Advertisement

Introduction

  • K. Kubitzki
Chapter
Part of the The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants book series (FAMILIES GENERA, volume 2)

Abstract

The angiosperms are the largest, most highly diversified, and most successful major group of land plants. They contain an estimated 225000 to 350000 species, some 12000 to 13000 genera, and 250 to more than 500 families, depending on the taxonomic concepts applied. In retrospect, it is most surprising that the general outline of their classification had already been recognized by the time of Bentham, more than a century ago. Many elements of this classification have not only been incorporated into the influential system of Engler and Prantl (1887–1915), but have persisted up to the present day. This does not mean, however, that systematic botany has come to a standstill: on the contrary, apart from completing the inventory, botanists have opened many novel fields of data inquiry. They have developed highly elaborate approaches to data processing, have clarified the objectives of biological classification, and have given consideration to evolutionary aspects.

Keywords

General Reference Lower Cretaceous Ellagic Acid Hydrolyzable Tannin Floral Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arber, E. A. N., Parkin, J. 1907. On the origin of angiosperms. J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 38: 29–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachmann, K. 1988. Evolutionary genetics and the genetic control of morphogenesis in flowering plants. In: Hecht, M. K., Wallace, B., Prance, G.T., (eds.) Evolutionary Biology 16: 157–208.Google Scholar
  3. Barabé, D., Bergeron, Y., Vincent, G. 1987. La répartition des charactères dans la classification des Hamamelididae (Angiospermae). Can. J. Bot. 65: 1756–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bate-Smith, E.-C. 1962. See general references.Google Scholar
  5. Batten, D.J. 1989. Systematic relationships between Normapolles pollen and the Hamamelidae. In: Crane, P. R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol.2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 9–21.Google Scholar
  6. Behnke, H.-D. 1988, 1989. See general references.Google Scholar
  7. Brenner, G.J. 1976. Middle Cretaceous floral provinces and early migrations of angiosperms. In: Beck, C.B. (ed.) Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 23–47.Google Scholar
  8. Burger, W.C. 1981. Heresy revived: the monocot theory of angiosperm origin. Evol. Theory (Chicago) 5: 189–225.Google Scholar
  9. Carlquist, S. 1983. Wood anatomy of Bubbia (Winteraceae), with comments on origin of vessels in dicotyledons. Amer. J. Bot. 70: 578–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlquist, S. 1990. Wood anatomy and relationships of Lactoridaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 77: 1498–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crane, P. R. 1989. Palaeobotanical evidence on the early radiation of nonmagnoliid dicotyledons. Pl. Syst. Evol. 162: 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. 1989. See general references.Google Scholar
  13. Cronquist, A. 1968, 1981, 1988. See general references.Google Scholar
  14. Dahlgren, G. 1989a, b. See general references.Google Scholar
  15. Dahlgren, R. 1980, 1983. See general references.Google Scholar
  16. Dickison, W. C. 1989. Comparisons of primitive Rosidae and Hamamelidae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 47–73.Google Scholar
  17. Donoghue, M. J., Doyle, J. A. 1989. See general references.Google Scholar
  18. Doyle, J. A. 1969. Cretaceous angiosperm pollen of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and its evolutionary significance. J. Arnold Arbor. 50: 1–35.Google Scholar
  19. Doyle, J. A. 1978. Origin of angiosperms. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9: 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doyle, J. A., Donoghue, M.J. 1986. Seed plant phylogeny and the origin of angiosperms: an experimental cladistic approach. Bot. Rev. 52: 321–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doyle, J. A., Hotton, C.L., Ward, J. V. 1990a. Early Cretaceous tetrads, zonasulculate pollen, and Winteraceae. I. Taxonomy, morphology, and ultrastructure. Amer. J. Bot. 77: 1544–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doyle, J. A., Hotton, C.L., Ward, J. V. 1990b. Early Cretaceous tetrads, zonasulculate pollen, and Winteraceae. II. Cladistic analysis and implications. Amer. J. Bot. 77: 1558–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ehrendorfer, F. 1989. The phylogenetic position of the Hamamelidae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol.1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  24. Endress, P. K. 1976. Die Androeciumanlage bei polyandrischen Hamamelidaceen und ihre systematische Bedeutung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 97: 436–457.Google Scholar
  25. Endress, P. 1986a. Floral structure, systematics, and phylogeny in Trochodendrales. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 73: 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Endress, P.K. 1986b. Reproductive structures and phylogenetic significance of extant primitive angiosperms. Pl. Syst. Evol. 152: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Endress, P.K. 1987a. The Chloranthaceae: reproductive structures and phylogenetic position. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 109: 153–226.Google Scholar
  28. Endress, P.K. 1987b. Floral phyllotaxis and floral evolution. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 108: 417–438.Google Scholar
  29. Endress, P. K. 1989a. Aspects of evolutionary differentiation of the Hamamelidaceae and the Lower Hamamelidae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 162: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Endress, P.K. 1989b. The systematic position of the Myrothamnaceae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Systematics, evolution, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
  31. Endress, P.K., Hufford, L.D. 1989. The diversity of stamen structures and dehiscence patterns among Magnoliidae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 100: 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Engler, A., Prantl, K. (eds.) 1887-1915. See general references.Google Scholar
  33. Friis, E.M. et al. 1987. See general references.Google Scholar
  34. Friis, E. M., Crane, P. R. 1989. Reproductive structures of Cretaceous Hamamelidae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 155–174.Google Scholar
  35. Friis, E.M., Endress, P.K. 1990. Origin and evolution of angiosperm flowers. Adv. Bot. Res. 17: 99–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldberg, A. 1986. See general references.Google Scholar
  37. Gottlieb, O.R. 1992. Plant phenolics as expression of biological diversity. In: Hemingway, R.W., Laks, P.E., Branham, S.J. (eds.) Plant polyphenols: synthesis, chemical properties, and significance. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gottlieb, O.R., Kaplan, M.A.C., Kubitzki, K., Toledo Barros, J. R. 1989. Chemical dichotomies in the magnolialean complex. Nord. J. Bot. 8: 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hickey, L. J., Doyle, J. A. 1977. Early Cretaceous fossil evidence for angiosperm evolution. Bot. Rev. 43: 2–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hickey, L.J., Wolfe, J. A. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: vegetative morphology. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 62: 538–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huber, H. 1982, 1990. See general references.Google Scholar
  42. Hufford, L.D., Crane, P.R. 1989. A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the “lower” Hamamelidae. In: Crane, P. R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol.1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 175–192.Google Scholar
  43. Huynh, K.-L. 1976. Arrangement of some monosulcate, disulcate, trisulcate, dicolpate, and tricolpate pollen types in the tetrads, and some aspects of evolution in the angiosperms. In: Ferguson, I.K., Muller, J. (eds.) The evolutionary significance of the exine. London: Academic Press, pp. 101–124.Google Scholar
  44. Ishimatsu, M., Tanaka, T., Nonaka, G., Nishioka, I., Nishizawa, M., Yamagishi, T. 1989. Tannins and related compounds. LXXIX. Isolation and characterization of novel dimeric and trimeric hydrolyzable tannins, nuphrins C, D, E and F, from Nuphar japonicum DC. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 37: 1735–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kubitzki, K. 1987a. Phenylpropanoid metabolism in relation to land plant origin and diversification. J. Plant Physiol. 131: 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kubitzki, K. 1987b. Origin and significance of trimerous flowers. Taxon 36: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kubitzki, K., Gottlieb, O.R. 1984a,b. See general references.Google Scholar
  48. Kubitzki, K., v. Sengbusch, P., Poppendieck, H.-H. 1991. Parallelism, its evolutionary origin and systematic significance. Aliso 13: 191–206.Google Scholar
  49. Leins, P., Erbar, C. 1985. Ein Beitrag zur Blütenentwicklung der Aristolochiaceen, einer Vermittlergruppe zu den Monokotylen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 107: 343–368.Google Scholar
  50. Loconte, H., Estes, J. R. 1989. Phylogenetic systematics of Berberidaceae and Ranunculales. Syst. Bot. 14: 565–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loconte, H., Stevenson, D.W. 1991. Cladistics of the Magnoliidae. Cladistics 7: 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meeuse, A.D.J. without year (ca. 1980). Anthocorm theory. Hugo de Vries Laboratorium, University of Amsterdam (mimeographed).Google Scholar
  53. Midgley, J. J., Bond, W. J. 1991. Ecological aspects of the rise of angiosperms: a challenge to the reproductive superiority hypothesis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 44: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miers, J. 1858. On the Canellaceae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. III, 1: 349–353.Google Scholar
  55. Petersen, F.P., Fairbrothers, D.E. 1983. A serotaxonomic appraisal of Amphipterygyium and Leitneria — two amentiferous taxa of Rutiflorae (Rosidae). Syst. Bot. 8: 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ronse Decraene, L.-P., Smets, E. 1990. The floral development of Popowia whitei (Annonaceae). Nord. J. Bot. 10: 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rüffle, L. 1980. Wachstums-Modus und Blatt-Morphologie bei altertümlichen Fagales und Hamamelidales der Kreide und der Gegenwart. In: 100 Jahre Arboretum. Berlin, pp. 329-341.Google Scholar
  58. Sanderson, M. J., Donoghue, M. J. 1989. Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43: 1781–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schildknecht, H., Herb, R., Kunzelmann, P. 1985. Isoterbechin: Struktur des gelben Ellagitannin-Farbstoffes aus Cytinus hypocistis (Rafflesiaceae). Liebigs Ann. Chem. 1985: 1448–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwarzwalder, R.N., Dilcher, D.L. 1991. Systematic placement of the Platanaceae in the Hamamelidae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 78: 962–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stebbins, G. L. 1974. See general references.Google Scholar
  62. Takhtajan, A. 1964. The taxa of the higher plants above the rank of order. Taxon 13: 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Takhtajan, A. 1976. Neoteny and the origin of flowering plants. In: Beck, C.B. (ed.) Origin and early evolution of flowering plants. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 207–219.Google Scholar
  64. Takhtajan, A. 1980a, 1987. See general references.Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, D. W., Hickey, L. J. 1990. An Aptian plant with attached leaves and flowers: implications for angiosperm origin. Science 247: 702–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thorne, R.F. 1974, 1983. See general references.Google Scholar
  67. Thorne, R.F. 1989. “Hamamelididae”: A commentary. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 9–16.Google Scholar
  68. Tillich, H.-J. 1990. Die Keimpflanze der Nymphaeaceae-monocotyl oder dicotyl? Flora 184: 169–176.Google Scholar
  69. van Campo, M. 1976. See general references.Google Scholar
  70. Walker, J. W. 1916a. See general references.Google Scholar
  71. Ward, J.V., Doyle, J. A., Hotton, C.L. 1989. Probable granular magnoliid angiosperm pollen from the Early Cretaceous. Pollen Spores 31: 113–132.Google Scholar
  72. Wolfe, J.A. 1973. Fossil forms of Amentiferae. Brittonia 25: 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wolfe, J.A. 1989. Leaf-architectural analysis of the Hamamelididae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol.1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 75–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Kubitzki

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations