Advertisement

Brittonia

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 375–379 | Cite as

A systematic histological analysis of palm fruits VII. The Cyrtostachydinae (Arecaceae)

Abstract

Fruit specimens representing five taxa of the genusCyrtostachys were examined histologically in order to characterize the pericarp anatomy of the monogeneric subtribe Cyrtostachydinae (tribe Areceae, subfamily Arecoideae), as part of an ongoing survey of the family. The pericarp in this genus can be characterized by a combination of papillate epidermis, heavy layer of tanniniferous/pigmented cells below the epidermis, a system of vascular bundles with thick fibrous sheaths with purely fibrous bundles frequently above and below, absence of brachysclereids, and a very thin sclerified locular epidermis. On the basis of pericarp structure alone, the genus might be most closely related to theGronophyllum alliance of the subtribe Arecinae. This diverges somewhat from the hypothesis of relationship with theAreca group of the Arecinae resulting from two DNA-based phylogenetic studies, and even further from the hypothesis of relationship withIguanura suggested by another DNA-based phylogenetic study.

Key words

Arecaceae Cyrtostachys palm fruit pericarp histology Palmae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Asmussen, C. &M. Chase. 2001. Coding and noncoding plastid DNA in palm systematics. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1103–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. — 1977. A systematic histological study of palm fruits. I. ThePtychosperma alliance. Syst. Bot. 2: 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. — 1999. Trends of specialization in the palm pericarp. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 83: 73–78.Google Scholar
  4. — 2002. A systematic histological study of palm fruits VI. Subtribe Linospadicinae (Arecaceae) Brittonia 54: 196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. — &N. Hernandez. 2002. A systematic histological study of palm fruits. V. Subtribe Archontophoenicinae (Arecaceae). Brittonia 54: 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — &B. Young. 1979. A systematic histological study of palm fruits. II. The Areca alliance. Syst. Bot. 4: 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. —,T. Manka &L. Bussard. 1999. A systematic histological study of palm fruits. III. Subtribe Iguanurinae. Brittonia 51: 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. —,L. Bussard &N. Hernandez. 2001. A systematic histological study of palm fruits. IV. Subtribe Oncospermatinae. Brittonia 53: 466–471.Google Scholar
  9. Hahn, W. J. 2002. A molecular phylogenetic study of the Palmae (Arecaceae) based onatpB,rbcL, and 18SnrDNA sequences. Syst. Biol. 51: 92–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis, C. E. &J. J. Doyle. 2002. A phylogenetic study of tribe Areceae (Arecaceae) using two lowcopy nuclear genes. Pl. Syst. Evol. 236: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Uhl, N. W. &J. Dransfield. 1987. Genera Palmarum: a classification of palms based on the work of Harold E. Moore, Jr. L. H. Bailey Hortorium and the International Palm Society, Ithaca, NY: Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden Press 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Systematic Botany, Department of Biology, SCA 110University of South FloridaTampaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations