Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aspects of evolutionary differentiation of theHamamelidaceae and the LowerHamamelididae

  • Published:
Plant Systematics and Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New investigations on the flower and fruit structure of extantHamamelidaceae and other LowerHamamelididae together with new finds of fossil flowers and seeds from the Upper and Lower Cretaceous provide the outline of an increasingly more differentiated picture of the early evolution of the subclass. Three patterns of valvate anther dehiscence are recognized in the subfamilyHamamelidoideae (and the subclassHamamelididae). The basic (plesiomorphic) type within theHamamelididae has 2 valves per theca. The type with 1 valve but 2 pollen sacs per theca is both consistent and exclusive for the 5 southern genera of theHamamelidaceae. They seem to be the remnants of a homogeneous group that originated before the Upper Cretaceous. This is supported by fossil hamamelidaceous flowers from the Upper Cretaceous that have thecae with 1 valve. Since several-seededHamamelidaceae predate one-seeded forms in the fossil seed record (in Europe) and the systematic structure of the one-seeded group is relatively more homogeneous, several-seeded groups are considered to be more ancient. Several parallel evolutionary trends are recognized within theHamamelidaceae as well as within the LowerHamamelididae: anther dehiscence with 2 valves per theca → 1 slit or 1 valve; pollen sacs per theca 2 → 1; pollen tricolpate → polyforate; exine coarsely reticulate → finely reticulate; loss of perianth (tepals or petals and sepals) and concomitant loss of fixed number of floral organs; differentiation of exposed nectaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baillon, H., 1894: Les ovules desCorylopsis. — Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris2 (142): 1122–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogle, A. L., 1970: Floral morphology and vascular anatomy of theHamamelidaceae: The apetalous genera ofHamamelidoideae. — J. Arnold Arbor.51: 310–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1984: Floral morphology and vascular anatomy ofMaingaya Oliv. (Hamamelidaceae, Hamamelidoideae, Hamamelideae). — Amer. J. Bot.71 (5, 2): 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: The floral morphology and vascular anatomy of theHamamelidaceae: subfamilyLiquidambaroideae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 325–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1980: A generic atlas of hamamelidaceous pollens. — Contr. Gray Herb.210: 29–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budantsjev, L. J., 1975: Morphology of the leaves and taxonomy of the generaProtophyllum Lesq. andPseudoprotophyllum Hollick. — InBudantsjev, L. J., (Ed.): Problems of comparative morphology of the seed plants, pp. 90–107. — Leningrad: Nauka (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgh, J. van der, 1983: Allochthonous seed and fruit floras from the Pliocene of the Lower Rhine basin. — Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.40: 33–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. T., 1973: A revision of the hamamelidaceous flora of China. — Sunyatsen Univ. Bull.1: 54–71 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K.-T., 1979: The spore and pollen morphology in relation to the taxonomy and phylogeny of some plant groups. — Acta Phytotax. Sin.17 (2): 1–8 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, M. E., 1982: A preliminary report on the Senckenberg-Museum collection of fruits and seeds from Messel bei Darmstadt. — Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg56: 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1983: Fossil plants of the London Clay. — London: The Palaeontological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1984: Early TertiaryHamamelidae: a contribution from isolated fossil organs. — Amer. J. Bot.71 (5, 2): 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, P. R., 1989: Paleobotanical evidence on the early radiation of nonmagnoliid dicotyledons. — Pl. Syst. Evol.162: 165–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: Morphology and development of pistillate inflorescences in extant and fossilCercidiphyllaceae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 382–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: Lower Cretaceous angiosperm flowers: fossil evidence on early radiation of dicotyledons. — Science232: 852–854.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronquist, A., 1981: An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. — New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Docters van Leeuwen, W. M., 1927: Vogelbloemen. 3.Rhodoleia Teysmanni Miq. — Trop. Natuur16: 2–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1938: Observations about the biology of tropical flowers. — Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg48: 27–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrendorfer, F., 1977: New ideas about the early differentiation of angiosperms. — Pl. Syst. Evol. Suppl.1: 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichholz, G., 1886: Untersuchungen über den Mechanismus einiger zur Verbreitung von Samen und Früchten dienender Bewegungserscheinungen. — Jahrb. Wiss. Bot.17: 543–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endress, P. K., 1967: Systematische Studie über die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Hamamelidaceen und Betulaceen. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.87: 431–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endress, P. K., 1970: Die Infloreszenzen der apetalen Hamamelidaceen, ihre grundsätzliche morphologische und systematische Bedeutung. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.90: 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1977: Evolutionary trends in theHamamelidales-Fagales-group. — Pl. Syst. Evol. Suppl.1: 321–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1978: Blütenontogenese, Blütenabgrenzung und systematische Stellung der perianthlosenHamamelidoideae. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.100: 249–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: Floral structure, systematics, and phylogeny inTrochodendrales. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 297–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1987: Floral phyllotaxis and floral evolution. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.108: 417–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1985:Noahdendron, a new Australian genus of theHamamelidaceae. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.107: 369–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint, F. F., 1959: Development of the megagametophyte inLiquidambar styraciflua L. — Madroño15: 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friis, E. M., 1984: Organisation og bestøvningsformer hos blomster fra Øvre Kridt. — Dansk Geol. Foren, Årsskr.1983: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1985a: Angiosperm fruits and seeds from the Middle Miocene of Jutland (Denmark). — Biol. Skr.24 (3): 1–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1985b: Structure and function in Late Cretaceous angiosperm flowers. — Biol. Skr.25: 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, H.-J., 1975: Die mittelmiozäne Mastixioideen-Flora aus dem Braunkohlen-Tagebau Oder II bei Wackersdorf (Oberpfalz). — Diss., Univ. München.

  • —, 1977: Subtropische Elemente im europäischen Tertiär (Fruktifikationen). — Paläont. Z.51: 199–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1978: Die miozänen Frucht- und Samen-Floren der Oberpfälzer Braunkohle. 1. Funde aus den sandigen Zwischenmitteln. — Palaeontographica, Abt. B,167: 8–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1982: Die jungtertiären Floren Süddeutschlands. — Stuttgart: Enke.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: Zur Flora des Randecker Maares (Miozän, Baden-Württemberg). — Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk., Ser. B,122: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harms, H., 1930:Hamamelidaceae. — InEngler, A., Prantl, K., (Eds.): Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien18 a, pp. 303–345, 487, 2 ed. — Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, A. B., 1984: A new genus of platan-tree-like angiosperms. — Paleont. Ž.1984 (1): 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M., 1978: Entwicklungsgeschichte und Ultrastruktur von Pollenkitt und Exine bei nahe verwandten entomophilen und anemophilen Angiospermensippen:Ranunculaceae, Hamamelidaceae, Platanaceae undFagaceae. — Pl. Syst. Evol.130: 13–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger-Zürn, I., 1966: Infloreszenz- und blütenmorphologische sowie embryologische Untersuchungen anMyrothamnus Welw. — Beitr. Biol. Pfl.42: 241–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, U., Kapil, R. N., 1975:Exbucklandia populnea—from flower to fruit. — Phytomorphol.24: 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knappe, H., Rüffle, L., 1975: Beiträge zu den Platanaceen-Funden und einigenHamamelidales der Oberkreide. — Wiss. Z. Humboldt-Univ. Berlin, math.-nat. R.,24: 487–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, E., Mai, D. H., 1984: Neue Gattungen nach Früchten und Samen aus dem Cenoman bis Maastricht (Kreide) von Mitteleuropa. — Feddes Repert.95: 3–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1986: Monographie der Früchte und Samen in der Kreide von Mitteleuropa. — Rozpravy Ústř. Úst. Geol. Praha47: 1–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugler, H., 1956: Über die optische Wirkung von Fliegenblumen auf Fliegen. — Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.69: 387–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mai, D. H., 1968: Zwei ausgestorbene Gattungen im Tertiär Europas und ihre florengeschichtliche Bedeutung. — Palaeontographica, Abt. B,123: 184–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1978: Die Floren der Haselbacher Serie im Weisselster-Becken (Bezirk Leipzig, DDR). — Abh. Staatl. Mus. Mineral. Geol. Dresden28: 1–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mai, D. H., Walther, H., 1985: Die obereozänen Floren des Weisselster-Beckens und seiner Randgebiete. — Abh. Staatl. Mus. Mineral. Geol. Dresden33: 5–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchester, S. R., 1986: Vegetative and reproductive morphology of an extinct plane tree (Platanaceae) from the Eocene of Western North America. — Bot. Gaz.147: 200–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizushima, M., 1968: On the flower ofDisanthus cercidifolius Maxim. — J. Japan. Bot.43: 522–524 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, B., Chao, J.-M., 1977: A review ofCorylopsis (Hamamelidaceae). — J. Arnold Arbor.58: 382–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nast, Ch. G., Bailey, I. W., 1945: Morphology and relationships ofTrochodendron andTetracentron. II. Inflorescence, flower, and fruit. — J. Arnold Arbor.26: 267–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit-Thouars, A. A. Du, 1805: Histoire des végétaux recueillis dans l'isles australes d'Afrique. 1. — Paris: Levrault, Schoell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Praglowski, J., 1974: The pollen morphology of theTrochodendraceae, Tetracentraceae, Cercidiphyllaceae, andEupteleaceae, with reference to taxonomy. — Pollen & Spores16: 449–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüffle, L., 1968: Merkmalskomplexe bei älteren Angiospermen-Blättern und die Kutikula vonCredneria Zenker (Menispermaceae). — Palaeontographica, Abt. B,123: 132–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenland, S., 1883: Über die Entwicklung der Blüten und Frucht bei den Platanen. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.4: 308–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skvortsova, N. T., 1975: Comparative morphological studies on representatives of the familyHamamelidaceae and their phylogenetic relationships. — InBudantsjev, L. J., (Ed.): Problems of comparative morphology of the seed plants, pp. 7–24. — Leningrad: Nauka (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. C., 1945: A taxonomic review ofTrochodendron andTetracentron. — J. Arnold Arbor.26: 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. S., 1958: New species of and notes on Queensland plants 3. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland69: 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steven, D. De, 1983: Floral ecology of witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). — Michigan Bot.22: 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhtajan, A. L., 1969: Flowering plants. Origin and dispersal. — Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, (Ed.) 1974: Fossil flowering plants of the USSR. 1.Magnoliaceae—Eucommiaceae. — Leningrad: Nauka (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tao, J.-R., Xiong, X.-Z., 1986: The latest Late Cretaceous flora of Heilongjiang Province and the floristic relationship between East Asia and North America. — Acta Phytotax. Sin.24: 1–15, 121–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiffney, B. H., 1986: Fruit and seed dispersal and the evolution of theHamamelidae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 394–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upchurch, G. R. Jr., 1985: Cuticle evolution in early Cretaceous angiosperms from the Potomac Group of Virginia and Maryland. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.71: 522–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaudois-Miéja, N., 1979: Sur un fruit fossile d'Hamamélidacées dans les Grès à Sabals de l'ouest de la France. — C. R. Congr. Nat. Soc. Sav., I,104: 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vink, W., 1957:Hamamelidaceae. — InSteenis, C. G. G. J. van, (Ed.): Flora Malesiana, Ser. I,5, pp. 363–379. — Dordrecht: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, M., Bogle, A. L., 1982: The ontogeny of the inflorescence and flower ofLiquidambar styraciflua L. (Hamamelidaceae). — Amer. J. Bot.69: 1612–1624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavada, M. S., Dilcher, D. L., 1986: Comparative pollen morphology and its relationship to phylogeny of pollen in theHamamelidae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.73: 348–381.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Systematische Botanik der Universität, Zollikerstrasse 107, CH-8008, Zürich, Switzerland

    Peter K. Endress

Authors
  1. Peter K. Endress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Endress, P.K. Aspects of evolutionary differentiation of theHamamelidaceae and the LowerHamamelididae . Pl Syst Evol 162, 193–211 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00936917

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00936917

Key words

Search

Navigation