amaryllidaceae: molecules and morphology. Pp. 372–386in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  557. Meerow, A. W. &D. A. Snijman. 2001. Phylogeny of Amaryllidaceae tribe Amaryllideae based on nrDNA ITS sequences and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2321–2330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  558. ——. 2006. The never-ending story: multigene approaches to the phylogeny of Amaryllidaceae. Aliso 22: 355–366.Google Scholar
  559. —,M. F. Fay, M. W. Chase, C. L. Guy &Q.-B. Li. 1999a. The new phylogeny of the Amaryllidaceae. Herbertia 54: 180–202.Google Scholar
  560. —,—,C. L. Guy, Q.-B. Li, F. Q. Zaman &M. W. Chase. 1999b. Systematics of Amaryllidaceae based on cladistic analysis of plastid rbcL and trnL-F sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1325–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  561. Mello-Silva, R. de. 2000. Partial cladistic analysis ofVellozia and characters for the phylogeny of Velloziaceae. Pp. 505–522in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  562. Meney, K. A. &J. S. Pate (eds.). 1999. Australian rushes. Biology, identification and conservation of Restionaceae and allied families. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  563. Meng, S.-W, A. W. Douglas, D.-Z. Li, Z.-D. Chen, H.-X. Liang &J. B. Yang. 2003. Phylogeny of Saururaceae based on morphology and five regions from three genomes. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  564. Mennega, A. M. W. 2005. Wood anatomy of the subfamily Euphorbioideae. A comparison with subfamilies Crotonoideae and Acalyphoideae and the implications for the circumscription of the Euphorbiaceae. I. A. W. A. J. 26: 1–68.Google Scholar
  565. Merckx, V., P. Schols, H. Maas-van de Kamer, P. Maas, S. Huysmans &E. Smets. 2006. Phylogeny and evolution of Burmanniaceae (Dioscoreales) based on nuclear and mitochondrial data. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 1684–1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  566. Meve, U. 2002. Species numbers and progress in asclepiad taxonomy. Kew Bull. 57: 459–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  567. Michelangeli, F. A., J. I Davis &D. W. Stevenson. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among Poaceae and related families as inferred from morphology, inversions of the plastid genome, and sequence data from mitochondrial and plastid genomes. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  568. Mildbraed, J. 1908. Stylidiaceae. Pflanzenreich 4 (Heft 278): 1–98.Google Scholar
  569. Miller, A. J., D. A. Young &J. Wen. 2001. Phylogeny and biogeography ofRhus (Anacardiaceae) based on ITS sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 1401–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  570. Miller, J. S. 2003. Classification of Boraginaceae subfam. Ehretioideae: resurrection of the genusHilsenbergia Tausch. ex Meisn. Adansonia, ser. 3, 25: 151–189.Google Scholar
  571. Miller, J. T. &R. J. Bayer. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics ofAcacia (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) based on the chloroplast matK coding sequence and flanking trnK intron spacer regions. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  572. Miller, N. G. 2001. The Callitrichaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 277–301.Google Scholar
  573. Miller, R. B. 2002. Wood anatomy of Vochysiaceae with special reference toQualea andRuizterania. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 13.Google Scholar
  574. Mindell, R., S. J. Karafit &R. A. Stocky. 2006. Bisexual Platanaceae flowers and inflorescences from the Late Cretaceous of Vancouver Island, Canada. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 167–168.Google Scholar
  575. Mitchell, A. D., C. D. Meurk &S. J. Wagstaff. 1999. Evolution ofStilbocarpa, a megaherb from New Zealand’s sub-antarctic islands. New Zealand J. Bot. 37: 205–211.Google Scholar
  576. Moody, M. L., L. Hufford, D. E. Soltis &P. S. Soltis. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Loasaceae subfamily Gronovioideae inferred from matK and ITS sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  577. Morgan, D. R. &K. R. Robertson. 2002. Fruit evolution in Rosaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 109.Google Scholar
  578. Morley, R. J. &C. W. Dick. 2003. Missing fossils, molecular clocks and the origin of the Melastomataceae. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1638–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  579. Mort, M. E., D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, J. Francisco-Ortega &A Santos-Gierra. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of Crassulaceae inferred from matK sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  580. Morton, C. M. &M. Grant. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Aurantioideae (Rutaceae): a cladistic analysis using the Nuclear Internal Transcribed Spacer region. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 128.Google Scholar
  581. —,— &S. Blackmore. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships of the Aurantioideae inferred from chloroplast DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1463–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  582. Motley, T. J., K. J. Wurdack &P. G. Delprete. 2005. Molecular systematics of the Catesbaeeae-Chiococceae complex (Rubiaceae): flower and fruit evolution and biogeographic implications. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 316–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  583. Muasya, A. M., J. J. Bruhl, D. A. Simpson, A. Culham &M. W. Chase. 2000a. Suprageneric phylogeny of Cyperaceae: a combined analysis. Pp. 593–601in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  584. —,D. A. Simpson, M. W. Chase &A. Culham. 2000b. Phylogenetic relationships within the heterogeneousScirpus s. lat. (Cyperaceae) inferred from rbcL and trnL-F sequence data. Pp. 610–614in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  585. —,——. 2001. A phytogeny ofIsolepis (Cyperaceae) inferred using plastid rbcL and trnL-F sequence data. Syst. Bot. 26: 342–353.Google Scholar
  586. Mueller, K. F. &T. Borsch. 2002. A phylogeny based on matK sequence data reveals patterns of pollen evolution in Amaranthaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 142.Google Scholar
  587. —. 2005. Phylogenetics of Amaranthaceae based on matK/trnK sequence data—evidence from parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 92: 66–102.Google Scholar
  588. Muellner, A. N., R. Samuel, S. A. Johnson, M. Cheek, T. D. Pennington &M. W. Chase. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics of Meliaceae (Sapindales) based on nuclear and plastid DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 471–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  589. Müller, K., T. Borsch, L. Legendre, S. Porembski &W. Barthlott 2000. A phylogeny of Lentibulariaceae based on sequences of matK and adjacent non-coding regions. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 145–146 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  590. —,—,—,—,I. Theisen &W. Barthlott. 2004. Evolution of carnivory in Lentibulariaceae and the Lamiales. Pl. Biol. 6: 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  591. Munzinger, J. K. &H. E. Ballard Jr. 2003.Hekkingia (Violaceae), a new arborescent violet genus from French Guiana, with a key to genera in the family. Syst. Bot. 28: 345–351.Google Scholar
  592. Muschner, V. C., A. P. Lorenz, A. C. Cervi, S. L. Bonatto, T. T. Souza-Chies, F. M. Salzano &L. B. Freitas. 2003. A first molecular phylogenetic analysis ofPassiflora (Passifloraceae). Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1229–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  593. Neinhuis, C., S. Wanke, K. W. Hilu &T. Borsch. 2001. Peppers and pipevines: phylogenetic relationships within Piperales. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 129.Google Scholar
  594. Nelson S. C. 2002. Plantas descritas originalmente de Honduras y sus nomenclaturas equivalentes actuales. Ceiba 42: 1–71.Google Scholar
  595. Nepokroeff, M., W. L. Wagner, R. K. Rabeler, E. A. Zimmer, G. Weller &A. K. Sakai. 2002. Relationships within Caryophyllaceae inferred from molecular sequence data. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 105.Google Scholar
  596. Neves, S. S., L. A. Alice &K. W. Hilu. 2002. The root of the Chloridoideae (Poaceae) revisited: a preliminary assessment based on trnT-trnF and matK DNA. sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 143.Google Scholar
  597. Neyland, R. 2001. A phylogeny inferred from large ribosomal subunit (26S) rDNA sequences suggests thatCuscuta is a derived member of the Convolvulaceae. Brittonia 53: 108–115.Google Scholar
  598. —. 2002a. A phylogeny inferred from large subunit (26S) ribosomal DNA sequences suggests that Burmanniales are polyphyletic. Austral. Syst. Bot. 15: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  599. —. 2002b. A phylogeny inferred from large-subunit (26S) ribosomal DNA sequences suggests that the family Dasypogonaceae is closely aligned with the Restionaceae allies. Austral. Syst. Bot. 15: 749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  600. — &M. Hennigan. 2003. A phylogenetic analysis of large-subunit (26S) ribosome DNA sequences suggests that the Corsiaceae are polyphyletic. New Zealand J. Bot. 41: 1–11.Google Scholar
  601. Nickrent, D. L., A. Blarer, Y.-L. Qiu, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis &M. Zanis. 2002. Molecular data place Hydnoraceae with Aristolochiaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1809–1817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  602. Nikolova, I. &J. M. Canne-Hilliker. 2002. Comparative floral development ofAgalinis (Scrophulariaceae s.l.). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 13.Google Scholar
  603. Nowicke, J. W. &M. Takahashi. 2002. Pollen morphology, exine structure and systematics of Acalyphoideae (Euphorbiaceae), part 4, Tribes Acalypheae pro parte (Etythrococca, Claoxylon, Claoxylopis, Mareya, Mareyopsis, Discoclaoxylon, Micwcocca, Amyrea, Lobanilia, Mallotus, Deuteronmallotus, Cordemoya, Cococceras, Trewia, Neotrewia, Rockinghamia, Octospermum, Acalypa, Lasiococca, Spathiseomon, Homonoia), Plukenetieae (Haemantostemon, Astrococcus, Angostyles, Romanoa, Eleutherostigma, Plukenitia, Vigia, Cnesmone, Megistostigma, Spherostylis, Tragiella, Platygyna, Tragia, Acidoton, Pachystylidium, Dalechampia), Omphaeae (Omphalea), and discussion and summary of the complete subfamily. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 121: 231–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  604. Nyffeler, R. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the cactus family (Cactaceae) based on evidence from trnK/matK and trnL-trnF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 312–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  605. — &D. A. Baum. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of the durians (Bombacaceae-Durioneae or /Malvaceae/Helicteroideae/Durioneae) based on chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 224: 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  606. Oganezova, G. G. 2000a. Fruit and seed structure of some Asparagaceae s.l. in connection with the volume and phylogeny of the family. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 85(8): 14–32.Google Scholar
  607. —. 2000b. Systematic position of the Trilliaceae, Smilacaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Herreriaceae, Tecophilaeaceae families and the volume and phylogeny of the Asparagales (based on seed structure). Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 85(9): 9–25.Google Scholar
  608. Oh, I.-C., T. Denk &E. M. Friis. 2003. Evolution ofIllicium (Illiciaceae): mapping morphological characters on the molecular tree. Pl. Syst. Evol. 240: 175–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  609. Oh, S.-H. &P. S. Manos. 2006. Cups, nuts, and catkins: a phylogeny of Fagaceae based on CRABS CLAW sequences. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 246.Google Scholar
  610. -& D. Potter. 2002. Where doesGuametela belong? Botany 2002, Abstracts: 109.Google Scholar
  611. ——. 2006. Description and phylogenetic position of a new angiosperm family, Guamatelaceae, inferred from chloroplast rbcL, atpB, and matK sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  612. Ohashi, H. 2000.Petrosavia (Petrosaviaceae) in Taiwan and Hainan. Taiwania 45: 263–269.Google Scholar
  613. Ohi-Toma, T., T. Sugawara, H. Murata, S. Wanke, C. Neinhuis &J. Murata. 2006. Molecular phylogeny ofAristolochia sensu lato (Aristolochiaceae) based on sequences of rbcL, matK, and phyA genes, with special reference to differentiation of chromosome numbers. Syst. Bot. 31: 481–492.Google Scholar
  614. Olmstead, R. G. &D. Ferguson. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the Boraginaceae/Hydrophyllaceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 131.Google Scholar
  615. —,P. D. Cantino, B. Lepschi &P. A. Reeves. 2000. A molecular systematic study of the Prostanteroideae (Lamiaceae), including Chloantheae (formerly Verbenaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 148 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  616. —,C. W. Depamphilis, A. D. Wolfe, N. D. Young, W. J. Elisons &P. A. Reeves. 2001. Disintegration of the Scrophulariaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 348–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  617. —,K.-J. Kim, R. K. Jansen &S. J. Wagstaff. 2000. The phylogeny of the Asteridae sensu lato based on chloroplast ndhF gene sequences. Molec. Biol. Evol. 16: 96–112.Google Scholar
  618. —,J. A. Sweere, R. E. Spangler, L. Bohs &J. D. Palmer. 1999. Phylogeny and provisional classification of the Solanaceae based on chloroplast DNA. Pp. 111–137in M. Nee, D. E. Symon, R. N. Lester & J. P. Jessop (eds.), Solanaceae IV. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, England.Google Scholar
  619. Olson, M. E. 2002a. Combining data from DNA sequences and morphology for a phylogeny of Moringaceae (Brassicales). Syst. Bot. 27: 55–73.Google Scholar
  620. —. 2002b. Intergeneric relationships within the Caricaceae-Moringaceae clade (Brassicales) and potential morphological synapomorphies of the clade and its families. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  621. — &B. A. Schaal. 2002. Paleotropical Moringaceae and neotropical Caricaceae: vicariance or dispersal? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 178.Google Scholar
  622. —,J. F. Gaskin &F. Ghahremani-nejad. 2003. Stem anatomy is congruent with molecular phylogenies placingHypericopsis persica inFrankenia (Frankeniaceae): comments on vasicentric tracheids. Taxon 52: 525–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  623. Oskolski, A. A. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships within Apiales: evidence from wood anatomy. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  624. —. 2003. Systematic wood anatomy of Apiaceae and related taxa. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 80 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  625. — &P. P. Lowry II. 2000. Wood anatomy ofMackinlaya andApiopetalum (Araliaceae) and its systematic implications. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  626. Oxelman, B., P. Kornhall, R. G. Olmstead &B. Bremen 2005. Further disintegration of Scrophulariaceae. Taxon 54: 411–425.Google Scholar
  627. Padgett, D. J. &D. H. Les. 2001. Preliminary phylogenetic studies in the Menyanthaceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 131.Google Scholar
  628. —,— &G. E. Crow. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships inNuphar (Nymphaeaceae): evidence from morphology, chloroplast DNA, and nuclear ribosomal DNA. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1316–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  629. Padhye, M. D. &K. H. Makde. 1982. Pollen morphology of Cyperaceae. J. Palynol. 16: 71–81.Google Scholar
  630. Panero, J. L., B. G. Baldwin, E. E. Schilling &J. A. Clevinger. 2001. Molecular phylogenetic studies of members of tribes Helenieae, Heliantheae, and Eupatorieae (Asteraceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 131–132.Google Scholar
  631. Park, K-R. &W. J. Elisens. 2000. A phylogenetic study of tribe Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161:425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  632. Pedersen, L. B. 2001. Four new species ofOrchidantha (Lowiaceae) from Sabah. Nordic J. Bot. 21: 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  633. —. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of the subfamily Alpinoideae (Zingiberaceae), particularlyEtlingera Giseke, based on nuclear and plastid DNA. Pl. Syst. Evol. 245: 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  634. Pell, S. K. &L. E. Urbatsch. 2001. Tribal relationships and character evolution in the cashew family (Anacardiaceae): inferences from three regions of the chloroplast genome. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 132.Google Scholar
  635. Pennington, T. D., M. Lavin, H. Ireland, B. Klitgaard, J. Preston &J.-M. Hu. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of basal papilionoid legumes based upon sequences of the chloroplast trnL intron. Syst. Bot. 26: 537–556.Google Scholar
  636. Persson, C. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Polygalaceae based on plastid DNA sequences from the trnL-F region. Taxon 50: 763–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  637. Petersen, F. P. &D. E. Fairbrothers. 1980. Serological investigation of selected amentiferous taxa. Syst. Bot. 4: 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  638. —. 1985. A serotaxonomic appraisal of the “Amentiferae.” Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 112: 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  639. Petersen, G., O. Seberg, J. I Davis, D. H. Goldman, D. W. Stevenson, L. M. Campbell, F. A. Michelangeli, C. D. Specht, M. W. Chase, M. F. Fay, J. C. Pires, J. V. Freudenstein, C. R. Hardy &M. P. Simmons. 2006. Mitochondrial data in monocot phylogenetics. Aliso 22: 52–62.Google Scholar
  640. —,— &S. Larsen. 2002. The phylogenetic and taxonomic position ofLilaeopsis (Apiaceae) with notes on the applicability of ITS sequence data for phylogenetic reconstruction. Austral. Syst. Bot. 125: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  641. Peterson, P. M. 2000. Systematics of the Muhlenbergiinae (Chloridoideae: Eragrostideae). Pp. 195–212in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  642. Pfeil, B. E., C. L. Brubaker, L. A. Craven &M. D. Crisp. 2002. Phylogeny ofHibiscus and the tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) using chloroplast DNA sequences of ndhF and the rpl16 intron. Syst. Bot. 27: 333–350.Google Scholar
  643. —,M. Pfosser &F. Speta. 1999. Phylogenetics of Hyacinthaceae based on plastid DNA sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 852–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  644. Philbrick, C. T., A. Novelo R. & B. E. Irgang. 2004. Two new genera of Podostemaceae from the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Syst. Bot. 29: 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  645. Pigg, K. B., R. M. Dillhoff &M. L. Devore. 2006. New diversity among the Trochodendraceae from the Early Eocene McAbee and Early/Middle Epocene One Mile Creek floras, Okanogan Highlands of British Columbia, Canada. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 169.Google Scholar
  646. — &W. C. Wehr. 2000.Trochodendron (Trochodendraceae) from the early middle Eocene Republic Flora, Washington, USA. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 74 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  647. —,— &S. M. Ickert-Bond. 2001.Trochodendron andNordenskioldia (Trochodendraceae) from the Middle Eocene of Washington State, U.S.A. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 1187–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  648. Pires, J. C. &K. J. Sytsma. 2002. A phylogenetic evaluation of a biosystematic framework:Brodiaea and related petaloid monocots (Themidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1342–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  649. —,M. F. Fay, W. S. Davis, L. Hufford, J. Rova, M. W. Chase &J. Sytsma. 2001. Molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses of Themidaceae (Asparagales). Kew Bull. 56: 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  650. —,I. J. Maureira, T. J. Givnish, K. J. Sytsma, O. Seberg, G. Petersen, J. I Davis, D. W. Stevenson, P. J. Rudall, M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2006. Phylogeny, genome size, and chromosome evolution of Asparagales. Aliso 22: 287–304.Google Scholar
  651. —,—,J. P. Rebman, G. A. Salazar, L. I. Cabrera, M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2004. Molecular data confirm the phylogenetic placement of the enigmaticHesperocallis (Hesperocallidaceae) with Agave. Madrono 51: 307–311.Google Scholar
  652. Plana, V. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships of the Afro-Malagasy members of the large genusBegonia inferred from trnL intron sequences. Syst. Bot. 28: 693–704.Google Scholar
  653. Plotkin, M. S. &M. J. Sanderson. 1997. Molecular phylogenetic analysis and biogeography of Limnanthaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 84(6): 222–223 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  654. Plunkett, G. M. 2001. Relationship of the order Apiales to subclass Asteridae: a re-evaluation of morphological characters based on insights from molecular data. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  655. — &P. P. Lowry II. 2001. Relationships among ‘ancient araliads’ and their significance for the systematics of Apiales. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  656. —,G. T. Chandler, P. P. Lowry II,S. M. Pinney &T. S. Sprenkle. 2004a. Recent advances in understanding Apiales, with a revised classification. S. African J. Bot. 70: 371–381.Google Scholar
  657. — &P. P. Lowry II &M. K. Burke. 2001. The phylogenetic status ofPolyscias (Araliaceae) based on nuclear ITS sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  658. —,J. Wen &P. P. Lowry II. 2004b. Infrafamilial classifications and characters in Araliaceae: insights from the phylogenetic analysis of nuclear (ITS) and plastid (trnL-trnF) sequence data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 245: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  659. Poole, I. 2002. Systematics of Cretaceous and TertiaryNothofagoxylon: implications for southern hemisphere biogeography and evolution of the Nothofagaceae. Austral. Syst. Bot. 15: 247–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  660. Porter, J. M. &L. A. Johnson. 2000. Age and diversification and their implications for historical biogeography of Polemoniaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 150 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  661. Posluszny, U. &P. B. Tomlinson. 2002. Early floral development inAmborella trichopoda Baill. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 13.Google Scholar
  662. Potgieter, K. &V. S. Albert. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships within Apocynaceae s.l. based on trnL intron and trnL-F spacer sequences and propagule characters. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 523–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  663. Potter, D., F. Gao, P. E. Bortiri, S.-H. Oh &S. Baggett. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in Rosaceae inferred from chloroplast matK and trnL-trnF nucleotide sequence data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 231: 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  664. — &J. V. Freudenstein. 2005. Character-based phylogenetic Linnaean classification: taxa should be both ranked and monophyletic. Taxon 54: 1033–1035.Google Scholar
  665. Powell, E. A. &K. A. Kron. 2001. An analysis of the phylogenetic relationships in the wintergreen group (Diplocosia, Gaultheria, Pernettya, Tepuia; Ericaceae). Syst. Bot. 26: 808–817.Google Scholar
  666. Prakash, N. &M. Ramsey. 2000. Embryological development inBlandfordia andNeoastelia with comments on their systematic position. Pp. 214–217in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  667. Pridgeon, A. M., R. Solano &M. W. Chase. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Pleurothallidineae (Orchidaceae): combined evidence from nuclear and plastid DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2286–2308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  668. Prince, L. M. &W. J. Kress. 2006a. Phylogenetic relationships and classification in Marantaceae: insights from plastid DNA sequence data. Taxon 55: 281–296.Google Scholar
  669. —. 2006b. Phylogeny and biogeography of the prayer plant family: getting to the root problem in Marantaceae. Aliso 22: 643–659.Google Scholar
  670. — &C. R. Parks. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Theaceae inferred from chloroplast DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2309–2320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  671. Prychid, C. J. &P. J. Rudall. 2000. Distribution of calcium oxalate crystals in monocotyledons. Pp. 159–162in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  672. —,— &M. Gregory. 2004. Systematics and biology of silica-bodies in monocotyledons. Bot. Rev. 69: 377–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  673. Pyck, N. &E. Smets. 2001. Dipsacales phylogeny: combining chloroplast sequences with morphological evidence. Laboratory of Plant Systematics, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  674. —,A. Geeraerts, K. Geuten &E. Smets. 2003. Systematic relations in Ebenaceae: a survey based on nrDNA ITS sequence data. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 216 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
  675. Qin, H. N. 1989. An investigation on carpels of Lardizabalaceae in relation to taxonomy and phylogeny. Cathaya 1:61–82.Google Scholar
  676. Qiu, Y.-L., J. Lee, F. Bernasconi-Quadroni, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, M. Zanis, E. A. Zimmer, Z. Chen, V. Savolainen &M. W. Chase. 2000. Phylogeny of basal angiosperms: analyses of five genes from three genomes. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S3-S27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  677. —,L. Li, T. A. Hendry, R. Li, D. W. Taylor, M. J. Issa, A. J. Ronen, M. L. Vekaria &A. M. White. 2006. Reconstructing the basal angiosperm phylogeny: evaluating information content of mitochondrial genes. Taxon 55: 837–856.Google Scholar
  678. Quinn, C. J., D. M. Crayn, M. M. Heslewood, E. A. Brown &P. A. Gadek. 2003. A molecular estimate of the phylogeny of Styphelieae (Ericaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 16: 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  679. Quint, M. &R. Classen-Bockhoff. 2006. Phylogeny of Bruniaceae based on matK and its sequence data. Int. J. Plant Sci. 167: 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  680. Radtke, M. G., K. B. Pigg &W. Wehr. 2005. FossilCorylopsis andFothergilla leaves (Hamamelidaceae) from the lower Eocene flora of Republic, Washington, USA., and their evolutionary and biogeographic significance. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  681. Rahmanzadeh, R., K. Müller, E. Fischer, D. Bartels &T. Borsch. 2005. The Linderniaceae and Gratiolaceae are further lineages distinct from the Scropulariaceae (Lamiales). Pl. Biol. (Stuttgart) 7: 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  682. Rapini, A., M. W. Chase, D. J. Goyder &J. Griffiths. 2003. Asclepiadeae classification: evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of New World Asclepiadoideae (Apocynaceae). Taxon 52: 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  683. Rasmussen, F. N. 2000. Ins and outs of orchid phylogeny. Pp. 430–435in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  684. Reeves, G., M. W. Chase, P. Goldblatt, P. Rudall, M. F. Fay, A. V. Cox, B. Lejeune &T. Souza-Chies. 2001. Molecular systematics of Iridaceae: evidence from four plastid DNA regions. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2074–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  685. Remizowa, M. V., D. D. Sokoloff &P. J. Rudall. 2006. Patterns of floral structure and orientation inJaponolirion, Narthecium, andTofieldia. Aliso 22: 159–171.Google Scholar
  686. Renner, S. S. 1999. Circumscription and phylogeny of the Laurales: evidence from molecular and morphological data. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1301–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  687. — &A. S. Chanderbali. 2000. What is the relationship among Hernandiaceae, Lauraceae, and Monimiaceae, and why is this question so difficult to answer? Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S109-S119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  688. — &T. J. Givnish. 2002. Tropical intercontinental disjunctions: Gondwana break-up, immigration from the boreotropics, and transoceanic dispersal. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 175.Google Scholar
  689. —. 2004. Tropical intercontinental disjunctions: Gondwana break-up, immigration from the boreotropics, and transoceanic dispersal. Int. J. Plant Sci. 165(4): S1-S6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  690. — &G. Hausner. 2005. Monograph of Siparunaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 95: 1–256.Google Scholar
  691. — &K. Meyer. 2001. Melastomeae come full circle: biogeographic reconstruction and molecular clock dating. Evolution 55: 1315–1324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  692. — &A. Weerasooriya. 2002a. Roles of Gondwana break-up and transoceanic dispersal in the evolution of Hernandiaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 168.Google Scholar
  693. ——. 2002b. Phylogeny ofPistia and its 16 closest generic relatives among Aroideae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 168.Google Scholar
  694. —,G. Clausing &K. Meyer. 2001. Historical biogeography of Melastomataceae: the roles of Tertiary migration and long-distance dispersal. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1290–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  695. —,D. B. Forman &D. Murray. 2000. Timing transantarctic disjunctions in the Atherospermataceae (Laurales): evidence from coding and noncoding chloroplast sequences. Syst. Biol. 49: 579–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  696. —,A. Weerasooriya &M. E. Olson. 2002. Phylogeny of Cucurbitaceae inferred from multiple chloroplast loci. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 169.Google Scholar
  697. Reveal, J. L. 1995-onward. Index nominum supragenericorum plantarum vascularium. [http://www.life.umd.edu/emeritus/reveal/pbio/WWW/supragen.html]Google Scholar
  698. — &C. S. Pires. 2002. Phylogeny and classification of the monocotyledons: an update. Pp. 3–36in Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 26. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.Google Scholar
  699. Riedl, H. 1997. Boraginaceae. Fl. Males. 13: 43–144.Google Scholar
  700. Rivadavia, F., K. Kondo, M. Kato &M. Hasebe. 2003. Phylogeny of the sundews,Drosera (Droseraceae), based on chloroplast rbcL and nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  701. Rix, M. &A. Jackson. 2004.Berberidopsis beckleri. Bot. Mag. 21: 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  702. Roalson, E. H., J. K. Boggan, L. E. Skog &E. A. Zimmer. 2005. Untangling Gloxinieae (Gesneriaceae). 1. Phylogenetic patterns and generic boundaries inferred from nuclear, chloroplast, and morphological cladistic data sets. Taxon 54: 389–410.Google Scholar
  703. —,J. T. Columbus &E. A. Friar. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Cariceae (Cyperaceae) based on ITS (nrDNA) and trnT-L-F (cpDNA) region sequences: assessment of subgeneric and sectional relationships inCarex with emphasis on sectionAcrocystis. Syst. Bot. 26: 318–341.Google Scholar
  704. Robinson, H. &D. C. Taylor. 1999. The status of the pitcairnioid genera of the Bromeliaceae. Harvard Pap. Bot. 4: 195–202.Google Scholar
  705. Roels, P. &E. Smets. 1996. A floral ontogenetic study in the Dipsacales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 157: 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  706. Rogers, Z. S. 2005. A revision ofOctolepis Oliv. (Thymelaeaceae, Octolepidoideae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 27: 89–111.Google Scholar
  707. Rönblom, K. &A. A. Anderberg. 2002. Phylogeny of Diapensiaceae based on molecular data and morphology. Syst. Bot. 27: 383–395.Google Scholar
  708. Ronse Decraene, L. P. &E. Smets. 2001. Floral developmental evidence for the systematic relationships ofTropaeolum (Tropaeolaceae). Ann. Bot. (London) 88: 879–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  709. — &L. Wanntorp. 2006. Evolution of floral characters inGunnera (Gunneraceae). Syst. Bot. 31: 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  710. —,P. K. Endress &J. S. Faris. 2003. Gunnerales are sister to other core eudicots: implications for the evolution of pentamery. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  711. —,H. P. Linder, T. Diamini &E. Smets. 2001. Evolution and development of floral diversity of Melianthaceae, an enigmatic southern African family. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  712. —,P. S. Soltis &D. E. Soltis. 2003. Evolution of floral structures in basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S329-S363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  713. Ross, E. S. 2003.Rafflesia: the super flower. Calif. Wild 56(3): 8–11.Google Scholar
  714. Rothwell, G. W., M. R. Van Atta, H. E. Ballard Jr. &R. A. Stockey. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic relationships among Lemnaceae and Araceae using the chloroplast trnL-trnF intergenic spacer. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 30: 378–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  715. Rova, J. H. E., P. G. Delprete, L. Andersson &V. A. Albert. 2002. A trnL-F cpDNA sequence study of the Condamineeae-Rondeletieae-Sipaneeae complex with implications on the phylogeny of the Rubiaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  716. Rudall, P. 2003a. Unique floral structures and iterative evolutionary themes in Asparagales: insights from a morphological cladistic analysis. Bot. Rev. 68: 488–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  717. —. 2003b. Monocot pseudanthia revisited: floral structure of the mycoheterotrophic family Triuridaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S307-S320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  718. — &R. M. Bateman. 2006. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of Pandanales: testing contrasting hypotheses of floral evolution. Syst. Bot. 31: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  719. — &G. Campbell. 1999. Flower and pollen structure of Ruscaceae in relation to Aspidistreae and other Convallariaceae. Flora 194: 201–214.Google Scholar
  720. — &N. G. Sajo. 1999. Systematic position ofXyris: flower and seed anatomy. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 160: 795–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  721. —,J. Cunniff, M. S. Box, A. Strange &R. M. Bateman. 2006. Fascicles and filamentous structures: comparative ontogeny of morphological novelties in Triuridaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 106–107.Google Scholar
  722. —,—,P. Wilkin &L. R. Caddick. 2005. Evolution of dimery, pentamery and the monocarpellary condition in the monocot family Stemonaceae (Pandanales). Taxon 54: 701–711.Google Scholar
  723. —,D. W. Stevenson &H. P. Linder. 1999. Structure and systematics ofHanguana, a monocotyledon of uncertain affinity. Austral. Syst. Bot. 12: 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  724. —,K. L. Stobart, W.-P. Hong, J. G. Conran, C. A Furness. G. C. Kite &M. W. Chase. 2000. Consider the lilies: systematics of Liliales. Pp. 347–359in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  725. Rutschmann, F., T. Eriksson, J. Shönenberger &E. Conti. 2004. Did Crypteroniaceae really disperse out-of-India? Molecular dating evidence from rbcL, ndhF, and rpl16 intron sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4 Suppl): S69-S83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  726. Sampson, F. B. 2000. The pollen ofTakhtajania perrieri (Winteraceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  727. —. 2000. Pollen diversity in some modern magnoliids. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S193-S210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  728. Samuel, R., H. Kathriarachchi, P. Hoffmann, M. H. J. Barfuss, K. J. Wurdack, C. C. Davis &M. W. Chase. 2005. Molecular phylogenetics of Phyllanthaceae: evidence from plastid matK and nuclear PHYC sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  729. Sanchez-Ken, J. G. & L. G. Clark. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships within the Centothecoideae + Panicoideae clade (Poaceae) based on dnhF and rpL16 sequences and structural data. Aliso 23.Google Scholar
  730. Sanders, R. W. 2001. The genera of Verbenaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 303–358.Google Scholar
  731. Sands, M. J. S. 2001. The desert date and its relatives: a revision of the genusBalanites. Kew Bull. 56: 1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  732. Santiago-Valentin, E. &R. G. Olmstead. 2003. Phylogenetics of the Antillean Goetzeoideae (Solanaceae) and their relationships within the Solanaceae based on chloroplast and ITS DNA sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 452–460.Google Scholar
  733. Sauquet, H. &A. Le Thomas. 2003. Pollen diversity and evolution in Myristicaceae (Magnoliales). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  734. —,J. A. Doyle, T. Schjaraschkin, T. Boersch, K. W. Hilu, L. W. Chatrou &A. Le Thomas. 2003. Phylogenetic analysis of Magnoliales and Myristicaceae based on multiple data sets: implications for character evolution. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 142: 125–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  735. Savinov, I. A. 2003. Comparative carpology of the genusSphenostemon (Sphenostemonaceae) in the context of its taxonomy and phylogeny. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 88(2): 5–16.Google Scholar
  736. Savolainen, V., M. W. Chase, S. B. Hoot, C. M. Morton, D. E. Soltis, C. Bayer, M. F. Fay, A. Y. de Bruijn, S. Sullivan &Y.-L. Qiu. 2000a. Phylogenetics of flowering plants based upon a combined analysis of plastid atpB and rbcL gene sequences. Syst. Biol. 49: 306–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  737. —,M. F. Fay, D. C. Albach, A. Backlund, M. van der Bank, K. M. Cameron, S. A. Johsnon, M. D. Lledo, J.-C. Pintaud, M. Powell, M. C. Sheahan, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, P. Weston, W. M. Whitten, K. J. Wurdack &M. W. Chase. 2000b. Phylogeny of the eudicots: a nearly complete familial analysis based on rbcL gene sequences. Kew Bull. 55: 257–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  738. Schatz, G. E. 2000. The rediscovery of a Malagasy endemic:Takhtajania perrieri (Winteraceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  739. — &P. P. Lowry II. 2004. A synoptic revision ofBrexia (Celastraceae) in Madagascar. Adansonia, ser. 3, 26:67–81.Google Scholar
  740. —,—,P. P. Lowry II &A.-E. Wolf. 1998. Endemic families of Madagascar. 1. A synoptic revision ofMelanophylla Baker (Melanophyllaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 20: 233–242.Google Scholar
  741. —,——. 2000. Endemic families of Madagascar. VI. A synoptic revision ofRhodolaena (Sarcolaenaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 22: 239–252.Google Scholar
  742. —,——. 2001. Endemic families of Madagascar. VII. A synoptic revision ofLeptolaena Thouars sensu stricto (Sarcolaenaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 23: 171–189.Google Scholar
  743. Scherer, J., G. Upchurch &G. Mack. 2006. A new species ofPandanites from the Maastrichtian of south-central New Mexico: implications for the history of Pandanaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 170–171.Google Scholar
  744. Schmidt, G. J. &E. E. Schilling. 2000. Phylogeny and biogeography ofEupatorium (Asteraceae: Eupatorieae) based on nuclear ITS sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 716–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  745. Schneider, E. L. &S. Carlquist. 2001. SEM studies on vessel elements of Saururaceae. I. A. W. A. J. 22: 183–192.Google Scholar
  746. —. 2005. Origin and nature of vessels in monocotyledons. 6.Hanguana (Hanguanaceae). Pacific Sci. 59: 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  747. —,S. C. Tucker &P. S. Williamson. 2003. Floral development in the Nymphaeales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S279-S292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  748. Schneider, J. V., M. Siebich &G. Zizka. 2003. Systematics and evolution of the Quiinaceae (Malpighiales). Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 100 (abstr.).Google Scholar
  749. —,U. Swenson &G. Zizka. 2002. Phylogenetic reconstruction of the neotropical family Quiinaceae (Malpighiales) based on morphology with remarks on the evolution of androdioecious sex distribution. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 89: 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  750. Schönenberger, J. 2006. Comparative floral structure of Polemoniaceae and Fouquieriaceae in light of their phylogenetic position in the Ericales. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 70.Google Scholar
  751. — &E. Conti. 2003. Molecular phylogeny and floral evolution of Penaeaceae, Oliniaceae, Rhynchocalycaceae, and Alzateaceae (Myrtales). Amer. J. Bot. 90: 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  752. — &E.M. Friis. 2001. Fossil flowers of ericalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of southern Sweden. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  753. —,A. A. Anderberg &K. J. Sytsma. 2005. Molecular phylogenetics and patterns of floral evolution in the Ericales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  754. —,R. K. Petersen &E. M. Friis. 2001.Normapolles flowers of fagalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of Portugal. Pl. Syst. Evol. 226: 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  755. Schols, P., C. A Furness, F. Wilkin, E. Smets, V. Ciales &S. Huysmans. 2003. Pollen morphology ofDioscorea (Dioscoreaceae) and its relation to systematics. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 143: 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  756. Schultheis, L. M. &M. J. Donoghue. 2004. Molecular phylogeny and biogeography ofRibes (Grossulariaceae), with an emphasis on gooseberries (subg.Grossularia). Syst. Bot. 29: 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  757. Schwarzbach, A. E. &L. A. McDade. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the mangrove family Avicenniaceae based on chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 27: 84–98.Google Scholar
  758. — &R. E. Ricklefs. 2000. Systematic affinities of Rhizophoraceae and Anisophylleaceae, and intergeneric relationships within Rhizophoraceae, based on chloroplast DNA, nuclear ribosomal DNA and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  759. ——. 2002. Tropical intercontinental disjunctions in Rhizophoraceae: vicariance or long distance dispersal? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 178.Google Scholar
  760. Scotland, R. W. 2000. Are angiosperms firmly rooted? Taxon 49: 529–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  761. — &K. Vollesen. 2000. Classification of Acanthaceae. Kew Bull. 55: 513–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  762. — &A. H. Wortley. 2003. How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 52: 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  763. Seelanan, T., A. Schnabel &J. F. Wendel. 1997. Congruence and consensus in the cotton tribe (Malvaceae). Syst. Bot. 22: 259–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  764. Senters, A. E. &D. E. Soltis. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships inRibes (Grossulariaceae) inferred from ITS sequence data. Taxon 52: 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  765. Sheppherd, K. A., T. D. Macfarlane &T. D. Colmer. 2005. Morphology, anatomy, and histochemistry of Salicornioideae (Chenopodiaceae) fruits and seeds. Ann. Bot. (London) 95: 917–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  766. Shi, S.-H., Y. Huang, Y. Zhong, Y. Du, Q. Zhang, H. Chang &D. E. Boufford. 2001. Phylogeny of the Altingiaceae based on cpDNA, matK,PY-IGS and nrDNA ITS sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 230: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  767. Shipunov, A. B. 2005. The system of flowering plants. Version 4.8. [http://www.herba.msu.ru/ shipunov/ang/ang-en.htm]Google Scholar
  768. Silberbauer-Gottsberger, I., G. Gottsberger &A. C. Webber. 2003. Morphological and functional flower characteristics of New and Old World Annonaceae with respect to their mode of pollination. Taxon 52: 701–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  769. Simmons, M. P. 2004. Celastraceae. Pp. 29–64in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. VI. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Celastrales, Oxalidales, Rosales, Cornales, Ericales. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  770. —,C. C. Clevinger, M. W. Chase, P. K. Endress &P. R. Crane. 2004. The diversification of flowering plants. Pp. 154–167in J. Cracraft & M. J. Donoghue (eds.), Assembling the tree of life. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  771. —,—,V. Savolainen, R. H. Archer, S. Mathew &J. J. Doyle. 2001. Phylogeny of the Celastraceae inferred from phytochrome B gene sequence and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  772. —,V. Savolainen, C. C. Clevinger, R. H. Archer &J. I Davis. 2001. Phylogeny of the Celastraceae inferred from 26S nuclear ribosomal DNA, phytochrome B, rbcL, atpB, and morphology. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  773. Simmons, S. L. &J. L. Panero. 2000. Phylogeny and biogeography of Staphyleaceae (DC.) Lindl. Amer. J. Bot. 57(6): 157 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  774. Simon, B. K. 2007. Grass phylogeny and classification: conflict of morphology and molecules. Aliso 23: 259–266.Google Scholar
  775. Simpson, B. B., A. Weeks, D. M. Helfgott &L. L. Larkin. 2004. Species relationships inKrameria (Krameriaceae) based on ITS sequences and morphology: implications for character utility and biogeography. Syst. Bot. 29: 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  776. Simpson, D. A., C. A. Furness, T. R. Hodkinson, A. M. Muasya &M. W. Chase. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Cyperaceae subfamily Mapanioideae inferred from pollen and plastid DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1071–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  777. —,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, A. A. Reznicek, R. Nieuwborg, 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. Aliso 23: 72–83.Google Scholar
  778. Simpson, M. G. &D. H. Burton. 2006. Systematic floral anatomy of Pontederiaceae. Aliso 22: 499–519.Google Scholar
  779. —,L. Aerne, M. F. Fay &S. Hopper. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the Haemodoraceae using morphological and molecular data and implications for classification and character evolution. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 257.Google Scholar
  780. Sleumer, H. 1980b. Flacourtiaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 22: 1–499.Google Scholar
  781. Smets, E. F., L. P. Ronse Decraene, P. Caris &P. J. Rudall. 2000. Floral nectaries in monocotyledons: distribution and evolution. Pp. 230–240in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  782. Smith, S. Y. &R. A. Stockey. 2006. Fossil perianthless Piperales: a saururaceous inflorescence and flowers with in situ pollen from the Princeton Chert [British Columbia]. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 172.Google Scholar
  783. Soejima, A. &J. Wen. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the grape family (Vitaceae) based on three chloroplast markers. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  784. Soltis, D. E. &P. S. Soltis. 2004.Amborella not a “basal angiosperm”? Not so fast. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 997–1001.Google Scholar
  785. —,M. E. Mort, P. S. Soltis, C. Hibsch-Jetter, E. A. Zimmer &D. Morgan. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic angiosperm family Podostemaceae inferred from 18S rDNA and rbcL sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 11: 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  786. —,A. E. Senters, M. J. Zanis, S. Kim, J. D. Thompson, P. S. Soltis, L. P. Ronse Decraene, P. K. Endress &J. S. Faris. 2003. Gunnerales are sister to other core eudicots: implications for the evolution of pentamery. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  787. —,—,—,—,—,—,M. G. Simpson, M. L. Aerne, M. F. Fay &S. Hopper. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the Haemodoraceae using morphological and molecular data and implications for classification and character evolution. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 257.Google Scholar
  788. —,—,M. J. Zanis &S. Kim. 2000. Basal lineages of angiosperms: relationships and implications for floral evolution. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S97-S107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  789. —,—,M. D. Bennett &I. J. Leitch. 2003. Evolution of genome size in the angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1596–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  790. —,—,M. W. Chase, P. K. Endress &P. R. Crane. 2004. The diversification of flowering plants. Pp. 154–167in J. Cracraft & M. J. Donoghue (eds.), Assembling the tree of life. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  791. —,—,M. W. Chase, M. E. Mort, D. C. Albach, M. Zanis, V. Savolainen, W. H. Hahn, S. B. Hoot, M. F. Fay, M. Axtell, S. M. Swensen, K. C. Nixon &J. S. Farris. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from a combined data set of 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 133: 381–461.Google Scholar
  792. —,—,M. E. Mort, M. W. Chase, V. Savolainen, S. B. Hoot &C. M. Morton. 1998. Inferring complex phylogenies using parsimony: an empirical approach using three large DNA datasets for angiosperms. Syst. Biol. 47: 32–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  793. —,—,—,M. Zanis, M. Fishbein, L. Hufford, J. Koontz &M. K. Arroyo. 2001. Elucidating deep-level phylogenetic relationships in Saxifragaceae using sequences for six chloroplastic and nuclear DNA regions. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  794. Soltis, P. S. &D. E. Soltis. 2001. Molecular systematics: assembling and using the Tree of Life. Taxon 50: 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  795. ——. 2004. The origin and diversification of angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1614–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  796. Song, B.-H, X.-Q. Wang, F.-Z. Li &C.-Y. Hong. 2001. Further evidence for paraphyly of the Celtidaceae from the chloroplast gene matK. Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  797. Song, Z.-C., W.-M. Wang &H. Fei. 2004. Fossil pollen records of extant angiosperms in China. Bot. Rev. 70: 425–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  798. Soreng, R. J. &J. I Davis. 2000. Phylogenetic structure in Poaceae subfamily Pooideae as inferred from molecular and morphological characters: misclassification versus reticulation. Pp. 61–74in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  799. Soros, C. L. &D. H. Les. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in the Alismataceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 143.Google Scholar
  800. ——. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the Alismataceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 152.Google Scholar
  801. Sosa, V. &M. W. Chase. 2003. Phylogenetics of Crossosomataceae based on rbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 96–105.Google Scholar
  802. —,— &C. Barcenas. 2003.Chiangiodendron (Achariaceae): an example of the Laurasian flora of tropical forests of Central America. Taxon 52: 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  803. Spalik, K. &S. R. Downie. 2001. The utility of morphological characters for inferring phylogeny in Scandiceae subtribe Scanicinae (Apiaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 270–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  804. Specht, C. D. 2006. Gondwanan vicariance or dispersal in the tropics? The biogeographic history of the tropical monocot family Costaceae (Zingiberales). Aliso 22: 633–644.Google Scholar
  805. — &D. W. Stevenson. 2001. A phylogeny of Costaceae: implications concerning floral morphology. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 143.Google Scholar
  806. ——. 2006. A new phylogeny-based generic classification of Costaceae (Zingiberales). Taxon 55: 153–163.Google Scholar
  807. Stace, C. A. 2000. Cytology and cytogenetics as a fundamental taxonomic resource for the 20th and 21st centuries. Taxon 49: 451–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  808. —. 2005. Plant taxonomy and biosystematics—does DNA provide all the answers? Taxon 54: 999–1007.Google Scholar
  809. Staedler, Y. M., P. H. Weston &P. K. Endress. 2006. Floral architecture and phyllotaxis in Calycanthaceae (Laurales). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.Google Scholar
  810. Starr, J. R., V. Teoh, E. Roalson, A. M. Muasya &D. A. Simpson. 2006. Towards a phylogenetic classification of sedges (Cyperaceae): chloroplast (rbcL, matK, ndhF) and nuclear (ADC) data. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 258–259.Google Scholar
  811. Steane, D. A., K. L. Wilson &R. S. Hill. 2003. Using matK sequence data to unravel the phylogeny of Casuarinaceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 28: 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  812. Stedje, B. 2001. Generic delimitation of Hyacinthaceae, with special emphasis on sub Saharan genera. Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 71: 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  813. Stefanović, S., D. F. Austin &R. G. Olmstead. 2003. Classification of Convolvulaceae: a phylogenetic approach. Syst. Bot. 28: 791–806.Google Scholar
  814. —,L. Krueger &R. G. Olmstead. 2002. Monophyly of the Convolvulaceae and circumscription of their major lineages based on DNA sequences of multiple chloroplast loci. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1510–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  815. Stevens, P. F. 2000. Botanical systematics 1950–2000: change, progress, or both? Taxon 49: 635–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  816. -. 2001. Angiosperm phylogeny website. [http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/ welcome.html].Google Scholar
  817. Stevenson, D. W., J. I Davis, J. V. Freudenstein, C. R. Hardy, M. P. Simmons &C. C. Specht. 2000. A phylogenetic analysis of the monocotyledons based on morphological and molecular character sets, with comments on the placement ofAcorus and Hydatellaceae. Pp. 17–24in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  818. Stockey, R. A. 2006. The fossil record of basal monocots. Aliso 22: 91–106.Google Scholar
  819. Stone, R. D. 2006. Phylogeny of major lineages in Melastomataceae, subfamily Olisbeoideae: utility of nuclear glyceraldehydes 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GapC) gene sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  820. Strother, J. L. 1977. Tageteae: systematic review. Pp 769–783in V.H. Heywood, J. B. Harbourne & B. L. Turner (eds.), The biology and chemistry of the Compositae. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  821. Struwe, L. 2002. Overview of the new classification of the gentian family (Gentianaceae: Asteridae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 154.Google Scholar
  822. — &V. A. Albert (eds.). 2002. Gentianaceae: systematics and natural History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  823. Stuessy, T. F. 2004. A transitional-combinational theory for the origin of angiosperms. Taxon 53: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  824. Sun, G., Q. Ji, D. L. Dilcher, S. Zheng, K. C. Nixon &S. Wang. 2002. Archaefructaceae, a new basal angiosperm family. Science 296: 899–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  825. Sutter, D. M. &P. K. Endress. 2003. Female flower and cupule structure in Balanopaceae, an enigmatic rosid family. Ann. Bot. (London) 92: 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  826. Swensen, S. M., W. L. Clement, L. L. Forrest &M. C. Tebbitt. 2001.Hillebrandia sandwichensis: evolutionary relationships and biogeography. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 95.Google Scholar
  827. Swenson, U. &A. A. Anderberg. 2005. Phylogeny, character evolution, and classification of Sapotaceae (Ericales). Cladistics 21: 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  828. —,A. Backlund, S. McLoughlin &R. S. Hill. 2001.Nothofagus biogeography revisited with special emphasis on the enigmatic distribution of subgenusBrassospora in New Caledonia. Cladistics 17: 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  829. Sytsma, K. J. &D. A. Baum. 1996. Molecular phylogenies and the diversification of the angiosperms. Pp. 314–340in D. W. Taylor & L. J. Hickey (eds.), Flowering plant origin, evolution & phylogeny. Chapman & Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  830. — &A. Litt. 2002. Tropical disjunctions in and among the Myrtaceae clade (Myrtaceae, Heteropyxidaceae, Psiloxylaceae, Vochysiaceae): Gondwanan vicariance or dispersal? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 178–179.Google Scholar
  831. —,—,M. L. Zjhra, J. C. Pires, M. Nepokroeff, E. Conti, J. Walker &P. G. Wilson. 2004. Clades, clocks, and continents: historical and biogeographical analysis of Myrtaceae, Vochysiaceae, and relatives in the southern hemisphere. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4 Suppl.): S85-S105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  832. —,J. Morawtz, J. C. Pires, M. Nepokroeff, E. Conti, M. Zjhra, J. C. Hall &M. W. Chase. 2002. Urticalean rosids: circumscription, rosid ancestry, and phylogenetics based on rbcL, trnL-F, and ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1531–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  833. —,J. B. Walker, J. Schönenberger &A. A. Anderberg. 2006. Phylogenetics, biogeography, and radiation of Ericales. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 71.Google Scholar
  834. Takhtajan, A. 1987. Systema magnoliophytorum. Nauka, Leningrad.Google Scholar
  835. Tam, S. M., P. C. Boyce, T. M. Upson, D. Barabe, A. Bruneau, F. Forest &J. S. Parker. 2004. Intergeneric and infrafamilial phylogeny of subfamily Monsteroideae (Araceae) revealed by chloroplast trnL-F sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  836. Tan, E, S. Shi, Y. Zhong &X. Gong. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Combretoideae (Combretaceae) inferred from plastid, nuclear gene and spacer sequences. J. Pl. Res. 115: 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  837. Tanaka, N. 2001. Taxonomic revision of the family Cannaceae in the New World and Asia. Makinoa, ser. 2, 1:1–74.Google Scholar
  838. Tank, D. C. &R. G. Olmstead. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis of subtribe Castillejinae (tribe Rhinantheae: Orobanchaceae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 154.Google Scholar
  839. — &T. Sang. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of the glycerol-3-phosphate acyltransferase gene: evolution and implications inPaeonia (Paeoniaceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  840. Taylor, D. W. &L. J. Hickey. 1992. Phylogenetic evidence for the herbaceous origin of angiosperms. Pl. Syst. Evol. 180: 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  841. Terrazas, T. &S. Arias. 2003. Comparative stem anatomy in the subfamily Cactoideae. Bot. Rev. 68: 444–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  842. Thien, L. B., H. Azuma &S. Kawano. 2000. New perspectives on the pollination biology of basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S225-S235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  843. —,T. L. Sage, T. Jaffré, P. Bernhardt, V. Pontieri, P. H. Weston, D. Malloch, H. Azuma, S. W. Graham, M. A. McPherson, H. S. Rai, R. F. Sage &J.-L. Dupre. 2003. The population structure and floral biology ofAmborella trichopoda (Amborellaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 466–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  844. Thorne, R. F. 2000a. The classification and geography of the angiosperm subclasses Alismatidae, Lili-idae, and Commelinidae: Monocotyledoneae (Liliidae). Pp. 75–124in B. Nordenstam, G. El-Ghazaly, M. Kassas & T. C. Laurent (eds.), Plant systematics for the 21st century. Portland Press, London.Google Scholar
  845. —. 2000b. The classification and geography of the flowering plants: dicotyledons of the class Angiospermae (subclasses Magnoliidae, Ranunculidae, Caryophyllidae, Dilleniidae, Rosidae, Asteridae, and Lamiidae). Bot. Rev. 66: 441–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  846. —. 2002. How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 51: 511–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  847. —. 2004. Tropical plant disjunctions: a personal reflection. Int. J. Plant Sci. 165(4): S137-S138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  848. Tillich, H.-J. 2000. Ancestral and derived character states in seedlings of monocotyledons. Pp. 221–229in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  849. —. 2003. Seedling diversity in Araceae and its systematic implications. Feddes Repert. 114: 454–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  850. — &E. Sill. 1999. Systematische Studien zur Morphologie und Anatomie vonHanguana Blume (Hanguanaceae) undFlagellaria L. (Flagellariaceae), mit der Beschreibung einer neuen Art,Hanguana bogneri spec. nov. Sendtnera 6: 215–238.Google Scholar
  851. Tippery, N. P., D. H. Les, D. Padgett &S. Jacobs. 2006. Clades and grades: an evaluation of generic circumscriptions in Menyanthaceae Dumort. (Asterales). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 262–263.Google Scholar
  852. Tobe, H. &B. Sampson. 2000. Embryology ofTakhtajania (Winteraceae) and a summary statement of embryological features for the family. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  853. Tomlinson, P. B. &U. Posluszny. 2001. Generic limits in the seagrass family Zosteraceae. Taxon 50: 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  854. Treutlein, J., G. F. Smith, B.-E. Van Wyk &M. Wink. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Asphodelaceae (subfamily Alooideae) inferred from chloroplast DNA sequences (rbcL, matK) and from genomic finger-printing (ISSR). Taxon 52: 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  855. Trift, I., M. Källersjö &A. A. Anderberg. 2002. The monophyly ofPrimula (Primulaceae) evaluated by analysis of sequences from the chloroplast gene rbcL. Syst. Bot. 27: 396–407.Google Scholar
  856. Unwin, M. M., P. T. Sano &L. E. Watson. 2001. Molecular systematics of the Eriocaulaceae: evidence from chloroplast sequence data. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 146.Google Scholar
  857. —,—,— &F. Nepomucento da Costa. 2002. Systematics of the Eriocaulaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 155.Google Scholar
  858. Valiejo-Roman, K. M., E. I. Terentieva, T. H. Samigullin &M. G. Pimenov. 2002. Relationships among genera in Saniculoideae and selected Apioideae (Umbelliferae) inferred from nrITS sequences. Taxon 51: 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  859. Van den Borre, A. &L. Watson. 2000. On the classification of the Chloridoideae: results from morphological and leaf anatomical data analyses. Pp. 180–183in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  860. Van der Bank, M., M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Thymelaeaceae with particular reference to African and Australian genera. Taxon 51: 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  861. van Steenis, C. G. G. J. &M. M. J. van Balgooy (eds.). 1963-1993. Pacific plant areas. 5 volumes. National Institute of Science and Technology, Manila & Rijksherbarium/Hortus Botanicus, Leiden.Google Scholar
  862. Varma, P. G. &B. Vijayavalli. 2002. Studies in the pollen morphology of Inulaeae and Heliantheae of Asteraceae. J. Palynol. 34: 51–83.Google Scholar
  863. Venter, H. J. T. &R. L. Verhoeven. 2001. Diversity and relationships within the Periplocoideae (Apocynaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 550–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  864. Verhoeven, R. L. &H. J. T. Venter. 2001. Pollen morphology of the Periplocoideae, Secamonoideae, and Asclepiadoideae (Apocynaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  865. Vidal-Russell, R. &D. Nickrent. 2006. A molecular phylogeny of the feathery mistletoeMisodendrum (Misodendraceae). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 264.Google Scholar
  866. ——. 2006. Misodendraceae: the first aerial parasites of Santalales. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 264.Google Scholar
  867. Vinckier, S. &E. Smets. 2002a. Morphology, ultrastructure and typology of orbicules in Loganiaceae s.l. and related genera, in relation to systematics. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 119: 161–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  868. ——. 2002b. Systematic importance of orbicule diversity in Gentianales. Grana 41: 1589–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  869. Vinnersten, A. &K. Bremen 2001. Age and biogeography of major clades in Liliales. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1695–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  870. — &G. Reeves. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships within Colchicaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1455–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  871. Vogel, S. 1990. History of the Malpighiaceae in the light of pollination ecology. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 55: 130–142.Google Scholar
  872. Wallick, K. P., W. Elisens &P. Kores. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis of trnL-F sequence variation indicates a monophyletic Buddlejaceae and a paraphyleticBuddleia. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 156–157.Google Scholar
  873. —,M. Molvray, P. J. Kores &W. J. Elisens. 2000. A phylogenetic analysis of Buddlejaceae s.S. inferred from the trnL region of cpDNA. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 183 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  874. Wallnöffer, B. 2004. A revision ofLissocarpa Benth. (Ebenaceae subfam. Lissocarpoideae (Gilg in Engler) B. Walln.) Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B 105: 515–564.Google Scholar
  875. Wang, H. &D. L. Dilcher. 2006. Aquatic angiosperms from the Dakota Formation (Albian, Lower Cretaceous), Hoisington III Locality, Kansas, USA. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 167: 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  876. Wang, Y., P. W. Fritsch, S. Shi, F. Almeda, B. C. Cruz &L. M Kelly. 2004. Phylogeny and infrageneric classification ofSymplocos (Symplocaceae) inferred from DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1901–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  877. Wannan, B. S. 2006. Analysis of generic relationships in Anacardiaceae. Blumea 51: 165–195.Google Scholar
  878. Wanntorp, L., M. E. Dettmann &D. M. Jarzen. 2004. Tracking the Mesozoic distribution ofGunnera: comparison with the fossil pollen speciesTricolpites reticulatus Cookson. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 132: 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  879. —,H-E. Wanntorp &M. Källersjö. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships ofGunnera based on nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS region, rbcL and rps16 intron sequences. Syst. Bot. 27: 512–521.Google Scholar
  880. —,—,B. Oxelman &M. Källersjö. 2001. Phylogeny ofGunnera. Pl. Syst. Evol. 226: 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  881. Ward, N. M. &R. A. Price. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Marcgraviaceae: insights from three chloroplast genes. Syst. Bot. 27: 149–160.Google Scholar
  882. Weeks, A., D. C. Daly &B. B. Simpson. 2005. The phylogenetic history and biogeography of the frankincense and myrrh family (Burseraceae) based on nuclear and chloroplast sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 30: 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  883. Wei, Z.-X, F. Wang, Q.-J. Jin &H. Wang. 2002. A cladistic analysis of Stachyuraceae and related taxa. Acta Bot. Yunnan. 24: 591–599.Google Scholar
  884. Weigend, M., O. Mohr &T. J. Motley. 2002. Phylogeny and classification of the genusRibes (Grossulariaceae) based on 5 S-NTS sequences and morphological and anatomical data. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 124: 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  885. Wen, J., G. M. Plunkett, A. D. Mitchell &S. J. Wagstaff. 2001. The evolution of Araliaceae: a phylogenetic analysis based on ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Syst. Bot. 26: 144–167.Google Scholar
  886. Werner, N. M. &R. A. Price. 2000. Phylogeny and morphological evolution of Marcgraviaceae: insights from three chloroplast genes. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 183 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  887. Wetschnig, W. &M. Pfosser. 2003. TheScilla plumbea puzzle—present status of the genusScilla sensu lato in southern Africa and descriptions ofSpetaea lachenaliiflora, a new genus and species of Massonieae (Hyacinthaceae). Taxon 52: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  888. Wheeler, E. A. &S. R. Manchester. 2000. Survey of the diverse middle Eocene wood assemblage of the Clarno formation, northcentral Oregon. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 79–80 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  889. White, P. J. &D. W. Stevenson. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships and character evolution in Menispermaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 158.Google Scholar
  890. Wiegler, G. &Z. Kaplan. 1998. An account of the species ofPotamogeton L. (Potamogetonaceae). Folia Geobot. 33: 241–316.Google Scholar
  891. Wilde, V., H. Frankenhaeuser &B. Nickel. 2000. A chloranthaceous inflorescence with pollen in situ from the Middle Eocene of Germany. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 80 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
  892. Wilde, W. J. J. O. de. 2000. Myristicaceae. Fl. Males. 14: 1–632.Google Scholar
  893. —. 2006. Redefinition ofZehneria and four new related genera (Cucurbitaceae), with an enumeration of the Australasian and Pacific species. Blumea 51: 1–88.Google Scholar
  894. Williams, J. H. &W. E. Friedman. 2004. The four-celled female gametophyte ofIllicium (Illiciaceae; Austrobaileyales): implications for understanding the origin and early evolution of monocots, eumagnoliids, and eudicots. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  895. Wilson, C. A. &C. L. Calvin. 2003. Development, taxonomic significance and ecological role of the cuticular epithelium in the Santalales. I. A. W. A. J. 24: 129–138.Google Scholar
  896. ——. 2006a. Character divergences and convergences in canopy-dwelling Loranthaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 150: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  897. ——. 2006b. An origin of aerial branch parasitism in the mistletoe family, Loranthaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 787–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  898. Wilson, K. L. &D. A. Morrison (eds.). 2000. Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  899. Wilson, P. G., M. M. O’Brien, P. A. Gadek &C. J. Quinn. 2001. Myrtaceae revisited: a reassessment of infrafamilial groups. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2013–2028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  900. —,—,M. M. Heslewood &C. J. Quinn. 2005. Relationships within Myrtaceae sensu lato based on a matK phytogeny. Pl. Syst. Evol. 251: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  901. Wolfe, A. D., S. L. Datwyler &C. P. Randle. 2002. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of the Cheloneae (Scrophulariaceae) based on ITS and matK sequence data. Syst. Bot. 27: 138–148.Google Scholar
  902. Worbert, A., D. Quandt, A.-M. Barniske, C. Löhne, K. W. Hilu &T. Borsch. 2006. Towards understanding early Eudicot diversification: insights from rapidly evolving and non-coding DNA. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 268.Google Scholar
  903. Wu, C.-Y., Y.-C. Tang, Z.-D. Chen &D.-Z. Li. 2002. Synopsis of a new ‘polyphyletic-polychronicpolytopic’ system of the angiosperms. Acta Phytotax. Sinica 40: 289–322.Google Scholar
  904. —,A. Lu, Y. Tang, Z. Chen &D. Li. 2003. The families and genera of angiosperms in China, a comprehensive analysis. Science Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
  905. Wurdack, K. J. &M. W. Chase. 2002. Phylogenetics of Euphorbiaceae s.s. using plastid (rbcL and trnL-F) sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 160.Google Scholar
  906. — &J. W. Horn. 2001. A reevaluation of the affinities of the Tepuianthaceae: molecular and morphological evidence for placement in the Malvales. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 151.Google Scholar
  907. —,P. Hoffman, R. Samuel, A. de Bruijn, M. van der Bank &M. W. Chase. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Phyllanthaceae (Phyllanthoideae pro parte, Euphorbiaceae sensu lato) using plastid rbcL DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1882–1900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  908. Xi, Q.Y., D. T. Thomas, W. Zhang, S. R. Manchester &Z. Murrell. 2006. Species level phytogeny of the genusCornus (Cornaceae) based on molecular and morphological evidence—implications for taxonomy and Tertiary intercontinental migration. Taxon 55: 9–30.Google Scholar
  909. Xiang, Q.-Y., A. J. Harris &D. Thomas. 2006. Phytogeny and biogeography of the buckeye genus (Aesculus; Sapindaceae)—a reevaluation with broader sampling, new method of phylogenetic dating, and new fossil evidence. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
  910. —,M. L. Moody, D. E. Soltis, C. Z. Fan &P. S. Soltis. 2002. Relationships within Cornales and circumscription of Cornaceae—matK and rbcL sequence data and effects of out-groups and long branches. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 24: 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  911. —,D. E. Soltis, D. R. Morgan &P. S. Soltis. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships ofCornus L. sensu lato and putative relatives inferred from rbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 723–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  912. Yamada, T., R. Imaaichi &M. Kato. 2001. Developmental morphology of ovules and seeds of Nymphaeales. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 963–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  913. Yamashita, J. &M. N. Tamura. 2000. Molecular phytogeny of the Convallariaceae (Asparagales). Pp. 387–400in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  914. Yi, T., P. P. Lowry II,G. M. Plunkett &J. Wen. 2004. Chromosomal evolution in Araliaceae and close relatives. Taxon 53: 987–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  915. Yoo, K. O. &J. Wen. 2002. Phytogeny ofCarpinus and subfamily Coryloideae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 171.Google Scholar
  916. Yuan, Y.-M., Y. Song, K. Geuten, E. Rahelivololona, S. Wohlhauser, E. Fischer, E. Smets &P. Küpfer. 2004. Phylogeny and biogeography of Balsaminaceae inferred from ITS sequences. Taxon 53: 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  917. —,S. Wohlhauser, M. Möller, P. Chassot, G. Mansion, J. Grant, P. Küpfer &J. Klackenberg. 2003. Monophyly and relationships of the tribe Exaceae (Gentianaceae) inferred from nuclear ribosomal and chloroplast DNA sequences. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 28: 500–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  918. Zanis, M. J., P. S. Soltis, Y. L. Qiu, E. Zimmer &D. E. Soltis. 2003. Phylogenetic analyses and perianth evolution in basal angiosperms. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  919. Zerega, N. J. C., W. L. Clement, S. L. Datwyler &G. D. Weiblen. 2005. Biogeography and divergence times in the mulberry family (Moraceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 37: 402–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  920. Zhang, D., R. M. K. Saunders &C.-M. Hu. 1999.Corsiopsis chinensis gen. et sp. nov. (Corsiaceae): first record of the family in Asia. Syst. Bot. 24: 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  921. Zhang, L.-B. &S. S. Renner. 2003. The deepest splits in Chloranthaceae as resolved by chloroplast sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164 (5 Suppl.): S383-S392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  922. — &M. P. Simmons. 2006. Phylogeny and delimitation of the Celastrales inferred from nuclear and plastid genes. Syst. Bot. 31: 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  923. Zhang, W. &L. G. Clark. 2000. Phylogeny and classification of the Bambusoideae (Poaceae). Pp. 35–42in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  924. Zhang, W.-H, Z.-D. Chen, J.-H. Li, H.-B. Chen &Y.-C. Tang. 2003 Phylogeny of the Dipsacales s.l. based on chloroplast trnL-F and ndhF sequences. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 26: 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  925. Zhou, S., S. S. Renner &J. Wen. 2006. Molecular phylogeny and intra- and intercontinental biogeography of Calycanthaceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 39: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  926. Zhou, Z.-K., W. L. Crepet &K. C. Nixon. 2001. The earliest fossil evidence of the Hamamelidaceae: Late Cretaceous (Turonian) inflorescences and fruits of Altingioideae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  927. Zhu, Y.-P., J. Wen, Z.-Y. Zhang &Z.-D. Chen. 2006. Evolutionary relationships and diversification of Stachyuraceae based on sequences of four chloroplast markers and the nuclear ribosomal ITS region. Taxon 55: 931–940.Google Scholar
  928. Zomlefer, W. B. 1998. The genera of Hemerocallidaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 3: 113–145.Google Scholar
  929. —. 1999. Advances in angiosperm systematics: examples from the Liliales and Asparagales. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 126: 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  930. —. 2001. The genera of Melanthieae (Liliales, Melanthiaceae): circumscription and relationships based on ITS and trnL-F sequence data. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 165.Google Scholar
  931. —. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships and character evolution in the Melanthieae (Liliales: Melanthiaceae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 161.Google Scholar
  932. —,W. S Judd, W. M. Whitten &N. H. Williams. 2006. A synopsis of Melanthiaceae (Liliales) with focus on character evolution in tribe Melanthieae. Aliso 22: 566–578.Google Scholar
  933. —,N. H. Williams, W. M. Whitten &W. S. Judd. 2001. Generic circumscription and relationships in the tribe Melanthieae (Liliales, Melanthiaceae), with emphasis onZigadenus: evidence from ITS and trnL-F sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1657–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  934. —,W. M. Whitten, N. H. Williams &W. S. Judd. 2003. An overview ofVeratrum s.l. (Liliales: Melanthiaceae) and an infrageneric phylogeny based on ITS sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 250–269.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert F. Thorne
    • 1
  • James L. Reveal
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Rancho Santa Ana Botanic GardenClaremontUSA
  2. 2.University of Maryland Honorary CuratorBronxUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant BiologyCornell UniversityIthaca

Personalised recommendations