Advertisement

New Ideas About the Early Differentiation of Angiosperms

  • Friedrich Ehrendorfer
Part of the Plant Systematics and Evolution / Entwicklungsgeschichte und Systematik der Pflanzen book series (SYSTEMATICS, volume 1)

Abstract

Three premises are introduced: Origin of angiosperms from one common ancestral group, stamens and carpels as appendicular (phyllomic) sphorangiophores, and adaptive nature of basic angiosperm characters. The widely accepted assumptions that Magnoliidae link up directly to the Rosidae-Dilleniidae alliance, and that Hamamelididae are heterogeneous and have originated from several Rosidae-Dilleniidae groups are hardly tenable: There are drastic differences between the Magnoliidae and Rosidae-Dilleniidae, in the morphology of their functionally similar entomophilous flower types, and in many other respects; the Hamamelididae demonstrate considerable internal coherence together with ambivalent affinities to both, Magnoliidae and Rosidae-Dilleniidae. To solve this dilemma, the hypothesis is discussed that the extant Hamamelididae mark the remnants and descendants of an ancient “transitional field” from the Magnoliidae to the Rosidae-Dilleniidae (Fig. 1). The Hamamelididae would thereby correspond to an early phase of flower reduction and trends towards anemophily, the Rosidae-Dilleniidae to a subsequent phase of floral elaboration and intensified adaption towards zoophily.

Keywords

Ellagic Acid Flower Type Early Differentiation Flower Reduction Early Angiosperm 
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. Baum, H., 1950: Unifaziale und subunifaziale Strukturen im Bereich der Blütenhülle und ihre Verwendbarkeit für die Homologisierung der Kelch- und Kronblätter. Österr. Bot. Z. 97, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brenner, G. J., 1976: Middle cretaceous floral provinces and early migrations of angiosperms. In: Origin and early evolution of angiosperms (Beck, C. B., ed.), 23–47. New York and London: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cronquist, A., 1968: The evolution and classification of flowering plants. London: Nelson & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Doyle, J. A., 1977: Patterns of evolution in early angiosperms. In: Patterns of evolution (Hallam, A., ed.), 501–546. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Doyle, Hickey. L. J., 1976: Pollen and leaves from the mid-cretaceous Potomac group and their bearing on early angiosperm evolution. In: Origin and early evolution of angiosperms (Beck, C. B., ed.), 139–206. New York and London: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, van Campo, M., Lugardon, B., 1975: Observations on exine structure of Eucommiidites and lower cretaceous angiosperm pollen. Pollen et Spores 17, 429–486.Google Scholar
  7. Ehrendorfer, F., 1971: Spermatophyta. In: Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen, 30. Aufl., 586–741. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrendorfer, F., 1976a: Evolutionary significance of chromosomal differentiation patterns in gymnosperms and primitive angiosperms. In: Origin and early evolution of angiosperms (Beck, C. B., ed.), 220–240. New York and London: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrendorfer, F., 1976b: Closing remarks: Systematics and evolution of centrospermous families. Plant Syst. Evol. 126, 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fish, F., Waterman, G., 1973: Chemosystematics in the Rutaceae II. The chemosystematics of the Zanthoxylum/Fagara complex. Taxon 22, 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hickey, L. J., Wolfe, J. A., 1975: The base of angiosperm phylogeny: Vegetative morphology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62, 538–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes, N. F., 1976: Paleobiology of angiosperm origins. Cambridge: Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kubitzki, K., 1969: Chemosystematische Betrachtungen zur Großgliederung der Dicotylen. Taxon 18, 360–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kubitzki, K., 1972: Probleme der Großsystematik der Blütenpflanzen. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges. 85, 259–277.Google Scholar
  15. Leins, P., 1975: Die Beziehungen zwischen multistaminaten und einfachen Androeceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 96, 231–237.Google Scholar
  16. Muller, J., 1970: Palynological evidence on early differentiation of angiosperms. Biol. Rev. 45, 417–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stebbins, G. L., 1974: Flowering plants. Evolution above the species level. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  18. Takhtajan, A., 1969: Flowering plants. Origin and dispersal. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Thorne, R. F., 1974: The “Amenti ferae” or Hamamelidae as an artificial group: A summary statement. Brittonia 25, 395–405.Google Scholar
  19. Walker, J. W., 1976a: Comparative pollen morphology and phylogeny of the RaAnalean complex. In: Origin and early evolution of angiosperms (Beck, C. B., ed.), 241–299. New York and London: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  20. Walker, J. W., 1976b: Evolutionary significance of the exine in the pollen of primitive angiosperms. Linn. Soc. Symp. Ser. 1, 251–308.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friedrich Ehrendorfer
    • 1
  1. 1.Botanisches Institut der Universität WienWienAustria

Personalised recommendations