Evolutionary Trends in the Hamamelidales-Fagales-Group

  • Peter K. Endress
Part of the Plant Systematics and Evolution / Entwicklungsgeschichte und Systematik der Pflanzen book series (SYSTEMATICS, volume 1)


Within the Hamamelidales-Fagales-complex putative evolutionary trends are outlined. Structure of inflorescences, flowers, pollen, fruits, and seeds, and peculiarities of the life history, particularly the general delay of ovule development and syngamy in relation to anthesis are demonstrated in the context of pollination and dispersal biology. The most outstanding trend with many correlated characteristics is exhibited by the adaptation to wind pollination in some groups of the Hamamelidales and especially in almost the whole of the Fagales. This seems to be one of the reasons for the dominant position of the Fagales in the vegetation of temperate regions.


Evolutionary Trend Floral Bract Corylus Avellana Angiosperm Phylogeny Male Inflorescence 
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.


  1. Abbe, E. C., 1974 a: Flowers and inflorescences of the “Amentiferae”. Bot. Rev. 40, 159–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbe, E. C., 1974 b: Betulales. Encylopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia (ed. 15), 2, 872–875. Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton Publ.Google Scholar
  3. Baas, P., 1969: Comparative anatomy of Platanus kerrii Gagnep. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. (London) 62, 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behnke, H. D., 1973: Sieve-tube plastids of Hamamelididae. Electron microscopic investigations with special reference to Urticales. Taxon 22, 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogle, A. L., 1970: Floral morphology and vascular anatomy of the Kamamelidaceae: The apetalous genera of Hamamelidoideae. J. Arn. Arb. 51, 310–366.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, R. C., and Mogensen, H. L., 1972: Late ovule and early embryo development in Quercus gambelii. Amer. J. Bot. 59, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burrichter, E., Amelunxen, F., Vahl, J., and Giele, T., 1968: Pollen-und Sporenuntersuchungen mit dem Oberflächen-Rasterelektronenmikroskop. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 59, 226–237.Google Scholar
  8. Carlquist, S., 1976: Wood anatomy of Myrothamnus flabellifolia (Myrothamnaceae) and the problem of multiperforate perforation plates. J. Arn. Arb. 57, 119–126.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, K.-T., 1964: Pollen morphology in the families Hamamelidaceae and Altingiaceae (in russ.). Flora and systematics of the higher plants 13, 173–232. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
  10. Cronquist, A., 1968: The evolution and classification of flowering plants. London-Edinburgh: Nelson.Google Scholar
  11. Doyle, J. A., and 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-London: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  12. Doyle, J. A., Van Campo, Madeleine , and Lugardon, B., 1975: Observations on exine structure of Eucommiidites and Lower Cretaceous angiosperm pollen. Pollen Spores 17, 429–486.Google Scholar
  13. Ehrendorfer, F., 1973: Adaptive significance of major taxonomic characters and morphological trends in angiosperms. In: Taxonomy and ecology (Heywood, V. H., Ed.), 317–327. London-New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ehrendorfer, F., 1976: 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-London: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  15. Elias, T. S., 1971: The genera of Fagaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arn. Arb. 52, 159–195.Google Scholar
  16. Endress, P. K., 1967: Systematische Studie über die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Hamamelidaceen und Betulaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 87, 431–525.Google Scholar
  17. Endress, P. K., 1968: Zur systematischen Stellung von Parrotia C.A. Mey. und Sycopsis Oliv, und zum neuen Bastard × Sycoparrotia semidecidua P. Endress et J. Anliker. Schweiz. Beitr. Dendrol. 16–18, 5–22.Google Scholar
  18. Endress, P. K., 1969: Molinadendron, eine neue Hamamelidaceen-Gattung aus Zentral-amerika. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 89, 353–358.Google Scholar
  19. Endress, P. K., 1970: Die Infloreszenzen der apetalen Hamamelidaceen, ihre grundsätzliche morphologische und systematische Bedeutung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 90, 1–54.Google Scholar
  20. Endress, P. K., 1971: Blütenstände und morphologische Interpretation der Blüten bei apetalen Hamamelidaceen. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges. 84, 183–185.Google Scholar
  21. Endress, P. K., 1974 a: Unbekannte Blütenpflanzen — Probleme der Großsystematik. Vierteljschr. naturf. Ges. Zürich 119, 1–21.Google Scholar
  22. Endress, P. K., 1974 b: Hamamelidales. Encylopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia (ed. 15), 8, 578–580. Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton Publ.Google Scholar
  23. Endress, P. K., 1975: Nachbarliche Formbeziehungen mit Hüllfunktion im Infloreszenz-und Blütenbereich. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 96, 1–44.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. Faegri, K., and Van der Pul, L., 1971: The principles of pollination ecology, 2nd Ed. Oxford-New York-Toronto-Sydney-Braunschweig: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fey, B., In preparation (Doctoral dissertation): University of Zürich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  27. Forman, L. L., 1966: On the evolution of cupules in the Fagaceae. Kew Bull. 18, 385–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldblatt, P., and Endress, P. K., 1977: Cytology and evolution in Hamamelidaceae. J. Arn. Arb. 58, 67–71.Google Scholar
  29. Gusejnova, N. A., 1976: On cytoembryology in Platanaceae (russ.). Bjull. Glav. Bot. Sada (Moscow) 102, 67–71.Google Scholar
  30. Hanks, S. L., and Fairbrothers, D. E., 1976: Palynotaxonomic investigation of Fagus L. and Nothofagus Bl.: light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and computer analyses. In: Botanical Systematics 1, 1–141 + II (Heywood, V. H., Ed.). London-New York-San Francisco: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hjelmvuist, H., 1974: Fagales. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia (ed. 15), 7, 139–142. Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton Publ.Google Scholar
  32. Hutchinson, J., 1967: The genera of flowering plants. Dicotyledones, Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jäger-Zürn, Irmgard, 1966: Infloreszenz- und blütenmorphologische sowie embryologische Untersuchungen an Myrothamnus Welw. Beitr. Biol. Pfl. 42, 241–271.Google Scholar
  34. Jay, M., 1968: Distribution des flavonoides chez les Hamamélidacées et familles affines. Taxon 17, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kapil, R. N., and Kaul, Usha, 1974: Embryologically little known taxon— Parrotiopsis jacquemontiana. Phytomorphol. 22, 234–245.Google Scholar
  36. Kaul, Usha, and Kapil, R. N., 1975: Exbucklandia populnea—from flower to fruit. Phytomorphol. 24; 217–228.Google Scholar
  37. Knappe, H., and Rüffle, L., 1975: Beiträge zu den Platanaceen-Funden und einigen Hamamelidales der Oberkreide. Wiss. Z. Humboldt-Univ. Berlin, math.-nat. Reihe 4, 487–492.Google Scholar
  38. Korchagina, I. A., 1974: On the nature of the flower of Betulaceae (russ.). Trans. Moscow Soc. Naturalists, Biol. Ser., Sect. Bot. 51, 50–74.Google Scholar
  39. Kuprianova, L. A., 1965: The palynology of the Amentiferae (russ.). Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
  40. Lebreton, Ph., 1976: Quelques données chimiotaxinomiques relatives aux Fagacées. Bull. Soc. bot. France 123, 293–298.Google Scholar
  41. Macdonald, A.D., 1971: Floral development in the “A mentiferae”. Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
  42. Mears, J. A., 1974: Chemical constituents and systematics of Amentiferae. Brittonia 25, 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meeuse, A. D. J., 1975: Floral evolution in the Hamamelididae. Acta bot. Need. 24, 155–191.Google Scholar
  44. Melikian, A. P., 1973: Seed coat types of Hamamelidaceae and allied families in relation to their systematics (russ.). Bot. Zhurn. U.S.S.R. 58, 350–359.Google Scholar
  45. Mogensen, H. L., 1972: Fine structure and composition of the egg apparatus before and after fertilization in Quercus gambelii: the functional ovule. Amer. J. Bot. 59, 931–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mogensen, H. L., 1973: Some histochemical, ultrastructural, and nutritional aspects of the ovule of Quercus gambelii. Amer. J. Bot. 60, 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mogensen, H. L., 1975 a: Ovule abortion in Quercus (Fagaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 62, 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mogensen, H. L., 1975 b: Fine structure of the unfertilized, abortive egg apparatus in Quercus gambelii. Phytomorphol. 25, 19–30.Google Scholar
  49. Mohana Rao, P. R., 1974: Seed anatomy in some Hamamelidaceae and phylogeny. Phytomorphol. 24, 113–139.Google Scholar
  50. Moseley, M. F., Jr., 1974: Vegetative anatomy and morphology of Amentiferae. Brittonia 25, 356–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raven, P. H., 1976: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: cytology. Ann. Missouri bot. Gard. 62, 724–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raven, P. H., and Axelrod, D. I., 1974: Angiosperm biogeography and past continental movements. Ann. Missouri bot. Gard. 61, 539–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sattler, R., 1973: Organogenesis of flowers. A photographic text-atlas. Toronto-Buffalo: Univ. of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schuster, R. M., 1976: Plate tectonics and its bearing on the geographical origin and dispersal of angiosperms. In: Origin and early evolution of angiosperms (Beck, C. B., Ed.), 48–138. New York-London: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  55. Shimaji, K., 1962: Anatomical studies on the phylogenetic interrelationship of the genera in the Fagaceae. Bull. Tokyo Univ. Forests 57, 1–64.Google Scholar
  56. Shoemaker, D. N., 1905: On the development of Hamamelis virginiana. Bot, Gaz. 39, 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Singh, A. P., and Mogensen, H. L., 1975: Fine structure of the zygote and early embryo in Querent gambelii. Amer. J. Bot. 62, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skvortsova, N.T., 1975: Comparative morphological investigations in representatives of the family Hamamelidaceae and their phylogenetic relationships (russ.). In: Problems of comparative morphology of the seed plants (Budantsjev, L. J., Ed.), 7–24. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
  59. Soepadmo, E., 1972: Fagaceae. In: Flora Malesiana (Van Steenis, C. G. G. J., Ed.), 7, 2, 265–403. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff Publ.Google Scholar
  60. Stebbins, G. L., 1974: Flowering plants. Evolution above the species level. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stone, D. E., 1974: Patterns in the evolution of amentiferous fruits. Brittonia 25, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Straka, H., 1975: Pollen- und Sporenkunde. Eine Einführung in die Palynologie. Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
  63. Surova, T. G., 1975: Electronmicroscopical studies on pollen and spores of plants (russ.). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  64. Takeoka, M., and Stix, Erika, 1963: On the fine structure of the pollen walls in some Scandinavian Betulaceae. Grana Palynol. 4, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Takhtajan, A., 1969: Flowering plants. Origin and dispersal. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
  66. Van Campo, Madeleine , and Lugardon, B., 1973: Structure grenue infratectale de l’extexine des pollens de quelques gymnospermes et angiospermes. Pollen Spores 15, 171–187.Google Scholar
  67. Van Steenis, C. G. G. J., 1971: Nothofagus, key genus of plant geography, in time and space, living and fossil, ecology and phylogeny. Blumea 19, 65–98.Google Scholar
  68. Vieweg, G. H., and Ziegler, H., 1969: Zur Physiologie von Myrothamnus flabellifolia. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges. 82, 29–36.Google Scholar
  69. Walker, J. W., 1976: Evolutionary significance of the exine in the pollen of primitive angiosperms. In: The evolutionary significance of the exine (Ferguson, I. K., and Müller, J., Eds.), 251–308. Linn. Soc. Symp. Ser. 1. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  70. Walker, J. W., and Doyle, J. A., 1976: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: palynology. Ann. Missouri bot. Gard. 62, 664–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weaver, R. E., Jr., 1969: Studies in the North American genus Fothergilla (Hamamelidaceae). J. Arn. Arb. 50, 599–619.Google Scholar
  72. Wardle, J., 1970: The ecology of Nothofagus solandri. 3. Regeneration. New Zeal. J. Bot. 8, 571–608.Google Scholar
  73. Whitehead, D. R., 1969: Wind pollination in the angiosperms: evolutionary and environmental considerations. Evolution 23, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wolfe, J. A., 1974: Fossil forms of Amentiferae. Brittonia 25, 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wolfe, J. A., Doyle, J. A., and Page, Virginia M., 1976: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: paleobotany. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62, 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter K. Endress
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Systematische Botanik der UniversitätZollikerstr. 107ZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations