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


Trees. Leaves opposite, petiolate, simple, oblong-lanceolate, entire, pinnately nerved, white-tomentose beneath with curled hairs; stipules absent. Dioecious. Flowers in fascicles of short cymes, actinomorphic; tepals free or fused at the base. Male flowers: perianth with 3–4 valvate lobes slightly fused at base; stamens 6–12, filaments short, free; anthers erect, basifixed, 2-thecate, 2-locular, opening lengthwise, connective apiculate; no rudimentary ovary present. Female flowers: perianth with 3–4 almost completely free, slightly imbricate segments, staminodes absent. Ovary superior, sessile to shortly stipitate, 1-locular, 1-carpellate, rarely 2–3 1-carpellate ovaries present in the same flower, or the single ovary consisting of 1–3 carpels which are ± laterally fused; style undivided, linear; stigma linear, papulous all round; ovule solitary, pendulous from near the apex of the locule, anatropous. Fruit dry, indehiscent, pericarp thin, enclosed in the persistent perianth segments, which in fruit enlarge to 3–4 membranous, clearly veined wings. Seed without endosperm; embryo straight, cotyledons flat, fleshy.


Ellagic Acid Male Flower Pollen Morphology Perianth Segment Sieve Tube Element 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Selected Bibliography

  1. Behnke, H.-D. 1989. See general references.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, C. C. 1989. Systematics and phylogeny of the Urticales. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, Systematics, and Fossil History of the Hamamelideae, vol.2. ‘Higher’ Hamamelideae. Systematics Ass., Special Volume 40B, pp. 193-220.Google Scholar
  3. Burger, W. 1967. Families of flowering plants of Ethiopia. Experimental Station Bulletin No.45, Oklahoma State University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cronquist, A. 1981, 1988. See general references.Google Scholar
  5. Dickison, W.C., Sweitzer, E.M. 1970. The morphology and relationship of Barbeya oleoides. Amer. J. Bot. 57: 468–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giannasi, D.E. 1978. Generic relationships in the Ulmaceae based on flavonoid chemistry. Taxon 27: 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giannasi, D.E. 1986. Phytochemical aspects of phylogeny in Hamamelidae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 73: 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Humphries, C. J., Blackmore, S. 1989. A review of the classification of the Moraceae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelideae, vol.2. “Higher” Hamamelideae. Systematics Ass., Special Volume 40B, Oxford: Clarendon Press pp.267–277.Google Scholar
  9. Takhtajan, A. 1980b,1987. See general references.Google Scholar
  10. Thorne, R. 1976. A phylogenetic classification of the Angiospermae. In: Hecht, M. K., Steere, W.C., Wallace, B. (Eds.) Evolutionary biology 9: 35–106. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Thorne, R. 1983. See general references.Google Scholar
  12. Thorne, R. 1989. “Hamamelididae”: a commentary. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelideae, vol.2. “Higher” Hamamelideae. Systematics Ass., Special Volume 40 A, pp. 9-16.Google Scholar
  13. Tobe, H., Takahashi, M 1990. Trichome and pollen morphology of Barbeya (Barbeyaceae) and its relationships. Taxon 39: 561–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Willis, J. C. 1966. A dictionary of flowering plants and ferns. 7th edn. by H. K. Airy Shaw. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Zavada, M. S., Dilcher D.L. 1986. See general references.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Friis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations