Advertisement

Hamamelidaceae

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

Abstract

Trees or shrubs. Leaves distichous, rarely spiral, subopposite or opposite, simple or tricuspidate or lobed, margin entire or dentate, venation camptodromous or actinodromous and brochidodromous or craspedodromous; stipules present in all genera; indumentum of sclerified stellate hairs, rarely more or less absent, rarely with some glandular hairs. Inflorescences spikes or heads, rarely racemes, or (condensed) thyrses or panicles. Flowers small to medium-sized, mostly yellow, white, greenish or red, bisexual or andromonoecious, rarely unisexual, actinomorphic or very rarely zygomorphic, hypogynous to epigynous, receptacle lacking to urn-shaped; sepals (0−)4–5(−7), imbricate, persistent, or rarely fused and then abscising or dehiscing at anthesis; petals 4–5 or absent, often ribbon-like and circinate in bud, very rarely circinate also at anthesis, caducous; stamens (1−)4–5(−24), development of polyandrous androecia either centripetal or centrifugal; anthers basifixed, consistently with small or long connective protrusion, each theca opening with two or one valve, thecae mostly bisporangiate, rarely monosporangiate; carpels 2, styles apocarpous, very rarely basally syncarpous, ovaries syncarpous; ovules mostly 1, rarely up to more than 40 per carpel, but then most of them sterile, crassinucellar, bitegmic, anatropous, halfway between apotropous and epitropous, pendent from ovary top if 1 present, along the carpellary margins if numerous. Fruits dehiscent capsules, mostly with ballistic seed ejection by the bending hard endocarp; seeds mostly very hard, mostly black. Embryo straight, mostly small, rarely medium-sized.

Keywords

Arnold Arbor Stellate Hair Liquidambar Styraciflua Longitudinal Slit Winged Seed 
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.

Selected Bibliography

  1. Behnke, H.-D. 1989. Sieve-element plastids, phloem proteins, and the evolution of flowering plants. IV. Hamamelidae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 105–128.Google Scholar
  2. Bogle, A.L. 1970. Floral morphology and vascular anatomy of the Hamamelidaceae: the apetalous genera of Hamamelidoideae. J. Arnold Arbor. 51: 310–366.Google Scholar
  3. Bogle, A. L. 1986. The floral morphology and vascular structure of the Hamamelidaceae: subfamily Liquidambaroideae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 73: 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogle, A.L. 1989. The floral morphology, vascular anatomy, and ontogeny of the Rhodoleioideae (Hamamelidaceae) and their significance in relation to the “lower” hamamelids. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol.1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 201–226.Google Scholar
  5. Bogle, A.L. 1990. Multilacunar nodal anatomy in Mytilaria (Hamamelidaceae). J. Arnold Arbor. 71: 111–118.Google Scholar
  6. Bogle, A.L., Philbrick, C.T. 1980. A generic atlas of hamamelidaceous pollens. Contrib. Gray Herb. 210: 29–103.Google Scholar
  7. De Candolle, A. 1830. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis 4. Paris: Treutel & Würtz, pp. 267–270.Google Scholar
  8. Egger, K., Reznik, H. 1961. Die Flavonolglykoside der Hamamelidaceen. Planta 57: 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endress, P.K. 1967. Systematische Studie über die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Hamamelidaceen und Betulaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 87: 431–525.Google Scholar
  10. Endress, P.K. 1970. Die Infloreszenzen der apetalen Hamamelidaceen, ihre grundsätzliche morphologische und systematische Bedeutung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 90: 1–54.Google Scholar
  11. Endress, P.K. 1976. Die Androeciumanlage bei polyandrischen Hamamelidaceen und ihre systematische Bedeutung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 97: 436–457.Google Scholar
  12. Endress, P. K. 1977. Evolutionary trends in the Hamamelidales-Fagales group. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl. 1: 321–347.Google Scholar
  13. Endress, P.K. 1978. Blütenontogenese, Blütenabgrenzung und systematische Stellung der perianthlosen Hamamelidoideae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 100: 249–317.Google Scholar
  14. Endress, P.K. 1989a. Aspects of evolutionary differentiation of the Hamamelidaceae and the lower Hamamelididae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 162: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endress, P.K. 1989b. A suprageneric taxonomic classification of the Hamamelidaceae. Taxon 38: 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Endress, P.K. 1989c. Phylogenetic relationships in the Hamamelidoideae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 227–248.Google Scholar
  17. Endress, P.K., Friis, E.M. 1991. Archamamelis, hamamelidalean flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of Sweden. Pl. Syst. Evol. 175: 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ernst, W.R. 1963. The genera of Hamamelidaceae and Platanaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 44: 193–210.Google Scholar
  19. Ferguson, D.K. 1989. A survey of the Liquidambaroideae (Hamamelidaceae) with a view to elucidating its fossil record. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol.1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 249–272.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Giannasi, D. E. 1986. Phytochemical aspects of phylogeny in Hamamelidae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 73: 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldblatt, P., Endress, P. K. 1977. Cytology and evolution in Hamamelidaceae. J. Arnold Arbor. 58: 67–71.Google Scholar
  23. Harms, H. 1930. Hamamelidaceae. In: Engler, A., Prantl, K. (Eds.) Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, Ed. 2, 18 a. Leipzig: Engelmann, pp. 303–345, 487.Google Scholar
  24. Hegnauer, R. 1989. Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. 8. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, G.-L. 1986. Comparative anatomical studies on the woods of Hamamelidaceae in China. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni 1986, 1: 22–28.Google Scholar
  26. Jay, M. 1968. Distribution des flavonoides chez les Hamamélidacées et familles affines. Taxon 17: 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kapil, R. N., Kaul, U. 1974. Embryologically little known taxon — Parrotiopsis jacquemontiana. Phytomorphology 22: 234–245.Google Scholar
  28. Knobloch, E., Mai, D.H. 1986. Monographie der Früchte und Samen in der Kreide von Mitteleuropa. Rozpr. Ustr. Ust. Geol. Praha 47: 1–219.Google Scholar
  29. Li, H.-M., Hickey, L. J. 1988. Leaf architecture and systematics of the Hamamelidaceae sensu lato. Acta Phytotaxon. Sin. 26: 96–110.Google Scholar
  30. Matthew, C.J. 1981. Embryological studies in Hamamelidaceae: Development of female gametophyte and embryogeny in Hamamelis virginiana. Phytomorphology 30: 172–180.Google Scholar
  31. Melikian, A. 1973. Seed-coat types of Hamamelidaceae and allied families in relation to their systematics. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow and Leningrad) 58: 350–359.Google Scholar
  32. Mohana Rao, P. R. 1974. Seed anatomy in some Hamamelidaceae and phylogeny. Phytomorphology 24: 113–139.Google Scholar
  33. Morawetz, W., Rainer, H. 1987. Die Chromosomenzahlen der Hamamelidae. Sitzber. Oesterr. Akad. Wiss., Math.-Naturwiss. Kl., 197: 157–172.Google Scholar
  34. Morawetz, W., Samuel, M.R.A. 1989. Karyological patterns in the Hamamelidae. In: Crane, P.R., Blackmore, S. (Eds.) Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 129–154.Google Scholar
  35. Niedenzu, F. 1891. Hamamelidaceae. In: Engler, A., Prantl, K. (Eds.) Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien III, 2 a. Leipzig: Engelmann, pp. 115–130.Google Scholar
  36. Rao, T.A., Bhupal, O.P. 1974. Typology of foliar sclereids in various taxa of Hamamelidaceae. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 79B: 127–138.Google Scholar
  37. Reinsch, A. 1890. Ueber die anatomischen Verhältnisse der Hamamelidaceae mit Rücksicht auf ihre systematische Gruppierung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 11: 347–395.Google Scholar
  38. Schulze-Menz, W. 1964. Rosales. In: Melchior, H. (Ed.) A. Engler’s Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien II, Ed. 12. Berlin: Born-traeger, pp. 193–242.Google Scholar
  39. de Steven, D. 1983. Reproductive consequences of insect seed prédation in Hamamelis virginiana. Ecology 64: 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tang, Y. 1943. Systematic anatomy of the woods of the Hamamelidaceae. Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. n.S., 1: 8–63.Google Scholar
  41. Tong, K. 1930. Studien über die Familie der Hamamelidaceae mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Systematik und Entwicklungsgeschichte von Corylopsis. Bull. Biol. Dep. Sci. Coll. Sun Yat-sen Univ. 2: 1–72.Google Scholar
  42. Vink, W. 1957. Hamamelidaceae. In: van Steenis, C.G.G.J. (Ed.) Flora Malesiana, Ser.I, 5. Groningen: Nijhoff, pp.363–379.Google Scholar
  43. Wisniewski, M., Bogle, A. L. 1982. The ontogeny of the inflorescence and flower of Liquidambar styraciflua L. (Hamamelidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 69: 1612–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. K. Endress

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations