Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Staminodes: Their morphological and evolutionary significance

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Different approaches to circumscribe staminodial structures in the angiosperms are reviewed. The need for a morphological distinction between “true staminodes” (derived from stamens or homologous to stamens) and “pseudostaminodes” (nonhomologous to stamens) is emphasized. In phylogenetic studies the term “staminode” is often used uncritically, without knowledge of the true homology of these structures. Staminodes are either whole organs (outer tiers or whorls, namely petals, intermediate tiers, or organs within a tier), or partial organs.

This article aims to discuss the shortcomings of the past and current approach of staminodes and proposes definitions of staminode types for use as characters in phylogenetic analyses. Staminodial structures should be classified according to their position and function in the flower. Both aspects are intricately linked and make the identification of staminodes sometimes problematic. Shifts in time (heterochrony) and space (heterotopy or homeosis) make that a regressing organ either aborts completely or becomes remodeled into something new. Petals are included in the definition of staminodes as they combine function and heterotopy. A hierarchical ordering of staminodial types is given and discussed. Three interdependent but possibly complementary functions are attached to the occurrence of staminodes: an attractive, nutritional, and structural function. The importance of staminodes for the evolution of the androecium and flower is demonstrated. The difficulty in unmasking pseudostaminodes, comprising receptacular disks, is demonstrated. The value and shortcomings of molecular-based interpretations of staminodes are discussed. It is shown that the decision to recognize a staminode from receptacular emergences often relies on unstable grounds and remains largely dependent on the acceptance of a given phylogenetic background.

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

Literature Cited

  1. Agarwal, S. 1963. Morphological and embryological studies in the family Olacaceae, I:Olax L. Phytomorphology 13: 185–196.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ainsworth, C., S. Crossley, V. Buchanan-Wollaston &M. Thangavelu. 1995. Male and female flowers of the dioecious plant sorrel show different patterns of MADS box gene expression. Pl. Cell 7: 1583–1598.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Albert, V. A., M. H. G. Gustafsson &L. Di Laurenzio. 1998. Ontogenetic systematics, molecular developmental genetics, and the angiosperm petal. Pp. 349–374in D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis & J. J. Doyle (eds.), Molecular systematics of plants, II: DNA sequencing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alexander, I. 1952. Entwicklungsstudien an Blüten von Cruciferen und Papaveraceen. Planta 41: 125–144.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Nowaihi, A. S. &S. F. Khalifa. 1971. Studies on some taxa of the Geraniales, I: Floral morphology ofAverrhoa carambola L.,Oxalis cernua Thunb. andO. corniculata L. with reference to the nature of the staminodes. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. B 37: 189–198.

    Google Scholar 

  6. ——. 1973. Studies on some taxa of the Geraniales, II: Floral morphology of certain Linaceae, Rutaceae and Geraniaceae with a reference to the consistency of some characters. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 52: 198–206.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Amaral, M. C. 1991. Phylogenetische Systematik der Ochnaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 113: 105–196.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Andersson, L. 1998. Heliconiaceae, and Marantaceae. Pp. 226–230, 278–293in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  9. APG (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group). 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531–553.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Appel, O. 1996. Morphology and systematics of the Scytopetalaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 121: 207–227.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Arber, A. 1931. Studies in floral morphology, I: On some structural features of the cruciferous flower. New Phytol. 30: 11–41.

    Google Scholar 

  12. —. 1933. Floral anatomy and its morphological interpretation. New Phytol. 32: 321.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ayensu, E. S. 1972. Morphology and anatomy ofSynsepalum dulcificum (Sapotaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 65: 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Baillon, H. 1860a. Recherches sur l’organisation et le développement des Ericoidées. Adansonia 1: 189–211.

    Google Scholar 

  15. —. 1860b. Recherches sur l’organisation, le développement et l’anatomie des Caprifoliacées. Adansonia 1: 353–380.

    Google Scholar 

  16. —. 1861. Organogénie florale du sésame. Adansonia 2: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. —. 1862a. Sur la fleur des pivoines. Adansonia 3: 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  18. —. 1862b. Sur leMercurialis alternifolia Desr. et sur les limites du genreMercurialis. Adansonia 3: 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  19. —. 1862c. Organogénie florale desMartynia. Adansonia 3: 341–348.

    Google Scholar 

  20. —. 1865. Remarques sur les Dilléniacées. Adansonia 6: 255–281.

    Google Scholar 

  21. —. 1866. Sur l’organisation florale d’unWormia des Seychelles. Adansonia 7: 343–347.

    Google Scholar 

  22. —. 1870. Histoire des plantes, II: Elaeagnacées. Hachette, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  23. —. 1871. Nouvelles notes sur les Hamamélidées. Adansonia 10: 120–137.

    Google Scholar 

  24. —. 1872. Observations sur les Rutacées. Adansonia 10: 299–333.

    Google Scholar 

  25. —. 1873. Traité du développement de la fleur et du fruit, IX: Chamaelauciées. Adansonia 11: 361–365.

    Google Scholar 

  26. —. 1874. Histoire des plantes, V: Euphorbiacées. Hachette, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  27. —. 1884. LesXylolaena et la valeur de la famille des Chlénacées. Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1(52): 410–414.

    Google Scholar 

  28. —. 1886. Remarques sur l’organisation et les affinités des Podostémonacées. Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1(81): 644–648.

    Google Scholar 

  29. —. 1892. Histoire des plantes, 11: Loranthacées. Hachette, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  30. —. 1895. Organogénie florale d’unCedrela. Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2 (150): 1186–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brille, M. L. 1901. Recherches sur le développement floral des Disciflores. Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux 56: 235–410.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bennek, C. 1958. Die morphologische Beurteilung der Staub- und Blumenblätter der Rhamnaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 77: 423–457.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bensei, C. R. &B, F. Palser. 1975a. Floral anatomy in the Saxifragaceae sensu lato, I: Introduction, Parnassioideae and Brexioideae. Amer. J. Bot. 62: 176–185.

    Google Scholar 

  34. —. 1975b. Floral anatomy in the Saxifragaceae sensu lato, II: Saxifragoideae and Iteoideae. Amer. J. Bot. 62: 661–675.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Berger, A. 1930. Crassulaceae. Pp. 352–483in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 18a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Berkeley, E. 1953. Morphological studies in the Celastraceae. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 69: 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bernhard, A. 1999a. Flower structure, development, and systematics in Passifloraceae and inAbatia (Flacourtiaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 160: 135–150.

    Google Scholar 

  38. —. 1999b. Floral structure and development ofCeratiosicyos laevis (Achariaceae) and its systematic position. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 131: 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  39. —. &P. K. Endress. 1999. Androecial development and systematics in Flacourtiaceae s.l. Pl. Syst. & Evol. 215: 141–155.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bernhardt, P. 1996. Anther adaptation in animal pollination. Pp. 192–220in W. G. D’Arcy & R. C. Keating (eds.), The anther: Form, function and phylogeny. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Beusekom, C. F. van. 1971. Revision ofMeliosma (Sabiaceae), sectionLorenzanea excepted, living and fossil, geography and phylogeny. Blumea 19: 355–529.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Blaser, J. L. 1954. The morphology of the flower and inflorescence ofMitchella repens. Amer. J. Bot. 41: 533–539.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bocquillon, H.-T. 1861a. Observations sur le genreOftia Adans. Adansonia 2: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  44. —. 1861b. Revue du groupe des Verbénacées. Adansonia 2: 81–165.

    Google Scholar 

  45. —. 1866. Mémoire sur le groupe des Tiliacées. Adansonia 7: 17–64.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bogie, A. L. 1989. The floral morphology, vascular anatomy, and ontogeny of the Rhodoleioideae (Hamamelidaceae) and their significance in relation to the ‘lower’ hamamelids. Pp. 201–220in P. R. Crane & S. Blackmore (eds.), Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae. Vol. 1, Introduction and ‘lower’ Hamamelidae. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bowman, J. L. &D. R. Smyth. 1998. Patterns of petal and stamen reduction in Australian species ofLepidium L. (Brassicaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 159: 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  48. —— &E. M. Meyerowitz. 1991. Genetic interactions among floral homeotic genes ofArabidopsis. Development 112: 1–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Breteler, F. J. 1973. The African Dichapetalaceae: A taxonomical revision. Meded. Landbouwhoogeschool Wageningen 73: 1–124.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Brizicky, G. K. 1959. Variability in the floral parts ofGomortega (Gomortegaceae). Willdenowia 2: 200–207.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Brough, P. 1933. The life-history ofGrevillea robusta (Cunn.). Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 58: 33–73.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Buxbaum, F. 1961. Vorlaüfige Untersuchungen Über Umfang, Systematischen Stellung und Gliederung der Caryophyllales (Centrospermae). Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen 36: 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Caris, P. 1998. Bloemontogenie en fylogenie van de Myrsinaceae en aanverwante taxa. Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

  54. Chase, M. W., D. E. Soltis, R. G. Olmstead, D. Morgan, D. H. Les, B. D. Mishler, M. R. Duvall, R. A. Price, H. G. Hills, Y.-L. Qiu, K. A. Kron, J. H. Rettig, E. Conti, J. D. Palmer, J. R. Manhart, K. J. Sytsma, H. J. Michaels, W. J. Kress, K. G. Karol, W. D. Clark, M. Hedén, B. S. Gaut, R. K. Jansen, K.-J. Kim, C. F. Wimpee, J. F. Smith, G. R. Furnier, S. H. Strauss, Q.-Y. Xiang, G. M. Plunkett, P. S. Soltis, S. M. Swensen, S. E. Williams, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn, L. E. Eguiarte, E. Golenberg, G. H. Learn Jr.,S. W. Graham, S. C. H. Barrett, S. Dayanandan &V. A. Albert. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: An analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid generbcL. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 528–580.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Chatin, A. 1873a. Sur l’organogénie de l’androcée des Labiées, des Globulariées et des Scrofularinées. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 20: 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  56. —. 1873b. Organogénie comparée de l’androcée dans ses rapports avec les affinités naturelles. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 20: 327–330.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Clifford, H. T. &J. G. Conran. 1998. Johnsoniaceae. Pp. 336–340in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cocucci, A. E. 1975. Estudios en el géneroProsopanche (Hydnoraceae), II: Organizatión de la flor. Kurtziana 8: 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Coen, E. S. 1991. The role of homeotic genes in flower development and evolution. Annual Rev. Pl. Physiol. Pl. Molec. Biol. 42: 241–279.

    Google Scholar 

  60. — &E. M. Meyerowitz. 1991. The war of the whorls: Genetic inteactions controlling flower development. Nature (London) 353: 31–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. —,J. M. Nugent, D. Luo, D. Bradley, P. Cubas, M. Chadwick, L. Copsey &R. Carpenter. 1995. Evolution of floral symmetry. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, B, 350: 35–38.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Conran, J. G. 1998. Lomandraceae. Pp. 354–365in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cook, C. D. K. 1998. Hydrocharitaceae, and Pontederiaceae. Pp. 234–248, 395–403in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Copeland, H. F. 1961. Observations on the reproductive structures ofAnacardium occidentale. Phytomorphology 11: 315–325.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Crane, P. R., E. M. Friis &K. R. Pedersen. 1994. Palaeobotanical evidence on the early radiation of magnoliid angiosperms. Pl. Syst. & Evol. (Suppl.) 8: 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Crepet, W. L. &K. C. Nixon. 1996. The fossil history of stamens. Pp. 25–57in W. G. D’Arcy & R. C. Keating (eds.), The anther: Form, function and phylogeny. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cronquist, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  68. —. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants. Ed. 2. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Dahigren, R. &A. E. van Wyk. 1988. Structures and relationships of families endemic to or centered in southern Africa. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri. Bot. Gard. 25: 1–94.

    Google Scholar 

  70. D’Arcy, W. G. 1996. Anthers and stamens and what they do. Pp. 1–24in W. G. D’Arcy & R. C. Keating (eds.), The anther: Form, function and phylogeny. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Daumann, E. 1931. Zur morphologische Wertigkeit der Blütennektarien vonLaurus. Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 48: 183–208.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Dawson, M. L. 1936. The floral morphology of the Polemoniaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 23: 501–511.

    Google Scholar 

  73. De Wilde, W. J. J. O. 1974. The genera of tribe Passifloreae (Passifloraceae), with special reference to flower morphology. Blumea 22: 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Dickison, W. C. 1994. A re-examination ofSanango racemosum, 2: Vegetative and floral anatomy. Taxon 43: 601–618.

    Google Scholar 

  75. — &A. L. Weitzman. 1998. Floral morphology and anatomy of Bonnetiaceae. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 125: 268–286.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Dickson, J. 1936. Studies in floral anatomy, III: An interpretation of the gynoeceum in the Primulaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 23: 385–393.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Domke, W. 1934. Untersuchungen über die systematische und geographische Gliederung der Thymelaeaceen nebst eines Neubeschreibung ihrer Gattungen. Biblioth. Bot. 27: 1–151.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Douglas, A. E. 1997. The developmental basis of morphological diversification and synorganization in flowers of Conospermeae (Stirlingia and Conosperminae: Proteaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 158 (6 Suppl.): S13-S48.

    Google Scholar 

  79. — &S. C. Tucker. 1996. Comparative floral ontogenies among Persoonioideae includingBellendena (Proteaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 83: 1528–1555.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Douglas, G. E. 1936. Studies in the vascular anatomy of the Primulaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 23: 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Drinnan, A. E., P. R. Crane &S. B. Hoot. 1994. Patterns of floral evolution in the early diversification of non-magnoliid dicotyledons (eudicots). Pl. Syst. & Evol. (Suppl.) 8: 93–122.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Eames, A. J. 1931. The vascular anatomy of the flower with refutation of the theory of carpel polymorphism. Amer. J. Bot. 18: 147–188.

    Google Scholar 

  83. —. 1953. Floral anatomy as an aid in generic limitation. Chron. Bot. 14: 126–132.

    Google Scholar 

  84. —. 1961. Morphology of the angiosperms. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Eckardt, T. 1959. Das Blütendiagramm vonBatis P. Br. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 72: 411–418.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Eichler, A. W. 1875-1878. Blüthendiagramme I & II. Engelmann, Leipzig.Eklund, H. 2000. Lauraceous flowers from the late Cretaceous of North Carolina, U.S.A. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 132: 397–428.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Eliasson, U. H. 1988. Floral morphology and taxonomic relations among the genera of Amaranthaceae in the New World and the Hawaiian Islands. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 96: 235–283.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Emberger, M. L. 1939. Recherches sur la fleur des Polygonacées. Rev. Gén. Bot. 51: 581–599.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  90. —. 1980. Floral structure and relationships ofHortonia (Monimiaceae). Pl. Syst. & Evol. 133: 199–221.

    Google Scholar 

  91. —. 1984. The role of inner staminodes in the floral display of some relic Magnoliales. Pl. Syst. & Evol. 146: 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  92. —. 1986. Reproductive structures and phylogenetic significance of extant primitive angiosperms. Pl. Syst. & Evol. 152: 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  93. —. 1990a. Patterns of floral construction in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 39: 153–175.

    Google Scholar 

  94. —. 1990b. Evolution of reproductive structures and functions in primitive angiosperms (Magnoliidae). Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 55: 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  95. —. 1994. Diversity and evolutionary biology of tropical flowers. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  96. —. 1995. Floral structure and evolution in Ranunculaceae. Pl. Syst. & Evol. (Suppl.) 9: 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  97. —. 1997. Relationships between floral organization, architecture, and pollination mode inDillenia (Dilleniaceae). Pl. Syst. & Evol. 206: 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  98. —. 1998.Antirrhinum and Asteridae: Evolutionary changes of floral symmetry. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 51: 133–140.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. —. 1999. Symmetry in flowers: Diversity and evolution. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 160: S3-S23.

    Google Scholar 

  100. — &L. Hufford. 1989. The diversity of stamen structures and dehiscence patterns among Magnoliidae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 100: 45–85.

    Google Scholar 

  101. — &S. Stumpf. 1990. Non-tetrasporangiate stamens in the angiosperms: Structure, systematic distribution and evolutionary aspects. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 112: 193–240.

    Google Scholar 

  102. ——. 1991. The diversity of stamen structures in ‘lower’ Rosidae (Rosales, Fabales, Proteales, Sapindales). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 107: 217–293.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Engler, A. 1930a. Podostemonaceae. Pp. 3–68in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 18a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  104. —. 1930b. Saxifragaceae. Pp. 74–226in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 18a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  105. —. 1931a. Zygophyllaceae. Pp. 144–184in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 19a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  106. —. 1931b. Rutaceae. Pp. 187–359in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 19a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  107. —. 1931c. Simarubaceae. Pp. 359–405in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 19a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  108. —. 1931d. Burseraceae. Pp. 405–456in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 19a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Erbar, C., S. Kusma &P. Leins. 1998. Development and interpretation of nectary organs in Ranunculaceae. Flora 194: 317–332.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Erdtman, G., P. Leins, R. Melville &C. R. Metcalfe. 1969. On the relationships ofEmblingia. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 62: 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Eyde, R. E. & J. T. Morgan. 1973. Floral structure and evolution in Lopezieae (Onagraceae). Amer. J. Bot. 771–787.

  112. Faden, R. B. 1998. Commelinaceae. Pp. 109–128in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Friedrich, H.-C. 1956. Studien über die natürliche Verwandtschaft der Plumbaginales und Centrospermae. Phyton (Horn, Austria) 6: 220–263.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Fukuoka, N., M. Ito &K. Iwatsuki. 1986. Floral anatomy of the mangrove genusLumnizera (Combretaceae). Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 37: 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Gandhi, K. N. &R. D. Thomas. 1983. A note on the androecium of the genusCroton and flowers in general of the family Euphorbiaceae. Phytologia 54: 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Gandolfo, M. A., K. C. Nixon &W. L. Crepet. 1998. A new fossil flower from the Turanian of New Jersey:Dressiantha bicarpellata gen. et sp. nov. (Capparales). Amer. J. Bot. 85: 964–974.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Gerrath, J., C. R. Lacroix &U. Posluszny. 1990. The developmental morphology ofLeea guineensis, II: Floral development. Bot. Gaz. 151: 210–220.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Gilg, E. 1894. Studien über die Verwandtschaftsberhältnisse der Thymeiaeales und über die anatomische Methode: Thymelaeaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 18: 488–574.

    Google Scholar 

  119. —. 1925. Ochnaceae. Pp. 53–87in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 21. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Goebel, K. 1933. Organographie der Pflanzen insbesondere der Archegoniaten und Samenpflanzen. Part 3. Ed. 3. Gustav Fischer, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Goldberg, A. 1986. Classification, evolution and phylogeny of the families of dicotyledons. Smithsonian. Contrib. Bot. 58: 1–314.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Gustafsson, M. G. H. 2000. Floral morphology and relationships ofClusia gundlachii with a discussion of floral organ identity and diversity in the genusClusia. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161: 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  123. — &Albert, V. A. 1999. Inferior ovaries and angiosperm diversification. Pp. 403–431in P. M. Hollingsworth, R. M. Bateman & R. J. Gornall (eds.), Molecular systematics and plant evolution. Taylor & Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Gutzwiller, M.-A. 1961. Die phylogenetische Stellung vonSuriana maritima L. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 81: 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Haber, J. M. 1959. The comparative anatomy and morphology of the flowers and inflorescences of the Proteaceae, I: Some Australian taxa. Phytomorphology 9: 325–358.

    Google Scholar 

  126. —. 1961. The comparative anatomy and morphology of the flowers and inflorescences of the Proteaceae, II: Some American taxa. Phytomorphology 11: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  127. —. 1966. The comparative anatomy and morphology of the flowers and inflorescences of the Proteaceae, III: Some African taxa. Phytomorphology 16: 490–527.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Hakki, M. I. 1998. On floral morphology and embryology ofUsteria guineensis Willd. (Loganiaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 120: 275–293.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Harms, H. 1925a. Passifloraceae. Pp. 470–507in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 21. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  130. —. 1925b. Achariaceae. Pp. 507–510in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 21. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  131. —. 1960. Meliaceae. Pp. 1–172in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 19bl. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Hartog, M. M. 1878. On the floral structure and affinities of Sapotaceae. J. Bot. 16: 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Haynes, R. R., D. H. Les &L. B. Holm-Nielsen. 1998. Limnocharitaceae. Pp. 271–275in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Heel, W. A. van. 1966. Morphology of the androecium in Malvales. Blumea 13: 177–394.

    Google Scholar 

  135. —. 1967. Anatomical and ontogenetic investigations on the morphology of the flowers and the fruit ofScyphostegia borneensis Stapf (Scyphostegiaceae). Blumea 15: 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Heinig, K. 1951. Studies in the floral morphology of the Thymelaeaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 38: 113–132.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Heß, D. 1983. Die Blüte. Einfühtrung in Struktur und Funktion, Ökologie und Evolution der Blüten. Ulmer, Stuttgart.

  138. Hiepko, P. 1965. Vergleichend-morphologische und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen über das Perianth bei den Polycarpicae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 84: 359–508.

    Google Scholar 

  139. —. 1966. Zur Morphologie, Anatomie und Funktion des Discus der Paeoniaceae. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 79: 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Hofmann, U. 1993. Flower morphology and ontogeny. Pp. 123–166in H.-D. Behnke & T. J. Mabry (eds.), Caryophyllales: Evolution and systematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  141. — &J. Göttmann. 1990.Morina L. undTriplostegia Wall. ex DC. im Vergleich mit Valerianaceae und Dipsacaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 111: 499–553.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Huber, H. 1998. Dioscoreaceae. Pp. 216–235in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Hufford, L. 1990. Androecial development and the problem of monophyly of Loasaceae. Canad. J. Bot. 68: 402–419.

    Google Scholar 

  144. — &P. K. Endress. 1989. The diversity of anther structures and dehiscence patterns among Hamamelididae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 99: 301–346.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Hutchinson, J. 1959. The families of flowering plants. Vol. 1, Dicotyledons. Ed. 2. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Ihlenfeldt, H. D. 1960. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche, morphologische und systematische Untersuchungen an Mesembryanthemen. Feddes Repert. 63: 1–104.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Innes, R. L., W. R. Remphrey &L. M. Lenz. 1989. An analysis of the development of single and double flowers inPotentilla fruticosa. Canad. J. Bot. 67: 1067–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Johnson, D. S. 1935. The development of the shoot, male flower and seedling ofBatis maritima L. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 62: 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Joshi, A. C. 1932. Dédoublement of stamens inAchyranthes aspera, Linn. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 11: 335–339.

    Google Scholar 

  150. —. 1936. Anatomy of the flowers ofStellera chamaejasme. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 15: 77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  151. — &C. Venkata Rao. 1934. A contribution to the anatomy, morphology and cytology of the flowerof Digera arvensis Forsk. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 13: 201–228.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Juncosa, A. M. 1988. Floral development and character evolution in Rhizophoraceae. Pp. 83–101in P. Leins, S. C. Tucker & P. K. Endress (eds.), Aspects of floral development. Cramer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  153. — &P. B. Tomlinson. 1987. Floral development in mangrove Rhizophoraceae. Amer. J. Bot. 74: 1263–1279.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Kallunki, J. A. 1998.Andreadoxa flava (Rutaceae, Cuspariinae): A new genus and species from Bahia, Brazil. Brittonia 50: 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Karrer, A. B. 1991. Blütenentwicklung und systematische Stellung der Papaveraceae und Capparaceae. Ph.D. diss, Univ. of Zürich.

  156. Kasapligil, B. 1951. Morphological and ontogenetic studies ofUmbellularia californica Nutt. andLaurus nobilis L. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 25: 115–240.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Khosla, C. &H. Y. Mohan Ram. 1993. Morphology of flower, fruit and seed inPolypleurum stylosum. Aquatic Bot. 46: 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Kirchoff, B. K. 1991. Homeosis in the flowers of the Zingiberales. Amer. J. Bot. 78: 833–837.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Klopfer, K. 1972. Beiträge zur floralen Morphogenese und Histogenèse der Saxifragaceae, VII:Parnassia palustris undFrancoa sonchifolia. Flora 161: 320–332.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Kluge, A. G. 1988. The characteristics of ontogeny. Pp. 57–81in C. J. Humphries (ed.), Ontogeny and systematics. British Museum (National History), London.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Kopka, S. &F. Weberling. 1983. Zur Morphologie und Morphogenese der Blüte vonVochysia acuminata Bong, subsp.laurifolia (Warm.) Stafleu (Vochysiaceae). Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen 59: 273–302.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Kosuge, K. 1993. Petal evolution of the Polycarpicae. Abstr. XV Int. Bot. Congr., Yokohama, p. 92.

  163. —. 1994. Petal evolution in Ranunculaceae. Pl. Syst. & Evol. (Suppl.) 8: 185–191.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Kral, R. 1998. Xyridaceae. Pp. 461–469in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Kramer, E. M. &V. F. Irish. 2000. Evolution of the petal and stamen developmental programs: Evidence from comparative studies of the lower eudicots and basal Angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161 (6 Suppl.): 529–540.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Krause, J. 1960. Corynocarpaceae. Pp. 22–35in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 20b. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Kress, W. J. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of Zingiberales. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 77: 698–721.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Kshetrapal, S. 1970. A contribution to the vascular anatomy of the flower of certain species of the Salvadoraceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 49: 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  169. —. 1973. Vascular anatomy of the node and flower ofHoppea dichotoma Willd. Bot. Gaz. 134: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Kubitzki, K. 1969. Monographie der Hernandiaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 89: 78–209.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Kumar, A. 1976. Studies in Geraniales, II: The floral anatomy. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 55: 233–253.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Larsen, K. 1998. Costaceae. Pp. 128–132in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  173. —,J. M. Lock, H. Maas &P. J. M. Maas. 1998. Zingiberaceae. Pp. 474–495in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Lawrence, J. R. 1937. A correlation of the taxonomy and the floral anatomy of certain species of the Boraginaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 24: 433–444.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Lehmann, N. L. &R. Sattler. 1989. Floral development and homeosis inBegonia semperflorens: Cultorum “Cinderella.” Amer. J. Bot. (Suppl.) 76: 43 (abstract).

    Google Scholar 

  176. ——. 1992. Irregular floral development inCalla palustris (Araceae) and the concept of homeosis. Amer. J. Bot. 79: 1145–1157.

    Google Scholar 

  177. ——. 1993. Homeosis in floral development ofSanguinaria canadensis andS. canadensis “Multiplex” (Papaveraceae). Amer. J. Bot. 80: 1323–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  178. ——. 1994. Floral development and homeosis inActaea rubra (Ranunculaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 155: 658–671.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Leins, P. 1964. Die frühe Blütenentwicklung vonHypericum hookerianum Wight et Arn. undH. aegypticum L. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 77: 112–123.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Li, P. &M. O. Johnston. 2000. Heterochrony in plant evolutionary studies through the twentieth century. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 66: 57–88.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Link, D. A. 1991. The floral nectaries of Geraniales, III: Lepidobotryaceae J. Léonard. Bull. Jard. Bot. Belg. 61: 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  182. —. 1992. The floral nectaries of the Geraniales and their systematic implications, IV: Ctenolophonaceae Badre. Flora 187: 103–107.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Litt, A. 1997. The single fertile stamen of the Vochysiaceae: Derived four times or once? Amer. J. Bot. (Suppl.) 84: 48 (abstract).

    Google Scholar 

  184. Maas-van der Kamer,H. &T. Weustenfeld. 1998. Triuridaceae. Pp. 452–458in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  185. MacIntyre, J. P. &C. R. Lacroix. 1996. Comparative development of perianth and androecial primordia of the single flower and the homeotic double-flowered mutant inHibiscus rosa-sinensis (Malvaceae). Canad. J. Bot. 74: 1871–1882.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Mair, O. 1977. Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte monosymmetrischer Dicotylen-Blüten. Diss. Bot. 38: 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Mattfeld, J. 1960a. Salvadoraceae. Pp. 232–239in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 20b. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  188. —. 1960b. Stackhousiaceae. Pp. 240–254in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 20b. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  189. McConchie, C. A. &J. W. Kadereit. 1987. Floral structure ofVallisneria Caulescens Bailey & F. Mueller. Aquatic Bot. 29: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  190. Melville, R. 1984. The affinity ofPaeonia and a second genus of Paeoniaceae. Kew Bull. 38: 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Michaelis, P. 1924. Blütenmorphologische Untersuchungen an den Euphorbiaceen. Bot. Abh. 3: 1–150.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Mione, T. &A. L. Bogle. 1990. Comparative ontogeny of the inflorescence and flower ofHamamelis virginiana andLoropetalum chinense (Hamamelidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 77: 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Moncur, M. W. 1988. Floral development of tropical and subtropical fruit and nut species: An atlas of scanning electron micrographs. Natural Resources Series, 8. CSIRO, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Moore, J. A. 1936a. The vascular anatomy of the flower in the Papilionaceous Leguminosae, I. Amer. J. Bot. 23: 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  195. —. 1936b. The vascular anatomy of the flower in the Papilionaceous Leguminosae, II. Amer. J. Bot. 23: 349–355.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Morgan, D. R. &D. E. Soltis. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships among members of Saxifragaceae sensu lato based on rbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 631–660.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Murray, M. A. 1945. Carpellary and placental structure in the Solanaceae. Bot. Gaz. 107: 243–260.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Murty, Y. S. 1954. Studies in the order Parietales. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 98: 226–238.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Nair, N. C. &R. K. Jain. 1956. Floral morphology and embryology ofBalanites roxburghii Planch. Lloydia 19: 269–279.

    Google Scholar 

  200. — &T. C. Joseph. 1957. Floral morphology and embryology ofSamadera indica. Bot. Gaz. 119: 104–115.

    Google Scholar 

  201. — &R. K. Joshi. 1958. Floral morphology of some members of the Simaroubaceae. Bot. Gaz. 120: 88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  202. — &P. N. N. Nambisan. 1957. Contribution to the floral morphology and embryology ofLeea sambucina Willd. Bot. Not. 110: 160–172.

    Google Scholar 

  203. — &V. S. Sarma. 1961. Organography and floral anatomy of some members of the Rhamnaceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 40: 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  204. Nandi, O. 1998. Floral development and systematics of Cistaceae. Pl. Syst. & Evol. 212: 107–134.

    Google Scholar 

  205. Narayana, L. L. 1960. Studies in Burseraceae, II. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 39: 204–209.

    Google Scholar 

  206. —. 1964. A contribution to the floral anatomy and embryology of Linaceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 43: 344–357.

    Google Scholar 

  207. —. 1966. A contribution to the floral anatomy of Oxalidaceae. J. Jap. Bot. 41: 321–328.

    Google Scholar 

  208. — &D. Rao. 1966. Floral morphology of Linaceae. J. Jap. Bot. 41: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  209. ——. 1969. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Humiriaceae, 1. J. Jap. Bot. 44: 328–335.

    Google Scholar 

  210. ——. 1971. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Linaceae, II. Phytomorphology 21: 64–67.

    Google Scholar 

  211. ——. 1974. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Linaceae, IV. Curr. Sci. (Bangalore) 43: 391–393.

    Google Scholar 

  212. ——. 1976a. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Linaceae, 6. J. Jap. Bot. 51: 92–96.

    Google Scholar 

  213. ——. 1976b. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Linaceae, 7. J. Jap. Bot. 51: 349–352.

    Google Scholar 

  214. ——. 1977a. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Linaceae, 8. J. Jap. Bot. 52: 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  215. ——. 1977b. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Humiriaceae, 6. J. Jap. Bot. 52: 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  216. ——. 1977c. Contributions to the floral anatomy of Linaceae, 9. J. Jap. Bot. 52: 231–234.

    Google Scholar 

  217. ——. 1978. Systematic position of Humiriaceae, Linaceae and erythroxylaceae in the light of their comparative floral morphology and embryology: A discussion. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 57: 258–266.

    Google Scholar 

  218. —,P. Satyanarayana &P. S. Prakasa Rao. 1986. The floral anatomy ofCorynocarpus laevigatus (Corynocarpaceae). Phytomorphology 36: 325–329.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Nelson, G. 1978. Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology, and the biogenetic law. Syst. Zool. 27: 324–345.

    Google Scholar 

  220. Neubauer, H. F. 1959. Über das Staminodium vonKigelia aethiopica Decne. Oesterr. Bot. Z. 106: 546–550.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Norris, T. 1941. Torus anatomy and nectary characteristics as phylogenetic criteria in the Rhoeadales. Amer. J. Bot. 28: 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  222. Palser, B. F. 1962. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales, VI: The Diapensiaceae. Bot. Gaz. 124: 200–219.

    Google Scholar 

  223. Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. Pp. 21–74in K. A. Joysey & A. E. Friday (eds.), Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume No. 21. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  224. Payer, J. B. 1857. Traité d’organogénie comparée de la fleur. Masson, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  225. Pax, F. &K. Hoffmann. 1936. Capparidaceae. Pp. 146–223in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 17b. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  226. Pennington, T. D. 1991. Morphology. Pp. 75–85in T. D. Pennington, The genera of Sapotaceae. Roy. Bot. Gard., Kew, England, & New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  227. Philipson, W. R. 1987.Corynocarpus J. R. & G. Forst.: An isolated genus. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 95: 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  228. Prichard, E. C. 1955. Morphological studies in Rhamnaceae. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 71: 82–106.

    Google Scholar 

  229. Puri, V. 1948. Studies in floral anatomy, V: On the structure and nature of the corona in certain species of the Passifloraceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 27: 130–149.

    Google Scholar 

  230. —. 1951. Role of floral anatomy in the solution of morphological problems. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 17: 472–534.

    Google Scholar 

  231. Radlkofer, I. 1896. Sapindaceae. Pp. 277–366in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Vol. III, 5. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  232. Raghavan, T. S. 1939. Studies in the Capparidaceae, II: Floral anatomy and some structural features of the Capparidaceous flower. J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 52: 239–257.

    Google Scholar 

  233. Rahn, K. 1998. Alliaceae, and Themidaceae. Pp. 70–78, 436–440in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  234. Rao, V. S. &Arati Ganguli. 1963. Studies in the floral anatomy of the Apocynaceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 42: 419–435.

    Google Scholar 

  235. Reece, P. C. 1939. The floral anatomy of the avocado. Amer. J. Bot. 26: 429–432.

    Google Scholar 

  236. Reed, C. F. 1955. The comparative morphology of the Olacaceae, Opiliaceae and Octoknemaceae. Mem. Soc. Brot. 10: 29–79.

    Google Scholar 

  237. Reeves, P. A. &R. G. Olmstead. 1998. Evolution of novel morphological and reproductive traits in a clade containingAntirrhinum majus (Scrophulariaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 85: 1047–1056.

    Google Scholar 

  238. Ridsdale, C. E. 1974. A revision of the family Leeaceae. Blumea 22: 57–100.

    Google Scholar 

  239. Rodríguez-Riaño, T., A. Ortega-Olivencia &J. A. Devesa. 1999. Types of androecium in the Fabaceae of SW Europe. Ann. Bot. (London) 83: 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  240. Rohweder, O. &K. Huber. 1974. Centrospermen-Studien, 7: Beobachtungen und Anmerkungen zur Morphologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte einiger Nyctaginaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 94: 327–359.

    Google Scholar 

  241. Rohwer, J. 1994. A note on the evolution of the stamens in the Laurales, with emphasis on the Lauraceae. Bot. Acta 107: 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  242. Ronse Decraene, L. P. 1985. Een bijdrage tot de klassifikatie van Dilleniidae en Rosidae sensu Cronquist met behulp van meeldraadkenmerken. Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

  243. —. 1989. Floral development ofCochlospermum tinctorium andBixa orellana with special emphasis on the androecium. Amer. J. Bot. 76: 1344–1359.

    Google Scholar 

  244. -. 1992. The androecium of the Magnoliophytina: Characterisation and systematic importance. Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

  245. — &J. R. Akeroyd. 1988. Generic limits inPolygonum and related genera (Polygonaceae) on the basis of floral characters. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 98: 321–371.

    Google Scholar 

  246. — &E. Smets. 1990a. The floral development ofPopowia whitei (Annonaceae). Nord. J. Bot. 10: 411–420. (Corrected in 1991 in Nord. J. Bot. 11: 420.)

    Google Scholar 

  247. ——. 1990b. The systematic relationship between Begoniaceae and Papaveraceae: A comparative study of their floral development. Bull. Jard. Bot. Belg. 60: 229–273.

    Google Scholar 

  248. ——. 1991a. Androecium and floral nectaries ofHarungana madagascariensis (Clusiaceae). Pl. Syst. & Evol. 178: 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  249. ——. 1991b. The impact of receptacular growth on polyandry in the Myrtales. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 105: 257–269.

    Google Scholar 

  250. ——. 1991c. The floral nectaries ofPolygonum s.l. and related genera (Persicarieae and Polygoneae): Position, morphological nature and semophylesis. Flora 185: 165–185.

    Google Scholar 

  251. ——. 1992. Complex polyandry in the Magnoliatae: Definition, distribution and systematic value. Nord. J. Bot. 12: 621–649.

    Google Scholar 

  252. ——. 1993. The distribution and systematic relevance of the androecial character polymery. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 113: 285–350.

    Google Scholar 

  253. ——. 1994. Merosity in flowers: Definition, origin, and taxonomic significance. Pl. Syst. & Evol. 191: 83–104.

    Google Scholar 

  254. ——. 1995a. The distribution and systematic relevance of the androecial character oligomery. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 118: 193–247.

    Google Scholar 

  255. ——. 1995b. Evolution of the androecium in the Ranunculiflorae. Pl. Syst. & Evol. (Suppl.) 9: 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  256. ——. 1998. Notes on the evolution of androecial organisation in the Magnoliophytina (Angiosperms). Bot. Acta 111: 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  257. ——. 1999. Similarities in floral ontogeny and anatomy between the generaFrancoa (Francoaceae) andGreyia (Greyiaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 160: 377–393.

    Google Scholar 

  258. —,E. Smets &D. Clinckemaillie. 1995. The floral development and floral anatomy ofCoris monspeliensis. Canad. J. Bot. 73: 1687–1698.

    Google Scholar 

  259. —,J. De Laet &E. Smets. 1998a. Floral development and anatomy ofMoringa oleifera (Moringaceae): What is the evidence for a caparalean or sapindalean affinity? Ann. Bot. (London) 82: 273–284.

    Google Scholar 

  260. —,E. Smets &P. Vanvinckenroye. 1998b. Pseudodiplostemony, and its implications for the evolution of the androecium in the Caryophyllaceae. J. Pl. Res. 111: 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  261. —H. P. Linder, T. Dlamini &E. Smets. 2001. Evolution and development of floral diversity of Melianthaceae, an enigmatic Southern African family. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  262. Rutishauser, R. 1997. Structural and developmental diversity in Podostemaceae (river-weeds). Aquatic Bot. 57: 29–70.

    Google Scholar 

  263. Sampson, F. B. 1969. Studies on the Monimiaceae, II: Floral morphology ofLaurelia novae-zelandiae A. Cunn. (subfamily Atherospermoideae). New Zealand J. Bot. 7: 214–240.

    Google Scholar 

  264. Sastri, R. L. N. 1952. Studies in Lauraceae, I: Floral anatomy ofCinnamomum iners Reinw. andCassytha filiformis Linn. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 31: 240–246.

    Google Scholar 

  265. —. 1965. Studies in the Lauraceae, V: Comparative morphology of the flower. Ann. Bot. (London), n.s., 29: 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  266. Sattler, R. 1962. Zur frühen Infloreszenz und Blütenentwicklung der Primulales sensu lato mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Stamen-Petalum-Entwicklung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 81: 358–396.

    Google Scholar 

  267. —. 1973. Organogenesis of flowers: A photographic text-atlas. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  268. —. 1988. Homeosis in plants. Amer. J. Bot. 75: 1606–1617.

    Google Scholar 

  269. —. 1994. Homology, homeosis, and process morphology in plants. Pp. 424–475in B. K. Hall (ed.), Homology: The hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  270. Saunders, E. R. 1937–1939. Floral morphology; a new outlook with special reference to the interpretation of the gynoecium. Vols. 1–2. W. Heffer & Sons, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  271. Saxena, N. P. 1976. Studies in the family Saxifragaceae, X: Floral morphology and systematic position ofParnassia. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 55: 282–288.

    Google Scholar 

  272. Schinz, H. 1934. Amaranthaceae. Pp. 77–85in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 16c. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  273. Schmid, R. 1972. Floral bundle fusion and vascular conservatism. Taxon 21: 429–446.

    Google Scholar 

  274. Sérsic, A. N. &A. A. Cocucci. 1999. An unusual kind of nectary in the oil flowers ofMonttea: Its structure and function. Flora 194: 393–404.

    Google Scholar 

  275. Setoguchi, H., H. Ohba &H. Tobe. 1996. Floral morphology and phylogenetic analysis inCrossostylis (Rhizophoraceae). J. Pl. Res. 109: 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  276. Sharma, M. R. 1954. Studies in the family Anacardiaceae, I: Vascular anatomy of the flower ofMangifera indica L. Phytomorphology 4: 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  277. Sheela, Lal. 1994. A contribution to the floral anatomy of Cedreleae (Meliaceae). Feddes Repert. 105: 449–455.

    Google Scholar 

  278. —. &L. L. Narayana. 1994. Floral anatomy and systematic position ofFlindersia R. Br. Feddes Repert. 105: 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  279. Simpson, M. G. 1998. Haemodoraceae. Pp. 212–222in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 4, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  280. — &P. J. Rudall. 1998. Tecophilaeaceae. Pp. 429–436in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The familieera of vascular plants. Vol. 3, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  281. Singh, V. 1979. Early floral development inDigitalis purpurea. Phytomorphology 29: 239–245.

    Google Scholar 

  282. — &D. K. Jain. 1978. Floral organogenesis inAdenocalymna alliaceum (Bignoniaceae). Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen 54: 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  283. — &A. Singh. 1985. Floral organogenesis inCinnamomum camphora. Phytomorphology 35: 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  284. Sleumer, H. 1935. Olacaceae. Pp. 5–32in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 16b. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  285. Smets, E. 1986. Localisation and systematic importance of the floral nectaries in the Magnoliatae (Dicotyledons). Bull. Jard. Bot. Belg. 56: 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  286. -. 1988a. Florale nektariën van de Magnoliophytina: karakterizering en systematische betekenis. Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

  287. —. 1988b. La Présence des “nectaria persistentia” chez les Magnoliophytina (Angiospermes). Candollea 43: 709–716.

    Google Scholar 

  288. — &E. Cresens. 1988. Types of floral nectaries and the concepts “character” and “characterstate”: A reconsideration. Acta Bot. Neerl. 37: 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  289. Speta, F. 1998. Hyacinthaceae. Pp. 261–285in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 3, Flowering plants: Monocotyledons: Lilianae (except Orchidaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  290. Steyn, E. M. A., P. J. Robbertse &A. E. van Wyk. 1987. Floral development inGreyia flanaganii with notes on inflorescence initiation and sympodial branching. S. African J. Bot. 53: 194–201.

    Google Scholar 

  291. Stoudt, H. N. 1941. The floral morphology of some of the Capparidaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 28: 664–675.

    Google Scholar 

  292. Subramanyam, K. &L. L. Narayana. 1976. A contribution to the floral anatomy and embryology in certain members of Primulaceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 55: 274–282.

    Google Scholar 

  293. Suessenguth, K. 1953a. Rhamnaceae. Pp. 7–173in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 20d. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  294. —. 1953b. Leeaceae. Pp. 372–390in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 20d. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  295. Takahashi, H. 1994. A comparative study of floral development inTrillium apetalon andT. kamtschaticum (Liliaceae). J. Pl. Res. 107: 237–243.

    Google Scholar 

  296. Takhtajan, A. 1980. Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 46: 225–359.

    Google Scholar 

  297. —. 1991. Evolutionary trends in flowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  298. —. 1997. Diversity and classification of flowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  299. Theißen, G., J. T. Kim &H. Saedler. 1996. Classification and phylogeny of the MADS-box multigene family suggests defined roles of MADS-box gene subfamilies in the morphological evolution of Eukaryotes. J. Molec. Evol. 43: 484–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  300. Thien, L. B., H. Azuma & S. Kawano. 1999. New perspectives in the pollination biology of basal angiosperms. Abstr. XV Int. Bot. Congr., Yokohama, p. 90.

  301. Tillson, A. H. &R. Bamford. 1938. The floral anatomy of the Aurantioideae. Amer. J. Bot. 25: 780–793.

    Google Scholar 

  302. Tschunko, A. H. &N. H. Nickerson. 1976. The androecium ofSuriana maritima. Rhodora 78: 160–164.

    Google Scholar 

  303. Tucker, S. C. 1984. Origin of symmetry in flowers. Pp. 351–395in R. A. White & W. C. Dickison (eds.), Contemporary problems in plant anatomy. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  304. —. 1988a. Heteromorphic flower development inNeptunia pubescens, a mimosoid legume. Amer. J. Bot. 75: 205–224.

    Google Scholar 

  305. —. 1988b. Dioecy inBauhinia resulting from organ suppression. Amer. J. Bot. 75: 1584–1597.

    Google Scholar 

  306. —. 1988c. Loss versus suppression of floral organs. Pp. 69–82in P. Leins, S. C. Tucker & P. K. Endress (eds.): Aspects of floral development. Cramer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  307. —. 1996. Trends in evolution of floral ontogeny inCassia sensu stricto,Senna, andChamaecrista (Leguminosae: Caesalpinoideae: Cassieae: Cassiinae): A study in convergence. Amer. J. Bot. 83: 687–711.

    Google Scholar 

  308. —. 1997. Floral evolution, development, and convergence: The hierarchical-significance hypothesis. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 158 (Suppl.): S143-S161.

    Google Scholar 

  309. —. 1998. Floral ontogeny in legume generaPetalostylis, Labichea, andDialium (Caesalpinioideae: Cassieae), a series in floral reduction. Amer. J. Bot. 85: 184–208.

    Google Scholar 

  310. Urban, I. 1892. Blüthen- und Fruchtbau der Loasaceen. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 10: 259–265.

    Google Scholar 

  311. Vanvinckenroye, P., E. Cresens, L. P. Ronse Decraene &E. Smets. 1993. A comparative floral developmental study inPisonia, Bougainvillea andMirabilis (Nyctaginaceae) with special emphasis on the gynoecium and floral nectaries. Bull. Jard. Bot. Belg. 62: 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  312. Vattimo, I. de. 1959. Notas sôbre o Androceu deAniba Aubl.(Lauraceae). Rodriguésia 21/22: 339–345.

    Google Scholar 

  313. Venkata Rao, C. 1952. Floral anatomy of some Malvales and its bearing on the affinities of families included in the order. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 21: 171–203.

    Google Scholar 

  314. —&Ramalakshmi, T. 1968. Floral anatomy of Euphorbiaceae, I: Some non-cyathium taxa. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 47: 278–298.

    Google Scholar 

  315. Vink, W. 1995. Revision ofMagodendron (Sapotaceae) with observations on floral development and morphology. Blumea 40: 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  316. Vogel, S. 1978. Evolutionary shifts from reward to deception in pollen flowers. Pp. 89–96in A. J. Richards (ed.), The pollination of flowers by insects. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  317. Wagner, W. L. &E. M. Harris. 2000. A unique HawaiianSchiedea (Caryophyliaceae: Alsinoideae) with only five fertile stamens. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  318. Walker-Larsen, J. &L. D. Harder. 2000. The evolution of staminodes in angiosperms: Patterns of stamen reduction, loss, and functional re-invention. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1367–1384.

    Google Scholar 

  319. Watson, L. & M. J. Dallwitz. 1992-. The families of flowering plants: Descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information retrieval. August 1999 version. ttp://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/

  320. Weberling, F. 1989. Morphology of flowers and inflorescences. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  321. —. &H. Uhlarz. 1983. Zur Morphologie und Morphogenese der Blüte vonCadaba juncea (Sparm.) Harv. (Capparidaceae). Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen 58: 267–281.

    Google Scholar 

  322. Weigel, D. &E. M. Meyerowitz. 1994. The ABCs of floral homeotic genes. Cell 78: 203–209.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  323. Winkler H. 1931. Linaceae. Pp. 82–130in A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Ed. 2. Vol. 19a. Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  324. Woodson, R. E. &J. A. Moore. 1938. The vascular anatomy and comparative morphology of Apocynaceous flowers. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 65: 135–165.

    Google Scholar 

  325. Woon, C. &H. Keng. 1979. Stamens of the Dipterocarpaceae. Gard. Bull., Singapore 32: 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  326. Worsdell, W. C. 1903. The origin of the perianth of flowers with special reference to the Ranunculaceae. New Phytol. 2: 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  327. Wydler, H. 1863. Ueber die Blüthe vonMelianthus. Flora 1863: 145–151.

    Google Scholar 

  328. Yanofsky, M. F. 1995. Floral meristems to floral organs: Genes controlling early events inArabidopsis flower development. Annual Rev. Pl. Physiol. Pl. Molec. Biol. 46: 167–188.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  329. Zohary, M. &B. Baum. 1965. On the androecium ofTamarix flower and its evolutionary trends. Israel J. Bot. 14: 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Plant Systematics Institute for Botany and Microbiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium

    L. P. Ronse Decraene & E. F. Smets

Authors
  1. L. P. Ronse Decraene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. F. Smets
    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

Decraene, L.P.R., Smets, E.F. Staminodes: Their morphological and evolutionary significance. Bot. Rev 67, 351–402 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858099

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858099

Keywords

Search

Navigation