Advertisement

Quantitative Studies of Inter-relationships Amongst the Liliatae

  • H. T. Clifford
Part of the Plant Systematics and Evolution / Entwicklungsgeschichte und Systematik der Pflanzen book series (SYSTEMATICS, volume 1)

Abstract

There is an immense amount of taxonomic data and new information is accumulating rapidly, thereby making it increasingly difficult for taxonomists to comprehend more than a small amount of what is available. Hence it is essential that advantage be taken of modern computing facilities for storing and retrieving information but more especially for generating classifications. The introduction of such technology should lead to a full exposure of the data and methodology thereby enabling potential users of a classification to assess its value for the problem in hand.

As an example of the methodology a sample of eighty-eight liliate families has been classified using data pertaining to fifty-one attributes and using an intensely clustering sorting strategy. Of the four major groups of families emerging from the analysis two, the Zingiberales and a group of water plants corresponding closely with the Alismidae are well established in traditional classifications. The two remaining groups did not agree closely with any recognized grouping in established classifications but nevertheless showed a strong internal homogeneity in that one is comprised largely of wind-pollinated and the other mainly of insect-pollinated families.

Keywords

Subsidiary Cell High Level Taxonomy Taxonomic Data Ordination Procedure Venation Reticulate 
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. Arber, A., 1925: Monocotyledons: a morphological study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boyd, L., 1932: Monocotyledonous seedlings. Trans. and Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 31, 5–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Candolle, A. P. de, 1813: Théorie élémentaire de la Botanique. Paris. In: The families of flowering plants (Hutchinson, J., 1960), Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carlquist, S. J., 1975: Ecological Strategies of Xylem Evolution. Berkeley: Univ. California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clifford, H. T., 1975: Host-parasite relationships. In: Lecture Notes in Mathematics (Street, A. P., and Wallis, W. D., Eds.), 452. Combinatorial Mathematics III. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Clifford, H. T., 1976: The influence of attributes in the classification of the grasses (Poaceae). In: Pattern Analysis in Agricultural Science (Williams, W. T., Ed).. Melbourne and Amsterdam: C.S.I.R.O. and Elsevier Scientific Publishing Coy.Google Scholar
  7. Clifford, H. T., and Watson, L., 1977: Identifying Grasses. Brisbane: Queensland University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clifford, H. T., Williams, W. T., and Lance, G. N., 1969: A further numerical contribution to the classification of the Poaceae. Aust. J. Bot. 17, 119–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifford, H. T., Lavarack, P. S., 1974: The role of vegetative and reproductive attributes in the classification of the Orchidaceae. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 6, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clifford, H. T., and Williams, W. T., 1973: Classificatory dendrograms and their interpretation. Aust. J. Bot. 21, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronquist, A., 1968: The evolution and classification of flowering plants. London and Edinburgh; Nelson.Google Scholar
  12. Cutler, D. F., 1969: Juncales. In: Anatomy of the Monocotyledons. Vol. IV (Metcalfe, C. R., Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, G., 1966: Systematic Embryology of the Angiosperms. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Deyl, M., 1955: The evolution of plants and the taxonomy of the monocotyledons. Acta Musei Nationalis, Pragae XI B No. 6, Botanica No. 3, 1–143.Google Scholar
  15. Diels, L., 1924: Aufgaben der Phytographie und der Systematik. In: Handbuch der biologischen Arbeitsmethoden. Abt. XI, Teil 1 (Abderhalden, E., Ed.). Berlin: Urban und Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
  16. Dwyer, P. D., 1976: Systematics, Ecology and Biological Resources. Search 7, 294–298.Google Scholar
  17. El-Gazzar, A., and Watson, L., 1970: Taxonomy of Labiatae. New Phyt. 69, 451–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engler, A., 1883: Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. Auf. 3. Berlin: Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  19. Gibbs, R. D., 1974: Chemotaxonomy of Flowering Plants. 4 Vols. Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gilly, C. L., 1952: Phylogenetic development of the inflorescence and generic relationships in the Kobresiaceae. Iowa J. Science 26, 210–212.Google Scholar
  21. Gower, J. C., 1967: Multivariate analysis and multi-dimensional geometry. Statistician 17, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hegnauer, R., 1963: Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Bd. 2. Basel und Stuttgart: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  23. Heywood, V. H., 1974: Chemosystematics—an artificial discipline. In: Chemistry in Botanical Classification, Nobel Symposium 25 (Bendz, G., and Santesson, J., Eds.). New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, M. O., 1973: Reciprocal averaging: an eigen-vector method for ordination. J. Ecol. 61, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hutchinson, J., 1960: Families of Flowering Plants. 2 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jacobs, M., 1969: Large families—not alone! Taxon 18, 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jussieu, A. L. de, 1789: Genera plantarum secundum ordines naturales disposita. Paris. In: Historia Naturales Classica Tome 35 (Stafleu, E. A., Ed., 1964). Weinheim: J. Cramer.Google Scholar
  28. Kubitzki, K., 1975: Systematics and evolution of seed plants. In: Progress in Botany 35 (Ellenberg, H., et al., Eds.). Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Maarel, E. van der, 1972: Ordination of plant communities on the basis of their plant genus family and order. In: Grundfragen und Methoden in der Pflanzensoziologie (Maarel, E., Van der, and Tüxen, R., Eds.). The Hague: Junk.Google Scholar
  30. MacKay, D. M., 1969: Recognition and action. In: Methodologies of Pattern Recognition (Watanabe, S., Ed.). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. MacNaughton-Smith, P., 1965: Some statistical and other techniques for classifying individuals. Home Office Res. Unit Rep. No. 6. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, A., 1946: The comparative internal morphology of seeds. Amer. Midl. Nat. 36, 513–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Takhtajan, A., 1969: Flowering plants, origin and dispersal. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tomlinson, P. B., 1969: Commelinales-Zingiberales. In: Anatomy of the Monocotyledons. Vol. III (Metcalfe, C. R., Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Warming, E., 1920: A Handbook of Systematic Botany. London: Allan and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. Willis, J. C., 1973: A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns, 8th ed. Revised by H. K. Airy-Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. T. Clifford
    • 1
  1. 1.Botany DepartmentUniversity of QueenslandSt. Lucia, BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations