Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Morfología y anatomía floral de la tribu Hamelieae (Rubiaceae)

  • Published:
Brittonia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Resumen

Se estudió la morfología y anatomía floral de siete géneros la tribu Hamelieae sensu Manns & Bremer con el objetivo de evaluar el potencial de estos caracteres en la circunscripción de la tribu. El muestreo incluyó 22 especies de Hamelieae y diez especies representantes de las subfamilias Cinchonoideae, Ixoroideae y Rubioideae con fines comparativos. Los miembros de Hamelieae tienen estambres adnados a la base de la corola, anteras dorsífijas con dehiscencia introrsa, haz vascular de tipo anfivasal en el filamento, endotecio de un estrato de células, estigma papiloso, placentación axilar, óvulos ortótropos unitégmicos, células del tegumento ocluidas por taninos e idioblastos con rafidios en todos los verticilos. Exostema y Hintonia (Cinchonoideae) comparten con Hamelieae, los estambres adnados a la base de la corola y la estivación imbricada. Sin embargo, se diferencian de la tribu por tener anteras con dehiscencia latrorsa, filamentos redondos, estilo ovoide con una constricción, óvulos anátropos con orientación basipétala e idioblastos con drusas o areniscas. Los representantes de Rubioideae e Ixoroideae a diferencia de Hamelieae y especies de Cinchonoideae estudiadas presentan estivación valvada y contorta a la izquierda, anteras medio-dorsifijas, estambres adnados a la garganta de la corola y tricomas en la garganta del tubo de la corola. La estivación imbricada, la presencia de rafidios y los estambres adnados a la base de la corola, apoyan las relaciones de parentesco entre Hamelieae y los representantes de Cinchonoideae propuestas por las filogenias moleculares.

Abstract

We studied floral morphology and anatomy of seven genera of the tribe Hamelieae sensu Manns & Bremer with the goal to evaluate the potential of these characters in the circumscription of the tribe. Twenty two species of Hamelieae were studied as well as ten representative species of the Cinchonoideae, Ixoroideae, and Rubioideae subfamilies for comparative purposes. The Hamelieae members had stamens adnate to the corolla base, anther dorsifixed with introrse dehiscence, amphivasal vascular bundle in the filament, endothecium of one layer of cells, papillose stigma, axile placentation, orthotropous and unitegmic ovules, epidermal cells of the integument with tannins, and idioblasts with raphides in all whorls. Exostema and Hintonia (Cinchonoideae) share with Hamelieae the stamens adnate to the corolla base and the imbricate aestivation. However, these genera are unlike of the tribe because they have anthers with latrorse dehiscence, round filaments, ovoid styles with a constriction, anatropous ovules with basipetal orientation, and idioblasts with druses or crystal sands. Rubioideae and Cinchonoideae representatives unlike Hamelieae and species of Cinchonoideae studied have valvate and contorted to the left aestivation, anthers dorsifixed at the middle, stamens adnate to the throat of the corolla, and trichomes in the throat of the corolla tube. The imbricate aestivation, the occurrence of raphides, and the adnate stamens of the corolla base supported the relationships among Hamelieae and Cinchonoideae as suggested by molecular phylogenies.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Literatura Citada

  • Anderson, L. & J. H. Rova. 1999. The rps16 intron and the phylogeny of the Rubioideae (Rubiaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 214: 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, Jr., W. H. 1968. Revision of Bouvardia (Rubiaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 55: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremekamp, C. E. B. 1966. Remarks on the position, the delimitation and the subdivision of the Rubiaceae. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 15: 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, B. 1987. The sister group of the paleotropical tribe Argostemmateae: a redefined neotropical tribe Hamelieae (Rubiaceae). Cladistics 3: 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. Combined and separated analyses of morphological and molecular data in the plant family Rubiaceae. Cladistics 12: 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———, K. Andreasen & D. Olsson. 1995. Subfamilial and tribal relationships in the Rubiaceae based on rbcL sequence data. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 82: 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Candolle, A. P. 1830. Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis. Paris.

  • De Block, P. 1998. The African species of Ixora (Rubiaceae-Pavetteae). Opera Botanica Belgica 9: 1–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995.Ovary, seed and fruit of Rutidea (Rubiaceae, Pavetteae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 196: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——— & A. Igersheim. 2001. Stigma of the African genera Rutidea and Nichallea (Rubiaceae-Ixoroideae-Pavetteae); highly modified receptive surfaces. International Journal of Plant Sciences 162: 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delprete, G. P. 1996. Evaluation of the tribes Chiococceae, Condamineeae and Catesbaeeae (Rubiaceae) based on morphological characters. Opera Botanica Belgica 7: 165–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dessein, S., S. Jansen, S. Huysmans, E. Robbrecht & E. Smets. 2001. A morphological and anatomical, survey of Virectaria (African Rubiaceae), with a discussion of its taxonomic position. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 137: 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickison, W. C. 1986. Floral morphology and anatomy of Staphyleaceae. Botanical Gazette 147: 312–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, J. D. 1969. The genus Hoffmannia (Rubiaceae) in Panama. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 56: 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endlicher, S. 1836–1940. Genera Plantarum secundum ordines naturals disposita. Apud Fr. Beck Universitatis Bibliopolam, Vinclobonae.

  • Elias, T. S. 1976. A monograph of the genus Hamelia (Rubiaceae). Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden 26: 81–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallen, E. M. 1985. The gynoecial development and systematic position of Allamanda (Apocynaceae). American Journal of Botany 72: 572–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukoka, N. 1978. Studies in the floral anatomy and morphology of the Rubiaceae II. Hedyotideae (Hedyotis). Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 29: 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, F. & P. J. Rudall. 2003. Structure and development of the ovule and seed in Aristolochiaceae, with particular reference of Saruma. Plant Systematics and Evolution 241: 223–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, K. G. & V. Puri. 1962. Morphology of the flower of some Gentianaceae with special reference to placentation. Botanical Gazette 124: 42–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, C. W. 1989a. A revision of Mesoamerican Psychotria subgenus Psychotria (Rubiaceae), Part I: Introduction Species 1–16. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 76: 67–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989b. A revision of Mesoamerican Psychotria subgenus Psychotria (Rubiaceae), Part III: Species 48–61. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 76: 886–916.

  • ———. 1989c. A revision of Mesoamerican Psychotria subgenus Psychotria (Rubiaceae), Part II: Species 17–47. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 76: 386–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igersheim, A. 1993. Gynoecyum development in Rubiaceae - Vanguerieae, with particular reference to the “stylar head”-complex and secondary pollen presentation. Plant Systematics and Evolution 187: 175–190.

  • ———, C. Puff, P. Leins & C. Erbar. 1994. Gynoecial development of Gaertnera Lam. and of presumably allied taxa of the Psychotrieae (Rubiaceae): secondary “superior” vs. inferior ovaries. Botanische Jahrbucher fur Systematik 116: 401–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkbride, H. J. 1984. Review of Omiltemia (Rubiaceae). Systematic Botany 9: 410–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorence, H. D. & J. D. Dwyer. 1988. A revision of Deppea (Rubiaceae). Allertonia 4: 389–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— & C. M. Taylor. 2012. Rubiaceae In: G. Davidse, M. Sousa, S. Knapp & F. Chiang, (eds.). Flora Mesoamericana: Rubiaceae a Verbenaceae. Missouri Botanical Garden 4(2):1–533.

  • Manns, U. & B. Bremer. 2010. Towards a better understanding of intertribal relationships and stable tribal delimitations within Cinchonoideae s.s. (Rubiaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56: 21–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Cabrera, D., T. Terrazas & H. Ochoterena. 2007. Leaf architecture of Hamelieae. Feddes Repertorium 118: 286–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———, ——— & ———. 2009. Foliar and petiole anatomy of tribe Hamelieae and other Rubiaceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 96: 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———, ———, ——— & L. LópezMata. 2010. Bark and wood anatomy of the Hamelieae tribe (Rubiaceae). IAWA Journal 31: 425–442.

  • ———, ———, H. Flores & H. Ochoterena. 2008. Morphology, anatomy, and taxonomic position of Plocaniophyllon Brandegee (Rubiaceae): a monotypic genus endemic to Mesoamerica. Taxon 57: 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, T. 1996a. Syringantha coulteri (Hooker f.) McDowell, and new combination and remarks on the relationships of the monotypic Mexican genus Syringntha Standley (Rubiaceae). Novon 6: 273–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996b. Exostema (Rubiaceae): taxonomic history, nomenclature, position and subgeneric classification. Opera Botanica Belgica 7: 277–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— & B. Bremer. 1998. Phylogeny, diversity and distribution of Exostema (Rubiaceae): implications of morphological and molecular analyses. Plant Systematics and Evolution 212: 215–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieschaert, F., L. Andersson, S. Jansen, S. Dessein, E. Robbrecht & E. Smets. 2000. Searching for the taxonomic position of the African genus Collectoecema (Rubiaceae): Morphology, and anatomy compared to an rps16-intron analysis of the Rubioideae. Canadian Journal of Botany 78: 288–304.

  • ———, S. Jansen, I. Jaimes, E. Robbrecht & E. Smets. 2001. Morphology, anatomy and taxonomic position of Pagameopsis (Rubiaceae - Rubioideae). Brittonia 53: 490–504.

  • Robbrecht, E. 1988. Tropical woody Rubiaceae. Opera Botanica Belgica 1: 1–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Supplement to the 1988 outline of classification of the Rubiaceae. Opera Botanica Belgica 6: 173–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— & J. F. Manen. 2006. The major evolutionary lineages of the coffee family (Rubiaceae, angiosperms). Combined analysis (nDNA and cpDNA) to infer the position of Coptosapelta and Luculia, and supertree construction based on rbcL, rps16, tnrL-trnF and atpB-rbcL data. A new classification in two subfamilies, Cinchonoideae and Rubioideae. Systematics and Geography of Plants 76: 85–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudall, J. P., R. M. Bateman, M. F. Fay & E. Eastman. 2002. Floral anatomy and systematics of Alliaceae with particular reference of Gilliesia, a presumed insect mimic with strongly zygomorphic flowers. American Journal of Botany 89: 1867–1883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ———, J. Cunniff, P. Wilkin & L. R. Caddick. 2005. Evolution of dimery, pentamery and the monocarpellary condition in the monocot family Stemonaceae (Pandanales). Taxon 54: 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruzin, E. S. 1999. Plant microtechnique and microscopy. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standley, P. C. 1921. North American Flora: Rubiaceae . New York Botanical Garden 32:87–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, A., P. J. Rudall & C. J. Prychid. 2004. Comparative floral anatomy of Pontederiaceae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 144: 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdcourt, B. 1958. Remarks on the classification of the Rubiaceae. Bulletin du Jardin Botanique Bruxelles 28: 209–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1976. Rubiaceae Part 1. In: R. M. Polhill (ed.). Flora of tropical East Africa. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

    Google Scholar 

  • World cheklist of selected plant families. 2006. The Board of Trustees fo the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://www.kew.org/wcsp/ Accessed 07 Febraury 2006.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programa de Botánica, Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Estado de México, 56230, México

    Dorismilda Martínez-Cabrera

  2. Instituto Tecnológico de Huejutla, Huejutla de Reyes, Hidalgo, 43000, México

    Dorismilda Martínez-Cabrera

  3. Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 70-233, México, Distrito Federal, 04510, México

    Teresa Terrazas & Helga Y Ochoterena

Authors
  1. Dorismilda Martínez-Cabrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Terrazas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helga Y Ochoterena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorismilda Martínez-Cabrera.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martínez-Cabrera, D., Terrazas, T. & Y Ochoterena, H. Morfología y anatomía floral de la tribu Hamelieae (Rubiaceae). Brittonia 66, 89–106 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12228-013-9301-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12228-013-9301-5

Palabras clave

Keywords

Search

Navigation