New Aspects of the Systematica of Asteridae

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


Five main groups can be distinguished in the Asteridae: 1. Gentianales—Rubiales (and Oleales?); 2. Polemoniales (including Solanaceae and Boraginaceae); 3. Scrophulariales—Lamiales; 4. Dipsacales; 5. Campanidales—Asterales. The Loasaceae, Fouquieriaceae, and Columelliaceae have several characteristics of the Asteridae but can scarcely find their place in this group as circumscribed here. Several plants with much reduced flowers have to be included in the Asteridae: Theligonum in the Rubiales; Callitriche, Hippuris and perhaps also Hydrostachys in the ScrophularialesLamiales group. For the Scrophulariales—Lamiales and the Dipsacales, affinities with the woody Saxifragales and Cornales are most probable and several genera have been shifted between these groups. The Asterales show remarkable phytochemical agreements with the Araliales. Several authors have proposed a breaking up of the Asteridae but the evidence for this does not seem conclusive.


Flowering Plant Indole Alkaloid Iridoid Glycoside Inferior Ovary Unisexual Flower 
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. Bartling, F. G., 1830: Ordines naturales plantarum eorumque characteres et affinitates. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
  2. Bessey, C. E., 1915: The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 2, 109–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohlmann, F., Burkhardt, T., and Zdero, C., 1973: Naturally Occurring Acetylenes. London-New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bohm, B. A., and Glennie, C. W., 1971: A chemosystematic study of the Caprifoliaceae. Canad. J. Bot. 49, 1799–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewbaker, J. L., 1967: The distribution and phylogenetic significance of binucleate and trinucleate pollen grains in the angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot. 54, 1069–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carolin, R. C., 1959: Floral structure and anatomy in the family Goodeniaceae Dumort. Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 84, 242–255.Google Scholar
  7. Constance, L., 1964: Systematic botany, an unending synthesis. Taxon 13, 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, D. C., 1941: Macrosporogenesis and the development of the seed of Phryma leptostachya. Amer. J. Bot. 28, 755–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Correns, C., 1891: Zur Biologie und Anatomie der Salvienblüthe. Jahrb. Wiss. Bot. 22, 190–240.Google Scholar
  10. Cronquist, A., 1957: Outline of a new system of families and orders of Dicotyledons. Bull. Jard. Bot. Bruxelles 27, 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronquist, A., 1968: The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlgren, H., 1975: A system of classification of the angiosperms to be used to demonstrate the distribution of characters. Bot. Not. 128, 119–147.Google Scholar
  13. Dahlgren, H., Jensen, S. R., and Nielsen, B. J., 1976: Iridoid compounds in Fouquieriaceae and notes on its possible affinities. Bot. Not. 129, 207–212.Google Scholar
  14. Dandy, J. E., 1967: Loasaceae. In: The Genera of Flowering Plants (Angiospermae) (Hutchinson, J.). Dicotyledones 2, 353–362. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  15. Danert, S., 1958: Die Verzweigung der Solanaceen im reproduktiven Bereich. Abh. Deutsch. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Kl. Chem. 1957; Nr. 6, 1–183.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, G. L., 1966: Systematic Embryology of the Angiosperms. New York etc.: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Duigan, S. L., 1961: Studies of the pollen grains of plants native to Victoria, Australia. 1: Goodeniaceae (including Brunoniaceae). Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria N. S. 74, 87–109.Google Scholar
  18. Eichler, A. W., 1875: Blüthendiagramme. Band 1. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  19. Emberger, L., 1960: Les végétaux vasculaires. In: Traité de Botanique (Systematique). Tome II. (Chaudefatjd, M. et Emberger, L.). Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  20. Engler, A., 1890–1891: Saxifragaceae. In: Natürl. Pflanzenfam. (Engler, A., und Prantl, K., Hrsg.) III 2a, 41–93. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  21. Engler, A., 1897: Übersicht über die Unterabteilungen, Klassen, Reihen, Unterreihen und Familien der Embryophyta siphonogama. In: Natürl. Pflanzenfam. (Engler, A., und Prantl, K., Hrsg.), Nachträge zum II.-IV. Teil, 341–357. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  22. Engler, A., 1930: Saxifragaceae. In: Natürl. Pflanzenfam. 2. Aufl. 18a, (Engler, A., und Prantl, K., Hrsg.), 74–226.Google Scholar
  23. Engler, A., und Diels, L., 1936: Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. 11. Aufl. Berlin: Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  24. Erdtman, G., and Metcalfe, C.R., 1963: Affinities of certain genera incertae sedis suggested by pollen morphology and vegetative anatomy. Kew Bull. 17, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fair-brothers, D. E., Mabry, T. J., Scogin, R. L., and Turner, B. L., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: chemotaxonomy. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62, 765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fritsch, K., 1894: Columelliaceae. In: Natürl. Pflanzenfam. IV. 3b (Engler, A., und Prantl, K., Hrsg.), 186–188.Google Scholar
  27. Frohne, D., und Jensen, U., 1973: Systematik des Pflanzenreichs unter besonderer Berücksichtigung chemischer Merkmale und pflanzlicher Drogen. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  28. Fukuoka, N., 1972: Taxonomic study of the Caprifoliaceae. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyoto Univ. Ser. Biol. 6, 15–58.Google Scholar
  29. Gibbs, R. Darnley, 1974: Chemotaxonomy of Flowering Plants. 4 Vol. Montreal-London: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gilg, E., 1908: Die systematische Stellung der Gattung Hoplestigma und einiger anderer zweifelhafter Gattungen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 40, Beibl. 93, 76–84.Google Scholar
  31. Goebel, K., 1882: Grundzüge der Systematik und Speciellen Pflanzenmorphologie. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  32. Govil, C. M., 1970: Convolvulaceae. In: Symposium on Comparative Embryology of Angiosperms. Bull. Indian National Sci. Acad. 41, 246–249.Google Scholar
  33. Grant, K. A., and Grant, V., 1964: Mechanical isolation of Salvia apiana and Salvia mellifera (Labiatae). Evolution 18, 196–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grant, V., and Grant, K. A., 1965: Pollination in the Phlox Family. New York-London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gundersen, A., 1950: Families of Dicotyledons. Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica.Google Scholar
  36. Hallier, H., 1912: L’origine et le système phylétique des Angiospermes exposés à l’aide de leur arbre généalogique. Arch. Néerl. Sci. Exact. Nat. ser. III. B. 1, 146–234.Google Scholar
  37. Hasselberg, G. B. E., 1937: Zur Morphologie des vegetativen Sprosses der Loganiaceen. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 2 (no. 3), 1–170.Google Scholar
  38. Hawkes, J. G., and Tucker, W. G., 1969: Serological assessment of relationships in a flowering plant family (Solanaceae). In: Chemotaxonomy and Serotaxonomy, Syst. Ass. Special Vol. 2 (Hawkes, J. G., Ed.), 77–88. London-New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hegnauer, R., 1964, 1969, 1973: Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Band 3, 5, 6. Basel — Stuttgart: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  40. Hegnauer, R., 1971: Chemical patterns and relationship of Umbelliferae. In: The Biology and Chemistry of the Umbelliferae (Heywood, V. H., Ed.), 267–277. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Heywood, V. H., 1974: Systematics—the Stone of Sisyphus. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 6, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hickey, L. J., and Wolfe, J. A., 1975: The bases of angiosperm morphology: vegetative morphology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62, 538–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hildebrand, F., 1866: Über die Befruchtung der Salvia-Arten mit Hülfe von Insekten. Jahrb. Wiss. Bot. 4, 451–478.Google Scholar
  44. Hillebrand, G. R., and Fairbrothers, D. E., 1970a: Serological investigation of the systematic position of the Caprifoliaceae, I. Correspondence with selected Rubiaceae and Cornaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 57, 810–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hillebrand, G. R., and Fairbrothers, D. E., 1970 b: Phytoserological systematic survey of the Caprifoliaceae. Brittonia 22, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Höck, F., 1892: Zur systematischen Stellung von Sambucus. Bot. Centralbl. 51, 233–234.Google Scholar
  47. Huber, H., 1963: Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Rosifloren. Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 5, 1–48.Google Scholar
  48. Hutchinson, J., 1926: The Families of Flowering Plants. I. Dicotyledons. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Hutchinson, J., 1973: The Families of Flowering Plants. Ed. 3. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ihlenfeldt, H.-D., 1967: Über die Abgrenzung und die natürliche Gliederung der Pedaliaceae R. Br. Mitt. Staatsinst. Allg. Bot. Hamburg 12, 43–128.Google Scholar
  51. Inamdar, J. A., and Patel, R. C., 1973: Structure, ontogeny, and classification of trichomes in some Polemoniales. Feddes Repert. 83, 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jensen, S. R., Nielsen, B. J., and Dahlgren, R., 1975: Iridoid compounds, their occurrence and systematic importance in the angiosperms. Bot. Not. 128, 148–180.Google Scholar
  53. Juel, H. O., 1911: Studien über die Entwicklungsgeschichte von Hippuris vulgaris. Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal., ser. IV. 2, nr. 11.Google Scholar
  54. Jukes, C., and Lewis, D.H., 1974: Planteose, the major soluble carbohydrate of seeds of Fraxinus excelsior. Phytochemistry 13, 1519–1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kapil, R. N., Rustagi, P. N., and Venkataraman, R., 1969: A contribution to the embryology of Polemoniaceae. Phytomorphology 18, 403–412.Google Scholar
  56. Kapil, R. N., Rustagi, P. N., and Vani, R. S., 1967: Nyctanthes arbortristis L.: embryology and relationships. Phytomorphology 16, 553–563.Google Scholar
  57. Kapil, R. N., Rustagi, P. N., and Vijayaraghavan, M. R., 1965: Embryology of Pentaphragma horsfieldii (Miq.) Airy Shaw with a discussion on the systematic position of the genus. Phytomorphology 15, 93–102.Google Scholar
  58. Kooiman, P., 1970: The occurrence of iridoid glycosides in the Scrophulariaceae. Acta Bot. Neerl. 19, 329–340.Google Scholar
  59. Kooiman, P., 1974: Iridoid glycosides in the Loasaceae and the taxonomic position of the family. Acta Bot. Neerl. 23, 677–679.Google Scholar
  60. Leenhouts, P. W., 1962: Loganiaceae. In: Flora Malesiana I. 6 (2), 293–387.Google Scholar
  61. Leeuwenberg, A. J. M., 1967: Notes on American Loganiaceae II. Revision of Peltanthera Benth. Acta Bot. Neerl. 16, 143–146.Google Scholar
  62. Leins, P., und Winhard, W., 1973: Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Studien an Loasaceen-Blüten. Österr. Bot. Ztschr. 122, 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lindsey, A.A., 1938: Anatomical evidence for the Menyanthaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 25, 480–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Macior, L. W., 1968: Pollination adaptation in Pedicularis groenlandica. Amer. J. Bot. 55, 927–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Macior, L. W., 1970: The pollination ecology of Pedicularis in Colorado. Amer. J. Bot. 57, 716–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Maheshwari, P., and Kapil, R. N., 1967: Some Indian contributions to the embryology of angiosperms. Phytomorphology 16, 239–291.Google Scholar
  67. Mauritzon, J., 1939: Die Bedeutung der embryologischen Forschung für das natürliche System der Pflanzen. Acta Univ. Lund. N. F. Avd. 2. 35. Nr. 15, 1–70.Google Scholar
  68. Melchior, H. (Hrsg.), 1964: A. Engler’s Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. 12. Aufl. Band 2. Angiospermen. Berlin-Nikolassee: Gebr. Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  69. Merxmüller, H., 1972: Systematic Botany—an unachieved synthesis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 4, 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Paliwal, G. S., and Srivastava, L. M., 1969: The cambium of Alseuosmia. Phytomorphology 19, 5–8.Google Scholar
  71. Patel, R. C., and Inamdar, J. A., 1971: Structure and ontogeny of stomata in some Polemoniales. Ann. Bot. (London) 35, 389–409.Google Scholar
  72. Philipson, W. R., 1974: Ovular morphology and the major classification of the dicotyledons. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 68, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Punt, W., and Leenhouts, P. W., 1967: Pollen morphology and taxonomy in the Loganiaceae. Grana Palyn. 7, 469–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rauh, W., und Jäger-Zürn, I., 1966: Zur Kenntnis der Hydrostachyaceae. 1. Teil, Blütenmorphologische und embryologische Untersuchungen an Hydrostachyaceen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer systematischen Stellung. Sitzungsber. Heidelb. Akad. Wiss. Math.-Nat. Kl. Jg. 1966, 1. Abh., 1–117.Google Scholar
  75. Rodríguez, R. L., 1971: The relationships of the Umbellales. In: The Biology and Chemistry of the Umbelliferae (Heywood, V. H., Ed.), 63–91. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  76. Schnarf, K., 1931: Vergleichende Embryologie der Angiospermen. Berlin: Gebr. Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  77. Schnarf, K., 1933: Die Bedeutung der embryologischen Forschung für das natürliche System der Pflanzen. Biol. Gen. 9, 271–288.Google Scholar
  78. Schwebin, F. von, 1920: Revisio generis Sambucus. Mitt. Deutsch. Dendrol. Ges. 29, 194–231.Google Scholar
  79. Silberbauer-Gottsberger, I., und Gottsberger, G., 1975: Über sphingophile Angiospermen Brasiliens. Plant Syst. Evol. 123, 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Soó, R., 1961: The present aspect of the evolutionary history of Telomophyta. Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest Sect. Biol. 4, 167–178.Google Scholar
  81. Soó, R., 1967: Die modernen Systeme der Angiospermen. Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 13, 201–233.Google Scholar
  82. Soó, R., 1975: A review of the new classification systems of flowering plants (Angiospermatophyta, Magnoliophytina). Taxon 24, 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sporne, K. R., 1969: The ovule as an indicator of evolutionary status in angiosperms. New Phytol. 68, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sporne, K. R., 1974: The Morphology of Angiosperms. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  85. Sprague, E. F., 1962: Pollination and evolution in Pedicularis (Scrophulariaceae). Aliso 5, 181–209.Google Scholar
  86. Sprague, T. A., 1927: The morphology and taxonomic position of the Adoxaceae. J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 47, 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stebbins, G. L., 1974: Flowering Plants. Evolution above the Species Level. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  88. Stern, W. L., Brizicky, G. K., and Eyde, R. H., 1969: Comparative anatomy and relationships of Columelliaceae. J. Arnold Arbor. 50, 36–75.Google Scholar
  89. Takhtajan, A., 1959: Die Evolution der Angiospermen. Jena: VEB G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  90. Takhtajan, A., 1964: The taxa of the higher plants above the rank of order. Taxon 13, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Takhtajan, A., 1966: Sistema i filogenija cvetkovych rastenij (Systema et phylogenia Magnoliophytorum). Moskva-Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
  92. Takhtajan, A., 1969: Flowering Plants. Origin and Dispersal. City of Washington: Smithsonian Inst. Press.Google Scholar
  93. Takhtajan, A., 1973: Evolution und Ausbreitung der Blütenpflanzen. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  94. Thorne, R. F., 1968: Synopsis of a putatively phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants. Aliso 6, 57–66.Google Scholar
  95. Troll, W., 1928: Organisation und Gestalt im Bereiche der Blüte. Berlin: J. Springer.Google Scholar
  96. Troll, W., 1964, 1969: Die Infloreszenzen. Typologie und Stellung im Aufbau des Vegetationskörpers. 1. Band, 1. Teil. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  97. Troll, W., 1964, 1969: Die Infloreszenzen. Typologie und Stellung im Aufbau des Vegetationskörpers. 2. Band, 1. Teil. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  98. Vijayaraghavan, M. R., and Malik, U., 1972: Morphology and embryology of Scaevola frutescens K. and affinities of the family Goodeniaceae. Bot. Not. 125, 241–254.Google Scholar
  99. Vijayaraghavan, M. R., and Padmanaban, U., 1969: Morphology and embryology of Gentaurium ramosissimum Druce and affinities of the family Gentianaceae. Beitr. Biol. Pfl. 46, 15–37.Google Scholar
  100. Vijayaraghavan, M. R., and Sarveshwari, G. S., 1968: Embryology and systematic position of Morina longifolia Wall. Bot. Not. 121, 383–402.Google Scholar
  101. Vogel, S., 1954: Blütenbiologische Typen als Elemente der Sippengliederung dargestellt anhand der Flora Südafrikas. Bot. Studien 1. Jena: VEB G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  102. Vogel, S., 1974: Ölblumen und ölsammelnde Bienen. Tropische und subtropische Pflanzenwelt 7. Akad. Wiss. Lit. (Mainz), Math.-Naturw. Kl. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
  103. Wagenitz, G., 1959: Die systematische Stellung der Rubiaceae. Ein Beitrag zum System der Sympetalen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 79, 17–35.Google Scholar
  104. Wagenitz, G., 1967: Betrachtungen über die Artenzahlen der Pflanzen und Tiere. Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin N. F. 7, 79–93.Google Scholar
  105. Wagenitz, G., 1975: Blütenreduktion als ein zentrales Problem der Angiospermen-Systematik. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 96, 448–470.Google Scholar
  106. Wagenitz, G., 1976: Systematics and phylogeny of the Compositae (Asteraceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 125, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Walker, J. W., and Doyle, J. A., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: palynology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62, 664–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Warming, E., and Möbius, M., 1929: Handbuch der systematischen Botanik. 4. Aufl. Berlin: Gebr. Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  109. Weberling, F., 1957a: Morphologische Untersuchungen zur Systematik der Caprifoliaceen. Akad. Wiss. Lit. Mainz, Abh. Math.-Naturw. Kl. Jg. 1957, Nr. 1, 1–50.Google Scholar
  110. Weberling, F., 1957 b: Die Infloreszenzen von Bonplandia Cav. und Polemonium micranthum Benth. und ihre vermittelnde Sonderstellung unter den Blütenständen der Polemoniaceae. Beitr. Biol. Pfl. 34, 195–211.Google Scholar
  111. Weberling, F., 1965: Typology of inflorescences. J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 59, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Webnham, H. F., 1913: Floral evolution: with particular reference to the sympetalous dicotyledons. New Phytol. Reprint no. 5. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  113. Wettstein, R. von, 1891: Solanaceae. In: Natürl. Pflanzenfam. IV, 3b (Engler, A., und Pbantl, K., Hrsg.), 4–38.Google Scholar
  114. Wettstein, R. von, 1935: Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik. 4. Aufl. Leipzig-Wien: F. Deuticke.Google Scholar
  115. Whipple, H. L., 1972: Structure and systematics of Phryma leptostachya L. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 88, 1–17.Google Scholar
  116. Wunderlich, R., 1971: Die systematische Stellung von Theligonum. Österr. Bot. Ztschr. 119, 329–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Yamazaki, T., 1974: A system of Gamopetalae based on the embryology. J. Fac. Sci. Sect. 3. Bot. (Tokyo) 11, 263–281.Google Scholar
  118. Young, D. J., and Watson, L., 1970: The classification of dicotyledons: a study of the upper levels of the hierarchy. Aust. J. Bot. 18, 387–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Wagenitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für PflanzensystematikSystematisch-Geobotanisches Institut der UniversitätGöttingenFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations