Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An updated classification of the class Magnoliopsida (“Angiospermae”)

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present classification of extant flowering plants (Magnoliopsida) updates and revises those presented previously by bringing together the vast majority of new information published since 1999. The extant members of Magnoliopsida are subdivided into 12 subclasses, 35 superorders, 87 orders, 40 suborders, 472 families, and 400 subfamilies. The number of genera and species for each accepted taxon is indicated, along with a statement of the taxonomic confidence that the taxon is worthy of recognition as outlined. Authorships and year of publication are provided for each accepted name and cited synonym. A rule change adopted in 2005 at the Vienna Botanical Congress has fundamentally altered authorships and valid places of publication for hundreds of names, and the full extent of the changes is unknown at present. Newly proposed names include subclass Malvidae; superorder Berberidopsidanae and Huerteanae; suborders Aralidiineae, Asphodelineae, Chloranthineae, Eriocaulineae, Hamamelidineae, Juglandineae, Myricineae, Papaverineae, and Xyridineae; and subfamilies Circaeasteroideae, Dampieroideae, Dasypogonoideae, Davidsonioideae, Ebenoideae, Goetzeoideae, Hesperocallidoideae, Hortonioideae, Isophysidoideae, Kingdonioideae, Laxmannioideae, Ledocarpoideae, Lilaeoideae, Lomandroideae, Morkillioideae, Octoknemoideae, Petunioideae, Phormioideae, Rhynchothecoideae, Sargentodoxoideae, Sclerophylacoideae, Siparunoideae, Sparattanthelioideae, Styloceratoideae, Tribeloideae, Tricyrtidoideae, and Xanthoceroideae.

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

Pertinent Literature

  • Aagesen, L. &A. M. Sanso. 2003. The phylogeny of the Alstromeriaceae, based on morphology,rps16 intron, and rbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerne, L. &M. Simpson. 2006. The vegetative anatomy of the Haemodoraceae and its systematic significance. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar, J. F., P. A. Fryxell & R. K. Jansen. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships and classification of theSida generic alliance (Malvaceae) based on nrDNA ITS evidence. Syst. Bot. 28: 352–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, K. J. 1974. Cuticular studies in some species ofMendoncia andThunbergia (Acanthaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 69: 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Airy Shaw, H. K. 1965. On a new species of theSilvianthus Hook. f. and on the family Carlemanniaceae. Kew Bull. 19: 507–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1973. A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns. Ed. 8. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albach, D. C., M. M. Martínez-Ortega, M. A. Fischer &M. W. Chase. 2004. Evolution of Veroniceae: a phylogenetic perspective. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 91: 275–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,H. M. Meudt &B. Oxelman. 2005. Piecing together the “new” Plantaginaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,D. E. Soltis, M. W. Chase &P. S. Soltis. 2001a. Phylogenetic placement of the enigmatic angiospermHydrostachys. Taxon 50: 781–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,P. S. Soltis &D. E. Soltis. 2001b. Patterns of embryological and biochemical evolution in the asterids. Syst. Bot. 26: 242–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,— &R. G. Olmstead. 2001b. Phylogenetic analysis of the Asteridae based on sequences of 4 genes. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 163–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albers, F. &U. Meve. 2001. A karyological survey of Asclepiadoideae, Periplocoideae, and Secamonoideae, and evolutionary considerations within Apocynaceae s.l. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 624–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alejandra, J., P. S. Manos &E. A. Zimmer. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the perianthless Piperales: reconstructing the evolution of flora development. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, M. H. 2006. Gerrardinaceae: a new family of African flowering plants unresolved among Bras-sicales, Huerteales, Malvales, and Sapindales. Taxon 55: 959–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Shehbaz, A., M. A. Beilstein &E. A. Kellogg. 2006. Systematics and phylogeny of the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae): an overview. Pl. Syst. Evol. 259: 89–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderberg, A. A., C. Rydin &M. Källersjö. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the order Ericales s.l.: analyses of molecular data from five genes from the plastid and mitochondrial genomes. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 677–687.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. Maesaceae, a new primuloid family in the order Ericales s.l. Taxon 49: 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. F. 2001. The cactus family. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L. &S. Andersson. 2000. A molecular phylogeny of Tropaeolaceae and its systematic implications. Taxon 49: 721–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. Kocsis &R. Eriksson. 2006. Relationships of the genusAzorella (Apiaceae) and other hydrocotyloids inferred from sequence variation in three plastid markers. Taxon 55: 270–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, S. 2006. On the phylogeny of the genusCalceolaria (Calceolariaceae) as inferred from ITS and plastid matK sequences. Taxon 55: 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen, K. &B. Bremer. 2000. Combined phylogenetic analysis in the Rubiaceae-Ixoroideae: morphology, nuclear and chloroplast DNA data. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1731–1748.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Angiosperm Phytogeny Group. 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141: 399–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applequist, W. L., W. L. Wagner, E. A. Zimmer &M. Nepokroeff. 2006. Molecular evidence resolving the systematic position ofHectorella (Portulacaceae). Syst. Bot. 31: 310–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &R. S. Wallace. 2000. Phylogeny of the Madagascan endemic family Didiereaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 221: 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2001. Phylogeny of the portulacaceous cohort based on ndhF sequence data. Syst. Bot. 26: 406–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002. Deletions in the plastid trnT-trnL intergenic spacer define clades within Cactaceae subfamily Cactoideae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 231: 153–162.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2003. Expanded circumscription of Didiereaceae and its division into three subfamilies. Adansonia, ser. 3, 25: 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asmussen, C. B. &M. W. Chase. 2001. Coding and noncoding plastid DNA in palm systematics. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1103–1117.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Azuma, H., J. G. Garcia-Franco, V. Rico-Gray &L. B. Thien. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the Magnoliaceae: the biogeography of tropical and temperate disjunctions. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2275–2285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Azuma, T., T. Kajita, J. Yokoyama &H. Ohashi. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships ofSalix (Salicaceae) based on rbcL sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 67–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baas, P., S. Jansen &E. Smets. 2001. Vegetative anatomy and affinities ofDirachma socotrana (Dirachmaceae). Syst. Bot. 26: 231–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backlund, A. &N. Pyck. 1998. Diervillaceae and Linnaeaceae: two new families of caprifolioids. Taxon 47: 657–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backlund, M., B. Oxelman &B. Bremen 2000. Phylogenetic relationships within the Gentianales based on ndhF and rbcL sequences, with particular reference to the Loganiaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1029–1043.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, C. D., M. Koch, M. Mayer, M. Klaus, S. L. O’kane, S. I. Warwick, M. D. Windham &I. Al-Shehbaz. 2006. A global nrDNA ITS phylogeny for the Brassicaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 205–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, B. G., B. L. Wessa &J. L. Panero. 2002. Nuclear rDNA evidence for major lineages of helenioid Heliantheae (Compositae). Syst. Bot. 27: 161–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, H. E. Jr.,M. Feng &J. K. Munzinger. 2002. Biogeographic patterns and trans-oceanic dispersai in the Violaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,G. Rothwell &R. Stockey. 2002. Reassessing relationships among aroids and duckweeds. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balthazar, M. von &P. K. Endress. 2002a. Didymelaceae—a comparison of female structures with Buxaceae and other basal eudicots. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002b. Reproductive structures and systematics of Buxaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 193–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002c. Development of inflorescences and flowers in Buxaceae and the problem of perianth interpretation. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 847–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,— &Y.-L. Qiu. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships in Buxaceae based on nuclear internal transcribed spacers and plastid dnhF sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161: 785–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,G. E. Schatz &P. K. Endress. 2003. Female flowers and inflorescences of Didymelaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 237: 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barfuss, M. H. J., R. Samuel, W. Till &T. F. Stuessy. 2005. Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Tillandsioideae (Bromeliaceae) based on DNA sequence data from seven plastid regions. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 337–351.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R. W., R. S. Hill &J. C. Bradford. 2001. The history of Cunoniaceae in Australia from macro-fossil evidence. Austral. J. Bot. 49: 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartish, I. V., N. Jeppsson, H. Nybom &U. Swenson. 2002. Phylogeny ofHippophaë (Elaeagnaceae) inferred from parsimony analysis of chloroplast DNA and morphology. Syst. Bot. 27: 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D. A., A. Yen, B. A. Whitlock, W. S. Alverson, R. Nyffeller, S. Smith &R. Oldham. 2002. Mode, locus, and tempo of evolution in Malvoideae and Bombacoideae (Malvaceae s.l.): evidence from multiple DNA sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, P. M. &R. G. Olmstead. 2002. Redefining Phrymaceae: the placement ofMimulus, tribe Mimuleae, andPhryma. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1093–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, H. D. 2000. Forms and sizes of sieve-element plastids and evolution of the monocotyledons. Pp. 163–188in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Sieve-element plastids and evolution of monocotyledons with emphasis on Melanthiaceae sensu lato and Aristolochia-Asaroideae, a putative dicotyledon sister group. Bot. Rev. 68: 524–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. D. &M. J. Donoghue. 2005. Dating the Dipsacales: comparing models, genes, and evolutionary implications. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 284–296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &E. J. Edwards. 2002. Phylogeny and biogeography of Valerianaceae (Dipsacales) with special reference to the South American species. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,S.-T. Kim &M. J. Donoghue. 2001. Dipsacales phylogeny based on chloroplast sequences. Harvard Pap. Bot. 6: 481–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blarer, A., D. L. Nickrent &P. K. Endress. 2004. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Apodanthaceae (Rafflesiales). Pl. Syst. Evol. 245: 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobrov, A. V. F. Ch., P. K. Endress, A. P. Melikian, M. S. Romanov, A. N. Sorokin &A. P. Bejerano. 2005. Fruit structure ofAmborella trichopoda (Amborellaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 148: 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogler, D. J., J. C. Pires &J. Francisco-Ortega. 2006. Phylogeny of Agavaceae based on ndhF, rbcL, and ITS sequences: implications of molecular data for classification. Aliso 22: 313–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, A. J., L. A. McDade &J. Schönenberger. 2006. Molecular systematics and patterns of morphological evolution in Thunbergioideae (Acanthaceae). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsch, T., W. Hilu, D. Quandt, V. Wilde, C. Neinhuis &W. Barthlott. 2003. Non-coding plastid trnT-trnF sequences reveal a well resolved phylogeny of basal angiosperms. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 558–576.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boureau, E. 1958. Contribution à l’étude anatomique des espèces actuelles de Rhopalocarpaceae. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) sér. 2 30: 213–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, J. &R. W. Barnes. 2001. Phylogenetics and classification of Cunoniaceae (Oxalidales) using chloroplast DNA sequences and morphology. Syst. Bot. 26: 354–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, B., K. Bremer, N. Heidari, P. Erixon, R. G. Olmstead, A. A. Anderberg, M. Källersjö &E. Barkhordarian. 2002. Phylogenetics of asterids based on 3 coding and 3 non-coding chloroplast DNA markers and the utility of non-coding DNA at higher taxonomic levels. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 24: 274–301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &J.-F. Manen. 2000. Phylogeny and classification of the subfamily Rubioideae-Rubiaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 225: 43–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, K. 2000. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the new ordinal system of the angiosperms. Pp. 125–133in B. Nordenstam, G. El-Ghazaly, M. Kassas & T. C. Laurent (eds.), Plant systematics for the 21st century. Portland Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002a. Gondwanan evolution of the grass alliance of families (Poales). Evolution 56: 1374–1387.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002b. Scytopetalaceae are stipulate. Kew Bull. 57: 759–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &T. Janssen. 2006. Gondwanan origin of major monocot groups inferred from dispersal-vicariance analysis. Aliso 22: 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Backlund, B. Sennblad, U. Swenson, K. Andreasen, M. Hjertson, J. Lundberg, M. Backlund &B. Bremer. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of 100+ genera and 50+ families of euasterids based on morphological and molecular data with notes on possible higher level morphological synapomorphies. Pl. Syst. Evol. 229: 137–169.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,B. Bremer &M. Thulin. 2003. Introduction to phylogeny and systematics of flowering plants. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 33(2): 1–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,E. M. Friis &B. Bremer. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic dating of asterid flowering plants shows early Cretaceous diversification. Syst. Biol. 53: 496–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, B. G. 2000. What is signiflcant-the Wollemi pine or the southern rushes? Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &L. A. S. Johnson. 1999. A guide to a new classification of Australian Restionaceae and allied families. Pp. 25–56in K. A. Meney & J. S. Pate (eds.), Australian rushes. University of Western Australian Press, Nedlands, Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2000. Hopkinsiaceae and Lyginiaceae, two new families of Poales in western Australia, with revisions ofHopkinsia andLyginia. Telopea 8: 477–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2001. The genusDesmocladus (Restionaceae) and new species from the south of Western Australia and South Australia. Telopea 9: 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,A. D. Marchant, S. Gilmore &C. L. Porter. 2000. A molecular phylogeny of Restionaceae and allies. Pp. 661–671in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, T., B. Oxelman, A. Vinnersten &K. Bremen 2002. Phylogenetic dating with confidence intervals using mean path lengths. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 24: 58–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brückner, C. 2000. Clarification of the carpel number in Papaverales, Capparales, and Berberidaceae. Bot. Rev. 66: 155–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51: 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Further dogged defense of paraphyletic taxa. Taxon 52: 803–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneau, A., F. Forest, P. S. Herendeen, B. B. Klitgaard &G. P. Lewis. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in the Caesalpinioideae (Leguminosae) as inferred from chloroplast trnL intron sequences. Syst. Bot. 26:487–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burge, D. 2006. Molecular systematics of the genusGarrya (Garryaceae): a phylogeny based upon nuclear gene sequences. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzgó, M. &P. K. Endrcss. 2000. Floral structure and development of Acoraceae and its systematic relationships with basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 16: 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, B. A. Hauser &B. Johansen. 2002. B-class organ identity in basal monocots. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caddick, L. R., P. J. Rudall &P. Wilkin. 2000a. Floral morphology and development in Dioscoreales. Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 111: 189–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,— &M. W. Chase. 2000b. Yams and their allies: systematics of Dioscoreales. Pp. 475–487in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,P. J. Rudall, T. A. J. Hedderson &M. W. Chase. 2002. Yams reclassified: a recircumscription of Dioscoreaceae and Dioscoreales. Taxon 51: 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callmander, M. W., P. Chassot, P. Küpfer &P. P. Lowery II. 2003. Recognition ofMartellidendron, a new genus of Pandanaceae, and its biogeographic implications. Taxon 52: 747–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. M. 1998. Systematics of heteromycotrophic Petrosaviaceae. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. An expanded phylogenetic analysis of Orchidaceae using three plastid genes: rbcL, atpB, and psaB. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. Intertribal relationships within Orchidaceae as inferred from analyses of five plastid genes. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. On the phylogenetic position of the New Caledonian endemic families Paracryphiaceae, Oncothecaceae, and Strasburgeriaceae: a comparison of molecules and morphology. Bot. Rev. 68: 428–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2006. A comparison and combination of plastid atpB and rbcL gene sequences for inferring phylogenetic relationships within Orchidaceae. Aliso 22: 447–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &M. W. Chase. 2000. Nuclear 18S rDNa sequences of Orchidaceae confirm the subfamilial status and circumscription of Vanilloideae. Pp. 457–464in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &C. Fu. 2000. Untangling the catbriers: phylogenetic studies in Smilacaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 117(Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,W. R. Anderson &H. G. Hills. 2001. Molecular systematics of Malpighiaceae: evidence from plastid rbcL and matK sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1847–1862.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,— &P. J. Rudall. 2003. Recircumscription of the monocotyledonous family Petrosaviaceae to includeJaponolirion. Brittonia 55: 214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,W. M. Whitten, P. J. Kores, D. C. Jarrell, V. A. Albert, T. Yukawa, H. G. Hills &D. H. Goldman. 1999. A phylogenetic analysis of the Orchidaceae: evidence from rbcL nucleotide sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,K. J. Wurdack &R. W. Jobson. 2002. Molecular evidence for the common origin of snaptraps among carnivorous plants. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1503–1509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. S., R. C. Evans, M. P. Arsenault &T. A. Dickinson. 2002. Phylogenetic insights into the Maloideae (Rosaceae) from chloroplast DNA. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caris, P., L. P. Ronse Decraene, E. Smets &D. Clinckemaillie. 2002. The uncertain systematic position ofSymplocos (Symplocaceae): evidence from a floral ontogenetic study. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &E. Smets. 2003. The relationship betweenSamolus L. and the Theophrastaceae: a floral ontogenetic approach. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 24 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2004. A floral ontogenetic study on the sister group relationships between the genusSamolus (Primulaceae) and the Theophrastaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 627–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006. Floral ontogenetic patterns in Ericaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlquist, S. 2000. Wood and bark anatomy ofTakhtajania (Winteraceae): phylogenetic and ecological implications. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 317–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001a. Wood anatomy of Fouquieriaceae in relation to habit, ecology, and systematics: nature of meristems in wood and bark. Aliso 19: 137–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001b. Wood and stem anatomy of Rhabdodendraceae is consistent with placement in Caryophyllales sensu lato. I. A. W. A. J. 22: 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001c. Comparative wood anatomy. Systematic, ecological, and evolutionary aspects of dicotyledon wood. 2nd rev. ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 2002. Wood anatomy and successive cambia inSimmondsia (Simmondsiaceae): evidence for inclusion in Caryophyllales s.l. Madroño 49: 158–164.

  • —. 2003a. Wood anatomy of Polygonaceae: analysis of a family with exceptional wood diversity. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141:25–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003b. Wood anatomy of Aextoxicaceae and Berberidopsidaceae is compatible with their inclusion in Berberidopsidales. Syst. Bot. 28: 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. Wood and bark anatomy of Myricaceae: relationships, generic definitions, and ecological interpretations. Aliso 21: 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005a. Wood and bark anatomy of Muntingiaceae: a phylogenetic comparison within Malvales s.l. Brittonia 57: 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005b. Wood anatomy of Krameriaceae with comparisons with Zygophyllaceae: phylesis, ecology and systematics. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 149: 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &E. L. Schneider. 2001. Vegetative anatomy of the New Caledonian endemicAmborella trichopoda: relationships with the Illiciales and implications for vessel origin. Pacific Sci. 55: 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2004. Perforation plate pit membrane remnants and other vessel details of Clethraceae: primitive features in wood of Ericales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 369–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • -.& S. Zona. 1988. Wood anatomy of Papaveraceae, with comments on vessel restriction patterns. I. A. W. A. Bull., n.s. 9: 253–267.

  • Cayzer, L. W., M. D. Crisp &I. R. H. Telford. 2000a. Revision ofPittosporum (Pittosporaceae) in Australia. Austral. Syst. Bot. 13: 845–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2000b.Auranticarpa, a new genus of Pittosporaceae from northern Australia. Austral. Syst. Bot. 13: 903–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadefaud, M. 1974. Sur la formule florale de la Capucine (Tropaeolum majus L.) Bull. Soc. Bot. France 121:347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, R. &V. A. Funk. 2006. Is the tribe Arctoteae (Compositae: Cichorioideae) monophyletic? More data, more taxa, some answers, even more questions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanderbali, A. S., H van der Werff. &S. S. Renner. 2001. Phylogeny and historical biogeography of Lauraceae: evidence from the chloroplast and nuclear genomes. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 104–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. T. &G. M. Plunkett. 2002. Recent advances in the resolution of intra-ordinal affinities in the Apiales: evidence from 26SrDNA. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2004. Evolution in Apiales: nuclear and chloroplast markers together in (almost) perfect harmony. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 144: 124–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, M. W. 2004. Monocot relationships: an overview. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1645–1655.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,D. Soltis, R. G. Olmstead, D. Morgan, D. H. Les, B. 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. Hedrén, B. S. Gaut, R. K. Jansen, K-J. Kim, C. F. Wimpee, J. F. Smith, G. R. Furnier, S. H. Straus, Q-Y. Xiang, G. M. Plunkett, P. S. Soltis, S. M. Swensen, S. E. Williams, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn, L. Eguiarte, E. Golenberg, G. H. Learn, 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 gene rbcL. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 528–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. de Bruijn, A. V. Cox, G. Reeves, P. J. Rudall, M. A. T. Johnson &L. E. Eguiarte. 2000. Phylogenetics of Asphodelaceae (Asparagales): an analysis of plastid rbcL and trnL-F DNA sequences. Ann. Bot. (London) 86: 935–951.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. F. Fay, D. S. Devey, O. Maurin, N. Rønsted, T. J. Davies Y. Pillon, G. Petersen, O. Seberg, M. U. Tamura, C. B. Asmussen, K. Hilu, T. Borsch, J. I Davis, D. W. Stevenson, J. C. Pires, T. J. Givnish, K. J. Sytsma, M. M. McPherson, S. W. Graham &H. S. Rai. 2006. Multigene analyses of monocot relationships: a summary. Aliso 22: 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &V. Savolainen. 2000. Higher-level classification in the angiosperms: new insights from the perspective of DNA sequence data. Taxon 49: 685–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, P. J. Rudall, M. F. Fay, W. H. Hahn, S. Sullivan, J. Jospeh, M. Molvray, P. J. Kores, T. J. Givnish, K. J. Sytsma &J. C. Pires. 2000. Higher-level systematics of the monocotyledons: an assessment of current knowledge and a new classification. Pp. 3–16in K. A. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,S. Zmarzty, M. D. Lledó, K. J. Wurdack, S. M. Swensen &M. F. Fay. 2002. When in doubt, put it in Flacourtiaceae: a molecular phylogenetic analysis based on plastid rbcL DNA sequences. Kew Bull. 57: 141–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chat, J., B. Jauregui, R. J. Petit &S. Nadot. 2004. Reticulate evolution in kiwifruit (Actinidia, Actinidiaceae) identified by comparing their maternal and paternal phylogenies. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 736–747.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chatrou, L. W. 2003. Myristicineae, a new suborder within Magnoliales. Taxon 52: 277–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheek, M., S. A. Williams &M. Etuge. 2003.Kupea martinetugei, a new genus and species of Triuridaceae from western Cameroon. Kew Bull. 58: 225–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesselet, P., G. F. Smith &A. E. van Wyk. 2002. A new tribal classification of Mesembryanthemaceae: evidence from floral nectaries. Taxon 51: 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civeyrel, L. &N. Rowe. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Secamonoideae based on the plastid gene matK, morphology, and biomechanics. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 583–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. G. &J. K. Triplett. 2006. Phylogeny of the Bambusoideae (Poaceae): an update. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 212.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,N. Barker, L. Clark, J. Davis, M. Duvall, G. Guala, C. Hsiao, E. Kellogg, R. Mason-Gamer, S. Mathews, R. Soreng &R. Spangler. 1998. Proposal for a subfamilial reclassification of the Poaceae. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. Kobayashi, S. Mathews, R. E. Spangler &E. A. Kellogg. 2000. The Puelioideae, a new subfamily of Poaceae. Syst. Bot. 25: 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Columbus, J. T., E. A. Friar, J. M. Porter, L. M. Prince & M. G. Simpson (eds.). 2006. Monocots: comparative biology and evolution. Excluding Poales. Aliso 22: 1–735.

  • —,M. S. Kinney, M. E. S. Delgado &J. M. Porter. 2000. Phylogenetics ofBouteloua and relatives (Gramineae: Chloridoideae): cladistic parsimony analysis of internal transcribed spacer (nrDNA) and trnL-F (cpDNA) sequences. Pp. 189–194in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conran, J. G. 1995. Family distributions in the Liliiflorae and their biogeographical implications. J. Biogeogr. 22: 1023–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1999. Anatomy and morphology ofBehnia (Behniaceae) and its relationships within Lilianae: Asparagales. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 131: 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &A. Temby. 2000. Embryology and affinities of the Boryaceae (Asparagales). Pp. 401–406in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. W. Chase &P. J. Rudall. 1997. Two new monocotyledon families: Anemarrhenaceae and Behniacae (Lilianae: Asparagales). Kew Bull. 52: 995–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Houben &A. Lowrie. 2002. Chromosome numbers in Byblidaceae. Austral. J. Bot. 50: 583–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,— &J. Moyle-Croft. 2002. A revision ofByblis (Byblidaceae) in south-western Australia. Nuytsia 15: 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, E., D. Baum &K. Sytsma. 1999. Phylogeny of Crypteroniaceae and related families: implications for morphology and biogeography, P. 250in Abstracts. XVI International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, August 1–7, 1999. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,T. Eriksson, J. Schoenenberger, K. J. Sytsma &D. A. Baum. 2002. Molecular evidence for Early Tertiary out-of-India dispersal in Crypteroniaceae (Myrtales). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, S. L. &S. R. Manchester. 2002. Phytogeographic history ofAilanthus Desf. (Simaroubaceae) based on fossil fruits. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correia, E. &H. Freitas. 2002.Drosophyllum lusitanicum, an endangered west Mediterranean endemic carnivorous plant: threats and its ability to control available resources. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 383–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coskun, F., L. Jianhua &C. R. Parks. 2001. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the genusTilia (Tiliaceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 107–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, P. R., E. M. Friis &K. R. Pederson. 1995. The origin and early diversification of angiosperms. Nature 374: 27–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,P. Herendeen &E. M. Friis. 2004. Fossils and plant phylogeny. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1683–1699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, D. J. 2000. Plant macromolecular systematics in the past 50 years: one view. Taxon 49: 479–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,E. Landolt, D. H. Les &R. T. Kimball. 2006. Speciation in duckweeds (Lemnaceae): phylogenetic and ecological inferences. Aliso 22: 231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crayn, D. M., K. A. Kron, P. A. Gadek &C. J. Quinn. 1998. Phylogenetics and evolution of epacrids: a molecular analysis using the plastid gene rbcL with a reappraisal of the position ofLebetanthus. Austral. J. Bot. 46: 187–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &C. J. Quinn. 2000. The evolution of the atpB-rbcL intergeneric spacer in the epacrids (Ericales) and its systematic and evolutionary implications. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 16: 238–252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. Rossetto &D. J. Maynard. 2006. Molecular phylogeny and dating reveals an Oligo-Miocene radiation of dry-adapted shrubs (former Tremandraceae) from rainforest tree progenitors (Elaeocarpaceae) in Australia. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 1328–1342.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,R. G. Terry, J. A. C. Smith &K. Winter. 2000. Molecular systematic investigations in Pitcairnioideae (Bromeliaceae) as a basis for understanding the evolution of crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM). Pp. 569–579in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crepet, W. L., K. C. Nixon &M. A. Gandolfo. 2004. Fossil evidence and phylogeny: the age of major angiosperm clades based on mesofossil and macrofossil evidence from Cretaceous deposits. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1666–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cribb, P. 1997. The genusCypripedium. Timber Press, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &T. Cox. 1998. Phylogeny of the Cypripedioideae. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &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 

  • Crozier, B. S. 2004. Subfamilies of Cactaceae Juss. including Blossfeldioideae subfam. nov. Phytologia 86: 52–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuénoud, P., V. Savolainen, L. W. Chatrou, M. Powell, R. J. Grayer &M. W. Chase. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Caryophyllales based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid rbcL, atpB, and matK DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 132–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, R. 1983. General aspects of angiosperm evolution and macrosystematics. Nordic J. Bot. 3: 119–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datwyler, S. L. &G. D. Weibling. 2004. On the origin of the fig: phylogenetic relationships of Moraceae from ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 767–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. C., W. R. Anderson &M. J. Donogue. 2001. Phylogeny of Malpighiaceae: evidence from chloroplast ndhF and trnL-F nucleotide sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1830–1846.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &M. W. Chase. 2004. Elatinaceae are sister to Malpighiaceae; Peridiscaceae belong to Saxifragales. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 262–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,C. D. Bell, S. Mathews &M. J. Donogue. 2002. Laurasian migration explains Gondwanan disjunctions: evidence from Malpighiaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 176.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P.W. Fritsch, J. Li &M. J. Donoghue. 2002. Phylogeny and biogeography ofCercis (Fabaceae): evidence from nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF sequence data. Syst. Bot. 27: 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. I. 2006. Molecular phylogenies and pollen evolution in Annonaceae (Magnoliales). Botany 2006, Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &P. K. Endress. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S121-S153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. Igersheim. 2000b. Gynoecium structure and evolution in basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S211-S223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &R. J. Soreng. 2007 A phylogenetic analysis of the grasses (Poaceae), with attention to subfamily Pooideae and structural features of the plastid and nuclear genomes, including an intron loss in GBSSI. Aliso 23: 335–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,G. Petersen, O. Seberg, D. W. Stevenson. C. R. Hardy, M. P. Simmons, F. A. Michelangeli, D. H. Goldman, L. M. Campbell, C. D. Specht &J. I. Cohen. 2006. Are mitochondrial genes useful for the analysis of monocot relationships? Taxon 55: 857–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,D. W. Stevenson, L. Campbell, D. Goldman, C. Hardy, F. Michelangeli, M. Simmons &C. Specht. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships among the monocots, as inferred from morphology and nucleotide sequence variation in three genes. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,G. Petersen, O. Seberg, L. M. Campbell, J. V. Freudenstein, D. H. Goldman, C. R. Hardy, F. A. Michelangeli, M. P. Simmons, C. D. Specht, F. Vergara-Silva &M. Gandolfo. 2004. A phylogeny of the monocots, as inferred from rbcL and atpA sequence variation, and a comparison of methods for calculating jackknife and bootstrap values. Syst. Bot. 29: 467–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denk, T. &B. Meller. 2001. Systematic significance of the cupule/nut complex in living and fossilFagus. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 869–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deroin, T. 1999a. Functional impact of the vascular architecture of flowers in Annonaceae and Magnoliaceae, and its bearing on the interpretation of the magnoliaceous gynoecium. Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 68: 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1999b. Ontogeny and phylogeny in Convolvulaceae-Ipomoeae: preliminary comparative remarks on ovary morphology. Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 68: 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. Notes on the vascular anatomy of the fruit ofTakhtajania (Winteraceae) and its interpretation. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 398–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detwyler, S. L. &G. D. Weiblin. 2004. On the origin of the fig; phylogenetic relationships of Moraceae from ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 767–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devey, D. S., I. Leitch, P. J. Rudall, J. C. Pires, Y. Pillon &M. W. Chase. 2006. Systematics of Xanthorrhoeaceae sensu lato, with an emphasis onBulbine. Aliso 22: 345–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wilde, W. J. J. O. 1971. The systematic position of tribe Paropsieae, in particular the genusAncistrothyrsus, and a key to the genera of Passifloraceae. Blumea 19: 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diane, N., H. Förther &H. H. Hilger. 2002. A systematic analysis ofHeliotropium, Tournfortia, and allied taxa of the Heliotropiaceae (Boraginales) based on ITS1 sequences and morphological data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 287–295.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,C. Jacob &H. H. Hilger. 2003. Leaf anatomy and foliar trichomes in Heliotropiaceae and their systematic relevance. Flora 198: 468–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, T., R. C. Evans &C. S. Campbell. 2002. Rosaceae classification and phylogeny: introduction and overview. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilcher, D. L. 2001. Paleobotany: some aspects of non-flowering and flowering plant evolution. Taxon 50: 697–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue, M. J., B. G. Baldwin, J. Li &R. C. Winkworth. 2004a.Viburnum phylogeny based on chloroplast trnK intron and nuclear ribosomal ITS DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 29: 188–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,C. D. Bell &R. C. Winkworth. 2004b. The evolution of reproductive characters in Dipsacales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S453-S464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,T. Eriksson, P. A. Reeves &R. G. Olmstead. 2001. Phylogeny and phylogenetic taxonomy of Dipsacales, with special reference toSinadoxa andTetradoxa (Adoxaceae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 6: 459–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doust, A. N. 2000. Comparative floral ontogeny in Winteraceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 366–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. N. Drinnan. 2004. Floral development and molecular phylogeny support the generic status ofTasmannia (Winteraceae). Amer. J. Bot. 91: 321–331.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &P. F. Stevens. 2005. A reinterpretation of the staminate flowers ofHaptanthus. Syst. Bot. 30: 779–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doweld, A. 2001. Prosyllabus tracheophytorum. Tentamen systematis plantarum vascularium (Tracheophyta). GEOS, Moscow.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2007. New syllabus of plant families. GEOS, Moscow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downie, S. R., D. S. Katz-Downie &M. F. Watson. 2000a. A phylogeny of the flowering plant family Apiaceae based on chloroplast DNA rpl16 and rpoC1 intron sequences: towards a suprageneric classification of subfamily Apioideae. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 273–292.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —— &K. Spalik. 2000b. A phylogeny of Apiaceae tribe Scandiceae: evidence from nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 76–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,G. M. Plunkett, M. F. Watson, K. Spalik, D. S. Katz-Downie, C. M. Valiejo-Roman, E. I. Terentieva, A. V. Troitsky, B.-Y. Lee, J. Lahham &A. El-Oqlah. 2001. Tribes and clades within Apiaceae subfamily Apioideae: the contribution of molecular data. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 301–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. F. Watson, K. Spalik &D. S. Katz-Downie. 2000. Molecular systematics of Old World Apioideae (Apiaceae): relationships among some members of tribe Peucedaneae sensu lato, the placement of several island-endemic species, and resolution within the apioid superclade. Canad. J. Bot. 78: 506–528.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. A. 2000a. Paleobotany, relationships, and geographic history of Winteraceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000b. Congruence of molecular phylogenies and the Early Cretaceous angiosperm record. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 67–68 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. Significance of molecular phylogenetic analyses for paleobotanical investigations on the origin of angiosperms. Palaeobotanist 50: 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005. Carpels inBrasenia (Cabombaceae) are completely-ascidiate despite a long stigmatic crest. Ann. Bot. 96: 209–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2006. Molecular phylogenies and pollen evolution in Annonaceae (Magnoliales). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &P. K. Endress. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S121-S153.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. Igersheim. 2000. Gynoecium structure and evolution in basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S211-S223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,H. Eklund &P. S. Herendeen. 2003. Floral evolution in Chloranthaceae: implications of a morphological phylogenetic analysis. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S365-S382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,H. Sauquet, T. Scharaschkin &A. Le Thomas. 2004. Phylogeny, molecular and fossil dating, and biogeographic history of Annonaceae and Myristicaceae (Magnoliales). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4 Suppl.): S55-S67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Drábková, L., J. Kirschner &C. Vicek. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships withinLuzula DC. andJuncus L. (Juncaceae): a comparison of phylogenetic signals of trnL-trnF intergeneric spacer, trnL intron and rbcL plastome sequence data. Cladistics 22: 132–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dransfield, J., N. W. Uhl, C. B. Asmussen, W. J. Baker, M. M. Harley &C. E. Lewis. 2005. A new phylogenetic classification of the palm family, Arecaceae. Kew Bull. 60: 559–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duangjai, S., B. Wallnoefer, R. Samuel, J. Munzinger &M. W. Chase. 2006a. Phylogenetic relationships and infrafamilial classification of Ebenaceae s.l. based on six plastid markers. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 218–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,——. 2006b. Generic delimitation and relationships in Ebenaceae sensu lato: evidence from six plastid DNA regions. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 1808–1817.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duvall, M. R. 2001. An anatomical study of anther development inAcorus L.: phylogenetic implications. Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. J. Bricker. 2002. Nuclear-cytoplasmic incongruence among monocots and related paleoherb dicots. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 121–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &J. I Davis, L. G. Clark, J. D. Noll, D. H. Goldman &J. G. Sànchez-Ken. 2007. Phylogeny of the grasses (Poaceae) revisited. Aliso 23: 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,S. Mathews, N. Mohammad &T. Russell. 2006. Placing the monocots: conflicting signal from trigenomic analyses. Aliso 22: 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,J. D. Noll &A. H. Minn. 2001. Phylogenetics of Paniceae (Poaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1988–1992.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eddie, W. M. M., T. Shulkina, J. Gaskin, R. C. Haberle &R. K. Jansen. 2003. Phylogeny of Campanulaceae s. str. inferred from ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 554–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrendorfer, F. &M. Lambrou. 2000. Chromosomes ofTakhtajania, other Winteraceae, and Canellaceae: phylogenetic implications. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 407–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eklund, H., J. A. Doyle &P. S. Herendeen. 2004. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of living and fossil Chloranthaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 107–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endress, M. E. &W. D. Stevens. 2001. The renaissance of the Apocynaceae s.l. Recent advances in systematics, phylogeny, and evolution: introduction. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 517–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endress, P. K. 2003a. Morphology and angiosperm systematics in the molecular era. Bot. Rev. 68: 545–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003b. Early floral development and nature of the calytra in Eupomatiaceae (Magnoliales). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003c. What should a “complete” morphological phylogenetic analysis entail? Pp. 133–164. In T. F. Stuessey, E. Hörandl & E. Mayer (eds.), Deep morphology: towards a renaissance of morphology in plant systematics. Gantner, Ruggell, Liechtenstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004a. Biologie und Evolution der Blüten basaler Blütenpflanzen. Leopoldina 49: 467–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004b. Heterodichogamy of a novel type inHernandia (Hernandiaceae) and its structural basis. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 753–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004c. Structure and relationships of basal relictual angiosperms. Austral. Syst. Bot. 17: 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005a. Links between embryology and evolutionary floral morphology. Curr. Sci. 89: 749–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005b. The role of morphology in angiosperm evolutionary studies. Nova Acta Leop. 92: 221–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005c. Carpels inBrasenia (Cabombaceae) are completely ascidiate despite a long stigmatic crest. Ann. Bot. (London) 96: 209–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. Igersheim. 2000. Floral structure ofAmborella, the earliest branching extant angiosperm. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 364 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • — &D. M. Sutter. 2002. Female flowers and cupules of Balanopaceae, an enigmatic rosid family. Botany 2002. Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. Baas &M. Gregory. 2000. Systematic plant morphology and anatomy—50 years of progress. Taxon 49: 401–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Igersheim, F. B. Sampson &G. E. Schatz. 2000. Floral structure ofTakhtajania and its systematic position in Winteraceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erbar, C. &P. Leins. 1996. Distribution of the character states “early sympetaly” and “late sympetaly” within the “Sympetalae Tetracyclicae” and presumably allied groups. Bot. Acta 109: 427–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, T., M. S. Hibbs, A. D. Yoder, C. F. Delwiche &M. J. Donoghue. 2003. The phylogeny of Rosoideae (Rosaceae) based on sequences of the internal transcribed spacers (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA and the trnL/F region of chloroplast DNA. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 197–211.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. E. E. Smedmark, M. S. Hibbs &P. Ostensson. 2002. Phylogeny of Rosoideae (Rosaceae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, D. M. &H. E. Schorn. 2000. Revision ofLyonothamnus A. Gray (Rosaceae) from the Neogene of western North America. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161: 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H.-J. 2003. Variation in fruit characters of Euphorbiaceae—is there another subfamily? Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 149 (Abstr.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. C., L. A. Alice, C. S. Campbell, E. A. Kellogg &T. A. Dickinson. 2000. The granule-bound starch synthase (GBSSI) gene in the Rosaceae: multiple loci and phylogenetic utility. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 17: 388–500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &C. S. Campbell. 2002. The origin of the apple subfamily (Maloideae: Rosaceae) is clarified by DNA sequence data from duplicated GBSSI genes. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1478–1484.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &T. A. Dickinson. 2002. How do studies of comparative ontogeny and morphology aid in elucidation of relationships within the Rosaceae? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,C. S. Campbell, D. Potter, D. Morgan, T. Eriksson, L. Alice, S.-H. Oh, E. Bortiri, F. Gao, J. Smedmark &M. Arsenault. 2002. A Rosaceae phylogeny. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. M., R. B. Faden &M. G. Simpson. 2000a. Homoplasy in the Commelinaceae: a comparison of different classes of morphological characters. Pp. 557–566in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,— &K. J. Sytsma. 2000b. Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: I. A cladistic analysis of morphological data. Syst. Bot. 25: 668–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,K. J. Sytsma, R. B. Faden &T. J. Givnish. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: II. A cladistic analysis of rbcL sequences and morphology. Syst. Bot. 28: 270–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, C. &Q.-Y. Xiang. 2003. Phylogenetic analyses of Cornales based on 26S rRNA and combined 26S rDNA-matK-rbcL sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1357–1372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, S. B. 2006. Phylogenetic analyses and biogeography of Trilliaceae. Aliso 22: 579–592

    Google Scholar 

  • — &E. E. Schilling. 2002. Phylogenetic analyses of Trilliaceae based on morphological and molecular data. Syst. Bot. 27: 674–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. J. Rudall, S. Sullivan, K. L. Stobart, A. Y. de Bruijn, F. Qamaruz-Zaman, W.-P. Hong, J. Joseph, W. J. Hahn, J. G. Conran &M. W. Chase. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of Asparagales based on four plastid DNA regions. Pp. 360–371in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fay, M. F., B. Bremer, G. T. Prance, M. van der Bank, D. Bridson &M. W. Chase. 2000. Plastid rbcL sequence data showDialypetalanthus to be a member of Rubiaceae. Kew Bull. 55: 853–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. W. Chase, N. Rønsted, D. S. Devey, Y. Pillon, J. C. Pires, G. Petersen, O. Seberg &J. I Davis. 2006a. Phylogenetics of Liliales: summarized evidence from combined analyses of five plastid and one mitochondrial loci. Aliso 22: 559–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. J. Rudall &M. W. Chase. 2006b. Molecular studies of subfamily Gilliesioideae (Alliaceae). Aliso 22: 367–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. J. Rudall, S. Sullivan, K. L. Stobart, A. Y. de Bruijn, G. Reeves, F. Qamaruz-Zaman, W.-P. Hong, J. Joseph, W. J. Hahn, J. G. Conran &M. W. Chase. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of Asparagales based on four plastid DNA regions. Pp. 360–371in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feild, T. S., N. C. Arens &T. E. Dawson. 2003. The ancestral ecology of angiosperms: emerging perspectives from extant basal lineages. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(3 Suppl.): S129-S142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. A. Zwieniecki &N. M. Holbrook. 2000. Winteraceae evolution: an ecophysiological perspective. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, C., D. Thomas &J. Q.-Y. Jenny. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships and biogeography of Alangiaceae—integrating evidence from DNA sequences, morphology, and fossils. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figlar, R. B. &H. P. Nooteboom. 2004. Notes on Magnoliaceae. Blumea 49: 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fior, S., P. O. Karis &A. A. Anderberg. 2003. Phylogeny, taxonomy, and systematic position ofClethra (Clethraceae, Ericales) with notes on biogeography: evidence from plastid and nuclear DNA sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 997–1006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M. 2001. Evolutionary innovation and diversification in the flowers of Asclepiadaceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 603–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &D. E. Soltis. 2004. Further resolution of the rapid radiation of Saxifragales (Angiosperms, Eudicots) supported by mixed-model Bayesian analysis. Syst. Bot. 29: 853–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiz, O., M. L. Alarcón &J. J. Aldasoro. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships and evolution inErodium (Geraniaceae) based on trnL-trnF sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 739–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. K. &W. E. Friedman. 2001. Developmental evolution of endosperm in basal angiosperms: evidence fromAmborella (Amborellaceae),Nuphar (Nymphaeaceae), andIllicium (Illiciaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forest, F., A. Bruneau, J. A. Hawkins, T. Kajita, J. J. Doyle &P. R. Crane. 2002. The sister of the Leguminosae revealed phylogenetic relationships in the Fabales determined using trnL and rbcL sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,V. Savolainen, M. W. Chase, R. Lupia, A. Bruneau &P. R. Crane. 2005. Teasing apart molecularversus fossil-based error estimates when dating phylogenetic trees: a case study in the birch family (Betulaceae). Syst. Bot. 30: 118–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, L. L. &P. M. Hollingsworth. 2003. A recircumscription ofBegonia based on nuclear ribosomal sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 241: 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. Hughes &P. M. Hollingsworth. 2005. A phylogeny ofBegonia using nuclear ribosomal sequence data and morphological characters. Syst. Bot. 30: 671–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune Hopkins, H. C. &R. D. Hoogland. 2002. Cunoniaceae. Fl. Males. 16: 53–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenstein, J. V. &M. W. Chase. 2001. Analysis of mitochondrialnadlb-c intron sequences in Orchidaceae: utility and coding of length-change characters. Syst. Bot. 26: 643–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &D. M. Senyo. 1999. What does morphology tell us about orchid relationships?—a cladistic analysis. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,— &M. W. Chase. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA and relationships in the Orchidaceae. Pp. 421–429in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,C. van den Berg, D. H. Fukuhara, T. H. Nagamasu &H. Okada. 2003. Floral vasculature, sporogenesis and gametophyte development inPentastemona egregia (Stemonaceae). Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 73: 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,D. H. Goldman, P. J. Kores, M. Molvray &M. W. Chase. 2004. An expanded plastid DNA phylogeny of Orchidaceae and analysis of jackknife branch support strategy. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 149–157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,W. M. Whjitten, K. M. Cameron, D. H. Goldman &M. W. Chase. 2001. A multilocus combined analysis of Epidendroideae (Orchidaceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, W. B., W. N. Gallup &J. H. Williams. 2003. Female gametophyte development inKadsura: implications for Schisandraceae, Austrobaileyales, and the early evolution of flowering plants. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S293-S305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friis, E. M., J. A. Doyle, P. K. Endress &Q. Leng. 2003. Archaefructus—angiosperm precursor or specialized early angiosperm? Trends Pl. Sci. 8: 369–373.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,K. R. Pedersen &P. R. Crane. 2000. Reproductive structure and organization of basal angiosperms from the Early Cretaceous (Barremian or Aptian) of western Portugal. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S169-S182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, E. M., B. C. Cruz, F. Almeda, Y. Yang &S. Shi. 2006. Phylogeny ofSymplocos based on DNA sequences of the chloroplast trnC-trnD intergenic region. Syst. Bot. 31: 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, P. W. 2001. Phylogeny and biogeography of the flowering plant genusStyrax (Styracaceae) based on chloroplast DNA restriction sites and DNA sequences of the internal transcribed spacer region. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 129: 387–408.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,F. Almeda &S. R. Manchester. 2006a. Phylogeny and classification of Symplocaceae: stasis, ranks, and the fossil record. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,B. C. Cruz, F. Almeda, Y. Wang &S. Shi. 2006b. Phylogeny ofSymplocos based on DNA sequences of the chloroplast trnC-trnD intergenic region. Syst. Bot. 31: 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,C. M. Morton, T. Chen &C. Meldrum. 2001. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Styracaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162(6 Suppl.): S95-S116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuhara, T., H. Nagamasu &H. Okada. 2003. Floral vasculature, sporogenesis and gametophyte development inPentastemona egregia (Stemonaceae). Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 73: 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, V. A., R. Chan &S. C. Keeley. 2004. Insights into the evolution of the tribe Arctoteae (Compositae: subfamily Cichorioideae s.s.) using trnL-F, ndhF, and ITS. Taxon 53: 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &H.-G. Kim. 2001. An evaluation of the proposed sister group relationships of the tribe Liabeae (Compositae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furness, C. A. &P. J. Rudall. 1999. Microsporogenesis in monocotyledons. Ann. Bot. (London) 84: 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2000. The systematic significance of simultaneous cytokinesis during microsporogenesis in monocotyledons. Pp. 189–193in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2001. The tapetum in basal angiosperms: early diversity. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 375–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2003. Apertures with lids: distribution and significance of operculate pollen in monocotyledons. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 835–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006a. Comparative structure and development of pollen and tapetum in Pandanales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 167:331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006b. The operculum in pollen of monocotyledons. Aliso 22: 191–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— &A. Eastman. 2002. Contribution of pollen and tapetal characters to the systematics of Triuridaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 235: 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuse, S. &M. N. Tamura. 2000. A phylogenetic analysis of the plastid matK gene with emphasis on Melanthiaceae sensu lato. Pl. Biol. 2: 415–427.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gandolfo, M. A., K. C. Nixon &W. L. Crepet. 2000. Monocotyledons: a review of their Early Cretaceous records. Pp. 44–51in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,——. 2002. Triuridaceae fossil flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1940–1957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gengler-Nowak, K. 2002. Phenetic analyses of morphological traits in theMalesherbia humilis complex (Malesherbiaceae). Taxon 51: 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Molecular phylogeny and taxonomy of Malesherbiaceae. Syst. Bot. 28: 333–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuten, K., E. Smets, P. Schols, Y.-M. Yuan, S. Janssens, P. Küpfer &N. Pyck. 2004. Conflicting phylogenies of balsaminoid families and the polytomy in Ericales: combining data in a Bayesian framework. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 31: 711–729.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, E., C. Bush &K. A. Kron. 2006. Phylogeny of Ericoideae (Ericaceae) based on multiple nuclear and chloroplast genes. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giulietti, A. M., V. L. Scatena, P. T. Sano, L. R. Parra, L. P. de Queiroz, R. M. Harley, N. L. Menezes, A. M. B. Ysepon, A. Salatino, M. L. Salatino, W. Vilegas, L. C. Santos, C. V. Ricci, M. C. P. Bonfim &E. B. Miranda. 2000. Multidisciplinary studies on neotropical Eriocaulaceae. Pp. 580–589in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giussani, L. M., J. H. Cota-Sanchez, E Zuloaga &E. A. Kellogg. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the subfamily Panicoideae (Poaceae) shows multiple origins of C4 photosynthesis. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1993–2012.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Givnish, T. J., T. M. Evans, J. C. Pires &K. J. Sytsma. 1999. Polyphyly and convergent morphological evolution in Commelinales and Commelinidae: evidence from rbcL sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 12: 360–385.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. L. Zjhra, P. E. Berry &K. J. Sytsma. 2000a. Molecular evolution, adaptive radiation, and geographic diversification in the amphiatlantic family Rapateaceae: evidence from ndhF sequences and morphology. Evolution 54: 1915–1937.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,K. Millam, P. Berry, J. Hall &K. Sytsma. 2002. South American-African disjunctions in Rapateaceae and Bromeliaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 176.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,K. C. Millam &K, J. Sytsma. 2000b. Phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary patterns in Bromeliaceae based on ndhF sequence variation. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 130 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • ——,T. M. Evans, J. C. Hall, J. C. Pires, P. E. Berry &K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Ancient vicariance or recent long-distance dispersal? Inferences about phylogeny and South American-African disjunctions in Rapateaceae and Bromeliaceae based on ndhF sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4): S35-S54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. C. Pires, S. W. Graham, M. C. McPherson, L. M. Prince, H. S. Rai, T. B. Patterson, E. H. Roalson, T. M. Evans, W. J. Hahn, K. C. Millam, A. W. Meerow, M. Molvray, P. J. Kores, H. E. O’Brien, J. C. Hall, W. J. Kress &K. J. Sytsma. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships of monocots based on the highly informative plastid gene ndhF: evidence for widespread concerted convergence. Aliso 22: 28–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,W. J. Hahn, D. H. Benzing &E. M. Burkhardt. 1997. Molecular evolution and adaptive radiation inBrocchinia (Bromeliaceae: Pitcairnioideae) atop tepuis of the Guayana Shield. Pp 259–311in T. J. Givnish & K. J. Sytsma (eds.), Molecular evolution and adaptive radiation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertzen, L. R., J. J. Cannone, R. R. Gitell &R. K. Jansen. 2003. ITS secondary structure for a sequence alignment and phylogeny of the Asteraceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 29: 216–234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. 2003. Character variation in angiosperm families. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 47: 1–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &H. A. Alden. 2005. Taxonomy ofHaptanthus Goldberg & C. Nelson. Syst. Bot. 30: 773–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &S. C. Nelson S. 1989.Haptanthus, a new dicotyledonous genus from Honduras. Syst. Bot. 14: 16–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldblatt, P., T. J. Davies, J. C. Manning, M. van der Bank &V. Savolainen. 2006. Phylogeny of Iridaceae subfamily Crocoideae based on a combined multigene plastid DNA analysis. Aliso 22: 399–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Martinez, R. &A. Culham. 2000. Phylogeny of the subfamily Panicoideae with emphasis on the tribe Paniceae: evidence from the trnL-F cpDNA region. Pp. 136–140in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, F. &P. J. Rudall. 2001. The questionable affinities ofLactoris: evidence from branching pattern, inflorescence morphology, and stipule development. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2143–2150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,— &C. A. Furness. 2001. Microsporogenesis and systematics of Aristolochiaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 137: 221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschling, M., N. Diane, H. H. Hilger &M. Weigend. 2004. Testing hypotheses on disjunctions present in the primarily woody Boraginales: Ehretiaceae, Cordiaceae, and Heliotropaceae, inferred from ITS1 sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4): S123-S135.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &H. H. Hilger. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis and character evolution ofEhretia andBourreria (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales) based on ITS1 sequences. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 123: 249–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. Wolf &N. Diane. 2001. Secondary structure of the ITS1 transcript and its application in a reconstruction of the phylogeny of Boraginales. Pl. Biol. 3: 629–636.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. S. Miller, M. Weigend &H. H. Hilger. 2005. Congruence of a phylogeny of Cordiaceae (Boraginales) inferred from ITS1 sequence data with morphology, ecology, and biogeography. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 92: 425–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts, R. &D. G. Frodin. 2002. World checklist and bibliography of Araceae (and Acoraceae). Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &T. D. Pennington. 2002. World checklist and bibliography of Sapotaceae. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. A. &T. B. Cavalcanti. 2001. New chromosome counts in the Lythraceae and a review of chromosome numbers in the family. Syst. Bot. 26: 445–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Hall, K. Sytsma &S.-H. Shi. 2005. Phylogenetic analysis of the Lythraceae based on four gene regions and morphology. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 995–1017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. W., D. Cherniawsky, V. L. Biron &H. S. Rai. 2001. Commelinoid monocot phylogeny revisited, using a large chloroplast data set. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &R. G. Olmstead. 2000. Utility of 17 chloroplast genes for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1712–1730.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. R. Kohn, B. R. Morton, J. E. Eckenwalder &S. C. H. Barrett. 1998. Phylogenetic congruence and discordance among one morphological and three molecular data sets from Pontederiaceae. Syst. Biol. 47: 545–567.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. M. Zgurski, M. A. McPherson, D. M. Cherniawsky, J. M. Saarela, E. F. C. Horne, S. Y. Smith, W. A. Wong, H. E. O’Brien, V. L. Biron, J. C. Pires, R. G. Olmstead, M. W. Chase &H. S. Rai. 2006. Robust inference of monocot deep phylogeny using an expanded multigene plastid data set. Aliso 22: 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grass Phylogeny Working Group. 2000. A phylogeny of the grass family (Poaceae), as inferred from eight character sets. Pp. 3–7in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. Phylogeny and subfamilial classification of the grasses (Poaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 373–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayum, M. H. 1993. Comparative external pollen ultrastructure of Araceae and putatively related taxa. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 43: 1–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. P. &F. T. Short (eds.). 2003. World atlas of seagrasses. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, D. R. &J. G. Conran. 2000. The Australian Cretaceous and Tertiary monocot fossil record. Pp. 52–59in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greuter, W., J. McNeil, F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T. S. Filguiras, D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, P. Trehane, N. J. Turland & D. L. Hawksworth (eds.). 2000. International code of botanical nomenclature (St. Louis code) adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, Missouri, July–August 1999. Regnum Veg. 138: 1–474.

  • Griffith, M. P. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the Opuntioideae (Cactaceae) based on nrITS sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, D. 1999. The co-radiations of pollinating insects and angiosperms in the Cretaceous. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 373–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, L. E., G. Kochert &D. E. Giannasi. 1994. Phylogenetic relationship of the Juglandaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 192: 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, M. H. G. 1995. Petal venation in the Asterales and related orders. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 118: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,V. Bittrick &P. F. Stevens. 2002. Phylogeny of Clusiaceae based on rbcL sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 1045–1054.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. S.-R. Pepper, V. A. Albert &M. Källersjö. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the Barnadesioideae (Asteraceae). Nordic J. Bot. 21: 149–160.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. C., H. H. Iltis &K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Molecular phylogenetics of core Brassicales, placement of orphan generaEmblingia, Forchhammeria, Tirania, and character evolution. Syst. Bot. 29: 654–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &K. J. Sytsma. 2002. A new placement of members of tribe Stixeae (Capparaceae) based on DNA sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &H. H. Iltis. 2002. Phylogeny of Capparaceae and Brassicaceae based on chloroplast sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1826–1842.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harborne, J. B., C. A. Williams, B. G. Briggs &L. A. S. Johnson. 2000. Flavonoid patterns and the phylogeny of the Restionaceae. Pp. 672–675in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C. R. &R. B. Faden. 2004.Plowmanianthus, a new genus of Commelinaceae with five new species from tropical America. Syst. Bot. 29: 316–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, M. M. &M. S. Zavada. 2000. Pollen of the monocotyledons: selecting characters for cladistic analysis. Pp. 194–213in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, R. M. 2003. Validation of the name Lamioideae (Labiatae). Kew Bull. 58: 765–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, M. G., K. J. Edwards, S. A. Johnson, M. W. Chase &P. A. Gadek. 2005. Phylogenetic inference in Sapindaceae sensu lato using plastid matK and rbcL DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 30: 366–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. J. 1998b. Cell-wall compositions of the Poaceae and related families. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. Composition of monocotyledon cell walls: implications for biosystematics. Pp. 114–126in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartog, C. den. 2002. Potamogetonaceae, Zosteraceae, and Cymodoceaceae. Fl. Males. 16: 167–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi, K., S. Yoshida, H. Kato, F. H. Utech, D. F. Whigham &S. Kawano. 1998. Molecular systematics of the genusUvularia and selected Liliales based on matK and rbcL gene sequence data. Pl. Spec. Biol. 13: 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, V., E. L. Schneider &S. Carlquist. 2000. Floral development ofNelumbo nucifera (Nelumbonaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S183-S191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. R. 1998b. Cell-wall compositions of the Poaceae and related families. Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons: Abstracts. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney, p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &L. B. Holm-Nielsen. 2001. The genera of Hydrocharitaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 201–275

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z.-C, J.-Q. Li &H.-C. Wang. 2004. Karyomorphology ofDavidia involucrata andCamptotheca acuminata, with special reference to their systematic positions. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 144: 193–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heads, M. 2003. Ericaceae in Malesia: vicariance biogeography, terrane tectonics and ecology. Telopea 10: 211–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, A. L., P. A. Reeves, R. G. Olmstead &R. K. Jansen. 1995. Implication of rbcL sequence data for higher order relationships of Loasaceae and the anomalous aquatic plantHydrostachys (Hydrostachyaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 194: 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, F. M. &D. W. Stevenson. 2006. A phylogenetic study of Arecaceae based on seedling morphological and anatomical data. Aliso 22: 251–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. M. &K. B. Pigg. 2001. Hamamelidaceous infructescences from the Late Paleocene Almont, North Dakota flora. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, M. J. &J. M. Hart. 2001. Towards an understanding of the phylogenetic relationships of Australian Hydrocotyloideae (Apiaceae). Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 269–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herber, B. E. 2002. Pollen morphology of the Thymelaeaceae in relation to its taxonomy. Pl. Syst. Evol. 232: 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, J., M. W. Chase, M. Möller &R. J. Abbott. 2006. Nuclear and plastid DNA sequences confirm the placement of the enigmaticCanacomyrica monticola in Myricaceae. Taxon 55: 349–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herendeen, P. S. &S. Wing. 2001. Papilionoid legume fruits and leaves from the Paleocene of north-western Wyoming. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermsen, E. J., W. L. Crepet &K. C. Nixon. 2000. A new fossil saxifragoid from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 69 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershkovitz, M. A. 2000. Ribosomal DNA evidence and disjunctions of western American Portulacaceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 15: 419–439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. 2001. Pollen characters ofAmborella trichopoda (Amborellaceae): a reinvestigation. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2006. Pollen wall ultrastructure of Araceae and Lemnaceae in relation to molecular classifications. Aliso 22: 204–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, L. J. &J. A. Doyle. 1977. Early Cretaceous fossil evidence for angiosperm evolution. Bot. Rev. 43: 3–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilger, H. H. &N. Diane. 2003. A systematic analysis of Heliotropiaceae (Boraginales) based on trnL and ITS1 sequence data. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 125: 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilu, K. W. 2000a. Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Chloridoideae (Poaceae) based on matK sequences: a preliminary assessment. Pp. 173–179in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett, Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000b. Contributions of prolamin size diversity and structure to the systematics of the Poaceae. Pp. 241–247in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett, Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &L. A. Alice. 2001. A phylogeny of Chloridoideae (Poaceae) based on matK sequences. Syst. Bot. 26: 386–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &H. Liang. 1999. Phylogeny of Poaceae inferred from matK sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 835–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,T. Borsch, K. Müller, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, V. Savolainen, M. W. Chase, M. P. Powell, L. A. Alice, R. Evans, H. Sauquet, C. Heinhuis, T. A. B. Slotta, J. G. Rohwer, C. S. Campbell &L. W. Chatrou. 2003. Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence information. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1758–1776.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Rohwer, C. Neinhuis, T. Slotta, B. Gemeinholzer, M. Wink &L. A. Alice. 2000. Insight into the evolution of angiosperms: evidence from matK sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 133 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,V. Savolainen, P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, M. W. Chase. K. Muller, T. Slotta, M. Powell, L. Chatrou, J. G. Rohwer, H. Sauquet, P. Cuenoud, C. Neinhuis &L. A. Alice. 2001. Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence data. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, T.-N &S.-W Liu. 2001. A worldwide monograph ofGentiana. Science Press, Beijing, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, P. C. &W. L. Wagner. 2006. Toward a new classification for Onagraceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodkinson, T. R., N. Salamin, M. W. Chase, Y. Bouchenak-Khelladi, S. A. Renvoize &V. Savolainen. 2007. Large trees, supertrees, and diversification of the grass family. Aliso 23: 248–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, R. D. &J. L. Reveal. 2005. Index nominum supragenericorum plantarum vascularum. Bot. Rev. 71: 1–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. W. 2002. Phylogenetics of the Dilleniaceae. Botany 2002, Abstracts: 128.

  • —. 2004. The morphology and relationships of the Sphaerosepalaceae (Malvales). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 144: 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horres, R., K. Schulte, K. Weising &G. Zizka. 2007. Systematics of Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae)—evidence from molecular and anatomical studies. Aliso 23: 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M., K. Freudenstein &D. J. Crawford. 2002. Systematics ofTrichostema L. (Lamiaceae): evidence from ITS, ndhF, and morphology. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S.-F., R. E. Ricklefs &P. H. Raven. 2002. Phylogeny and historical biogeography ofAcer I.—study history of the infrageneric classification. Taiwania 47: 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y.-L. &S.-H. Shi. 2002. Phylogenetics of Lythraceae sensu lato: a preliminary analysis based on chloroplast rbcL, gene, psaA-ycf 3 spacer, and nuclear rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 215–225.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. M. McMahon, A. M. Sherwood, G. Reeves &M. W. Chase. 2003. The major clades of Loasaceae: phylogenetic analysis using the plastid matK and trnL-trnF regions. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1215–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hufford, L. D., M. M. McMahon, R. O’Quinn &M. E. Poston. 2005. A phylogenetic analysis of Loasaceae subfamily Loasoideae based on plastid DNA sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 289–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. L. Moody &D. E. Soltis. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of Hydrangeaceae based on sequences of the plastid gene matK and their combination with rbcL and morphological data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 835–846.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huguet, V., M. Gouy, P. Normand, J. F. Zimpfer &M. P. Fernandez. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of Myricaceae: a reexamination of host-symbiont specificity. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 34: 557–568.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Igersheim, A., M. Buzgo &P. K. Endress. 2001. Gynoecium diversity and systematics in basal monocots. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 136: 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, M. B., M. P. Simmons &R. H. Archer. 2006. Phylogeny of theElaeodendron group (Celastraceae) inferred from morphological characters and nuclear and plastid genes. Syst. Bot. 31: 512–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. W. L. &J. Everett (eds.). 2000. Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,J. D. Kingston &L. L. Jacobs. 1999. The origin of grass-dominated ecosystems. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 590–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, R. K., C. Zhengqiu, D. Hansen, S. Dastidar, C. Peñaflor, R. Timme, K. Hansen, R. C. Haberle, T. W. Chumley, M. M. Guisinger-Bellian, H. Daniell, S.-B. Lee, L. A. Rabeson, R. Peery, C. W. Depamphilis, J. Lee-Bens-Mack, J. R. McNeal, J. Boore &J. V. Kuehl. 2006. Phylogeny of angiosperms based on whole chloroplast genome sequences. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 227–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, S., P. Baas &E. Smets. 2001. Vestured pits: their occurrence and systematic importance to eudicots. Taxon 50: 135–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,F. Piesschaert &E. Smets. 2000a. Wood anatomy of Elaeagnaceae, with comments on vestured pits, helical thickenings, and systematic relationships. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,E. Robbrecht, H. Beeckman &E. Smets. 2002. A survey of the systematic wood anatomy of the Rubiaceae. I. A. W. A. J. 23: 1–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,L. P. Ronse Decraene &E. Smets. 2000b. On the wood and stem anatomy ofMonococcus echinolphorus (Phytolaccaceae s.l.). Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 70: 171–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, S., K. Geuten, Y.-M. Yuan, Y. Song, P. Küpfer &E. Smets. 2006. Phylogenetics ofImpatiens andHydrocera (Balsaminaceae) using chloroplast atpB-rbcL spacer sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,F. Lens, S. Dressler, K. Geuten, E. Smets &S. Vinckier. 2005. Palynological variation in balsaminoid Ericales. II. Balsaminaceae, Tetrameristaceae, Pellicieraceae and general conclusions. Ann. Bot. (London) 96: 1061–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaramillo, M. A. &P. S. Manos. 2001. Phylogeny and patterns of floral diversity in the genusPiper (Piperaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 88: 706–716.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, C. 2004. Systema compositarum (Asteracearum) nova. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 89(12): 1817–1822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, S. C., N. J. Ritchie &D. D. Myrold. 1999. Molecular phytogenies of plants andFrankia support multiple origins of actinorhizal symbioses. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 13: 493–503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L. W. 2002. A new species ofEupomatia R. Br. (Eupomatiaceae) from Queensland. Austrobaileya 6: 333–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jian, S., P. S. Soltis, A. Dhingra, R. Li, Y.-L. Qiu, M.-J. Yoo, C. Bell &D. E. Soltis. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships and diversification within Saxifragales based on molecular data. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jobson, R. W., J. Playford, K. M. Cameron &V. A. Albert. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics of Lentibulariaceae inferred from plastid rps16 intron and trnL-F DNA sequences: implications for character evolution and biogeography. Syst. Bot. 28: 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, L. B. 2005. Phylogeny ofOrchidantha (Lowiaceae) and the Zingiberales based on six DNA regions. Syst. Bot. 30: 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. A., C. Ferguson, R. Patterson, J. M. Porter, L. A. Prather &D. Wilken. 2006. From its roots to its shoots: insights into diversification patterns and processes in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly, S., L. Brouillet &A. Bruneau. 2001. Phylogenetic implications of the multiple losses of the mitochondrialcoxll. 13 intron in the angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 359–373.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, W. S. 1997. The Flacourtiaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 10: 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. The genera of Ruscaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 7: 93–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &R. G. Olmstead. 2004. A survey of tricolpate (eudicot) phylogenetic relationships. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1627–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judziewicz, E. J. &L. G. Clark. 2007. Classification and biogeography of New World grasses: Anomochlooideae, Pharoideae, Ehrhartoideae, and Bambusoideae. Aliso 23: 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,R. J. Soreng, G. Davidse, P. M. Peterson, T. S. Filgueiras &F. O. Zuloaga. 2000. Catalogue of New World grasses (Poaceae): I. Subfamilies Anomochlooideae, Bambusoideae, Ehrhartoideae, and Pharoideae. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 39: 1–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaderei, G., L. Mucina &H. Freitag. 2006. Phylogeny of Salicornioideae (Chenopodiaceae): diversification, biogeography, and evolutionary trends in leaf and flower morphology. Taxon 55: 617–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadereit, J. W. (ed.). 2004. The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. VII. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons: Lamiales (except Acanthaceae including Avicenniaceae). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,T. Borsch, K. Weising &H. Freitag. 2003. Phylogeny of Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 959–986.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kajita, T., H. Ohashi, Y. Tateishi, C. D. Bailey &J. J. Doyle. 2001. rbcL and legume phylogeny, with particular reference to Phaseoleae, Millettieae, and allies. Syst. Bot. 26: 515–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Källersjö, M. &B. Ståhl. 2003. Phylogeny of Theophrastaceae (Ericales s. lat.). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,G. Bergqvist &A. A. Anderberg. 2000. Generic realignment in primuloid families of the Ericales s.l.: a phylogenetic analysis based on DNA sequences from three chloroplast genes and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 1325–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. S. Farris, M. W. Chase, B. Bremer, M. F. Fay, C. J. Humphries, G. Petersen, O. Seberg &K. Bremen 1998. Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analysis of 2538 rbcL DNA sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants and flowering plants. Pl. Syst. Evol. 213: 259–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapralov, M. V., H. Akhani, E. V. Vozncsenskaya, G. Edwards, V. Franceschi &E. H. Roalson. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships in the Salicornioideae/Suaedoideae/Salsoloideae s.l. (Chenopodiaceae) clade and a clarification of the phylogenetic position ofBienertia andAlexandra using multiple DNA sequence data sets. Syst. Bot. 31: 571–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kårehed, J. 2001. Multiple origin of the tropical forest tree family Icacinaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2259–2274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. Not just hollies—the expansion of Aquifoliales.In Evolutionary studies in asterids emphasising euasterids II. Ph.D. diss., Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. The family Pennantiaceae and its relationships to Apiales. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Lundberg, B. Bremer &K. Bremen 1999. Evolution of the Australasian families Alseuosmiaceae, Argophyllaceae, and Phellinaceae. Syst. Bot. 24: 660–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,E. A. Powell &E. Gillespie. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships among the core Ericales based on multiple data partitions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 69

    Google Scholar 

  • Karol, K. G., Y. Suh, G. E. Schatz &E. A. Zimmer. 2000. Molecular evidence for the phylogenetic position ofTakhtajania in the Winteraceae: inference from nuclear ribosomal and chloroplast gene spacer sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 414–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Käss, E. &M. Wink. 1995. Molecular phylogeny of the Papilionoideae (family Leguminosae): rbcL gene sequences versus chemical taxonomy. Bot. Acta 108: 149–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato, M., Y. Kita &S. Koi. 2003. Molecular phylogeny, taxonomy and biogeography ofMalaccotristicha australis comb. nov. (syn.Tristicha australis) (Podostemaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 16: 177–183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keating, R. C. 2000. Anatomy of the young vegetative shoot ofTakhtajania perrieri (Winteraceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. Vegetative anatomical data and the relationship to a revised classification of the genera of Araceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 91: 485–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelchner, S. A., J. G. West, M. C. Crisp &R. J. Chinnock. 2001. The CaribbeanBontia daphnoides and its Australian family Myoporaceae (Lamiales): evidence of an extreme dispersal event from morphological data and rpl16 intron sequences. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, E. A. 2000. Molecular and morphological evolution in the Andropogoneae. Pp. 149–158in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L. M. &F. González. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Aristolochiaceae. Syst. Bot. 28: 236–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keras, L. E. 2003. Capparaceae. Pp. 36–56in K. Kubitzki & C. Bayer (eds.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. II. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Magnoliid, hamamelid and caryophyllid families. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.-G., V. A. Funk &E. A. Zimmer. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics of the Liabeae (Asteraceae-Cichorioideae) based on ITS and ndhF sequences. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., J. Koh, H. Ma, Y. Hu, P. K. Endress, B. A. Hauser, M. Buzgo, P. S. Soltis &D. E. Soltis. 2005. Sequence and expression studies of A-, B-, and E-class MADS-Box homologues inEupomatia (Eupomatiaceae): support for the bracteate origin of the calyptra. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 185–198.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,C.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim &Y. Suh. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in family Magnoliaceae inferred from ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 717–728.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, R. T., D. J. Crawford, D. H. Les &E. Landolt. 2003. Out of Africa: molecular phylogenetics and biogeography ofWolffiella (Lemnaceae). J. Linn. Soc., Biol. 79: 565–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kite, G. C., R. J. Grayer, P. J. Rudall &M. S. J. Simmonds. 2000. The potential for chemical characters in monocotyledon systematics. Pp. 101–113in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.) Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaassen, R. 1999. Wood anatomy of the Sapindaceae. I. A. W A. J. Suppl. 2: 1–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klak, C., T. A. Hedderson &H. P. Linder. 2003. A molecular systematic study of theLampranthus group (Aizoaceae) based on the chloroplast trnL-trnF and nuclear ITS and 5s NTS sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 70–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Khunou, G. Reeves &T. Hedderson. 2003. A phylogenetic hypothesis for the Aizoaceae (Caryophyllales) based on four plastid DNA regions. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1433–1445.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, M., I. A. Al-Shehbaz &K. Mummenhoff. 2003. Molecular systematics, evolution, and population biology in the mustard family (Brassicaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,B Haubold &T. Mitchell-Olds. 2001. Molecular systematics of the Brassicaceae: evidence from coding plastidic matK and nuclearChs sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 534–544.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kocyan, A. &P. K. Endress. 2001a. Floral structure and development ofApostasia andNeuwiedia (Apostasioideae) and their relationships to other Orchidaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 847–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2001b. Floral structure and development and systematic aspects of some ‘lower’ Asparagales. Pl. Syst. Evol. 229: 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,Y.-L. Qiu, P. K. Endress &E. Conti. 2004. A phylogenetic analysis of Apostasioideae (Orchidaceae) based on ITS, trnL-F and matK sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 247: 203–213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, H.-Z., Z.-D. Chen &A.-M. Lu. 2002. Phylogeny ofChloranthus (Chloranthaceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid trnL-F sequences data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 940–946.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,A.-M. Lu &P. K. Endress. 2002. Floral organogenesis ofChloranthus sessilifolius, with special emphasis on the morphological nature of the androecium ofChloranthus (Chloranthaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 232: 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kores, P. J., P. H. Weston, S. D. Hopper, A. P. Brown, K. M. Cameron &M. W. Chase. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of Diurideae (Orchidaceae) based on plastid DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1903–1914.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kornhall, P., N. Heidari &B. Bremen 2001. Selagineae and Manuleeae, two tribes or one? Phylogenetic studies in the Scrophulariaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosenko, V. N. 2001. Palynological data on the systematics of the superorder Lilianae. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 86(8): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, W. J., L. M. Prince &K. J. Williams. 2002. The phylogeny and a new classification of the gingers (Zingiberaceae): evidence from molecular data. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1682–1696.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &C. D. Specht. 2006. The evolutionary and biogeographic origin and diversification of the tropical monocot order Zingiberales. Aliso 22: 621–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristiansen, K. A., M. Cilieborg, L. Drabkova, T. Jorgensen, G. Petersen &O. Seberg. 2005. DNA taxonomy—the riddle ofOxychloë (Juncaceae). Syst. Bot. 30: 284–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kron, K. A. 2002. The distribution and diversification of tropicalVaccinium (blueberries) andGaultheria (wintergreens). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,E. A. Powell &E. Gillespie. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships among the core Ericales based on multiple data partitions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. F. Stevens, D. M. Crayn, A. A. Anderberg, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quinn &J. L. Luteyn. 2002. Phylogenetic classification of Ericaceae: molecular and morphological evidence. Bot. Rev. 68: 335–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, S. E. &J. V. Freudenstein. 2005. Monophyly and floral character homology of Old WorldPassiflora (subgenusDecaloba; supersectionDisemma). Syst. Bot. 30: 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubitski, K. (ed.). 2004. The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. VI. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons: Celastrales, Oxalidales, Rosales, Cornales, Ericales. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &C. Bayer (eds.). 2003. The families and genera of vascular plants, Vol. V. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons: Malvales, Capparales, and non-betalain Caryophyllales. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvacek, Z., S. R. Manchester &S-X. Guo. 2001. Trifoliolate leaves ofPlatanus bella (Heer) comb. n. from the Paleocene of North America, Greenland, and Asia and their relationships among extinct and extant Platanaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyndt, T., E. Romeijn-Peeters, B. Van Groogenbroek, J. P. Romero-Motochi, G. Gheejsen &P. Goetghebeur. 2005a. Species relationships in the genusVasconsellea (Caricaceae) based on molecular and morphological evidence. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1033–1044.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,B. Van Droogenbroeck, E. Romeijn-Peeters, J. P. Romero-Motochi, X. Scheldeman, P. Goetghebeur, P. Van Damme &G. Gheysen. 2005b. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of Caricaceae based on rDNA internal transcribed spacers and chloroplast sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 37: 442–459.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb-Frye, A. S. &K. A. Kron. 2003. rbcL phylogeny and character evolution in Polygonaceae. Syst. Bot. 28: 326–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, B. B., R. Wittkuhn &D. Korczynskyj. 2004. Ecology and ecophysiology of grasstrees. Austral. J. Bot. 52: 561–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, K. 2002. Caryophyllaceae. Fl. Males. 16: 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavin, M., R. T. Pennington, B. B. Klitgaard, J. I. Sprent, H. C. de Lima &P. E. Gasson. 2001. The dalbergioid legumes (Fabaceae): delimitation of a pantropical monophyletic clade. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 503–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. W., Y. K. Pin &L. F. Yew. 1975. Serological evidence on the distinctness of the monocotyledonous families Flagellariaceae, Hanguanaceae and Joinvilleaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 70: 77–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., B. G. Baldwin &L. D. Gottlieb. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among the primarily North American genera of Cichorieae (Compositae) based on analysis of 18S-26S nuclear rDNA ITS and ETS sequences. Syst. Bot. 28: 616–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. &J. Wen. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis ofPrunus and the Amygdaloideae (Rosaceae) using ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 150–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leitch, I. J. &L. Hanson. 2002. DNA C-values in seven families fill phylogenetic gaps in the basal angiosperms. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 175–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lendel, A., U. Eggli &R. Nyffeler. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships in the tribe Trichocereeae (Cactaceae) inferred from cpDNA sequence data analysis. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lens, F., S. Dressler, S. Vinckier, S. Janssens, S. Dessein, L. Van Evelghem &E. Smets. 2005. Palynological variation in balsaminoid Ericales. I. Marcgraviaceae. Ann. Bot. (London) 96: 1047–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,P. Baas, S. Jensen &E. Smets. 2006. The usefulness of systematic wood anatomy in Ericales. A case study in Lecythidaceae s.l. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. Gasson, E. Smets &S. Jansen. 2003a. Comparative wood anatomy of epacrids (Styphelioideae, Ericaceae s.l.) Ann. Bot. (London) 91: 835–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,S. Jansen, P. Caris, L. Serlet &E. Smets. 2005. Comparative wood anatomy of the primuloid clade (Ericales s.l.). Syst. Bot. 30: 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,L. van Evelghem, S. Huysmans, S. Jansen &E. Smets. 2003b. Wood anatomy and pollen morphology of Marcgraviaceae. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 60 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, E. B. 2000. How well do pollen corroborate Eocene leaf taxa?—Florissant Formation, Colorado, a case study. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 70 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Les, D. H. &D. J. Crawford. 1999.Landoltia (Lemnaceae), a new genus of duckweeds. Novon 9: 530–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,R. T. Kimball, M. L. Moody &E. Landolt. 2002a. Biogeography of cosmopolitan hydrophytes: a molecular appraisal of intercontinental disjunctions. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,E. Landolt, J. D. Gabel &R. T. Kimball. 2002b. Phylogeny and systematics of Lemnaceae, the duckweed family. Syst. Bot. 27: 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. L. Moody &S. W. L. Jacobs. 2005. Phylogeny and systematics ofAponogeton (Aponogetonaceae): the Australian species. Syst. Bot. 30: 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,— &R. J. Bayer. 2001. Systematics and taxonomy of Australian seagrasses (family Zosteraceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— &C. L. Soros. 2006. A reappraisal of phylogenetic relationships in the monocotyledon family Hydrocharitaceae (Alismatidae). Aliso 22: 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. A., W. L. Wagner, P. C. Hoch, W. J. Hahn, A. Rodriguez, D. A. Baum, L. Katinas, E. A. Ziurina &K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Paraphyly in tribe Onagreae: insights into phylogenetic relationships of Onagraceae based on nuclear and chloroplast sequence data. Syst. Bot. 29: 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,M. Nepokroeff, J. C. Pires, E. A. Zimmer &K. J. Sytsma. 2003. Family-level relationships of Onagraceae based on chloroplast rbcL and ndhF data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 107–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. E. &J. J. Doyle. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of the nuclear gene malate synthase in the palm family (Arecaceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 409–420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. &A. L. Bogle. 2001. A new suprageneric classification system of the Hamamelidoideae based on morphology and sequences of nuclear and chloroplast DNA. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 499–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &J. G. Conran. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Magnoliaceae subfam. Magnolioideae: a morphological cladistic analysis. Pl. Syst. Evol. 242: 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Alexander III,T. Ward, P. del Tredici &R. Nicolson. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Empetraceae inferred from sequences of chloroplast gene matK and nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS region. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 25: 306–315.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,Z.-D Chen, A.-M. Lu, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis &P. S. Manos. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships in Fagales based on DNA sequences from three genomes. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 311–314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Yue &S. Shoup. 2006. Phylogenetics ofAcer (Aceroideae, Sapindaceae) based on nucleotide sequences of two chloroplast non-coding regions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liede, S. 2001. Subtribe Astephaninae (Apocynaceae-Asclepiadoideae) reconsidered: new evidence based on cpDNA spacers. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 657–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, H. P. &N. P. Barker. 2000. Biogeography of the Danthonieae. Pp. 231–238in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &L. R. Caddick. 2001. Restionaceae seedlings: morphology, anatomy and systematic implications. Feddes Repert. 112: 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,B. G. Briggs &L. A. S. Johnson. 2000. Restionaceae: a morphological phylogeny. Pp. 653–660. In K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. Eldenäs &B. G. Briggs. 2003. Contrasting patterns of radiation in African and Australian Restionaceae. Evolution 57: 2688–2702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liston, A. 2003. A new interpretation of floral morphology inGarrya (Garryaceae). Taxon 52: 271–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litt, A. J. &M. Cheek. 2002.Korupodendron songweanum, a new genus and species of Vochysiaceae from west central Africa. Brittonia 54: 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &D. W. Stevenson. 2003a. Floral development and morphology of Vochysiaceae. I. The structure of the gynoecium. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1533–1547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2003b. Floral development and morphology of Vochysiacdeae. II. The position of the single fertile stamen. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1548–1559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., G. Hao, T. Yibo, R. Leonard, L. Samuel, A. Lu &Z. Chen. 2006. Phytogeny and androecial evolution in Schisandraceae inferred from sequences of nrDNA ITS and cpDNA trnL-F regions. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lledo, M. D., P. O. Karis, M. B. Crespo, M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2001. Phylogenetic position and taxonomic status of the genusAegialitis and subfamilies Staticoideae and Plumbaginoideae (Plumbaginaceae): evidence from plastid DNA sequences and morphology. Pl. Syst. Evol. 229: 107–124.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, L. G. 2006. Untangling the phytogeny of neotropical lianas (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 93: 304–318.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Loockerman, D. J., B. L. Turner &R. K. Jansen. 2003; Phylogenetic relationships within the Tageteae (Asteraceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF gene sequences. Syst. Bot. 28: 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie, A., B. M. Plunkett &A. A. Oskolski. 2001. Early lineages in Apiales: insights from morphology, wood anatomy and molecular data. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P. P. II,T. Haevermans, J.-N. Labat, G. E. Schatz, J.-F. Leroy &A.-E. Wolf. 2000. Endemic families of Madagascar. V. A synoptic revision ofEremolaena, Pentachlaena andPerrierodendron (Sarcolaenaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 22: 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckow, M., J. T. Miller, D. J. Murphy &T. Livshultz. 2002. A cladistic analysis of the subfamily Mimosoideae, Leguminosae, based on data from the chloroplast genes trnL and matK. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna, I. &H. Ochogterena. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the genera of Theaceae based on morphology. Cladistics 20: 223–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J. 2001. The asteralean affinity of the MauritianRoussea (Rousseaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 137: 267–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &K. Bremen 2003. A phylogenetic study of the order Asterales using one morphological and three molecular data sets. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 553–578.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lye, K. A. 2000. Achene structure and function of structure in Cyperaceae. Pp. 615–628in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, O. S. W. &R. M. K. Saunders. 2003. Comparative floral ontogeny ofMaesa (Maesaceae),Aegiceras (Myrsinaceae), andEmbelia (Myrsinaceae): taxonomic and phylogenetic implications. Pl. Syst. Evol. 243: 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabberley, D. J. 1997. The plant-book. Ed. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macphail, M.K., A. D. Partridge &E. M. Truswell. 1999. Fossil pollen records of the problematical primitive angiosperm family Lactoridaceae in Australia. Pl. Syst. Evol. 214: 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magallon, S. 2000. Extinct and extant Hamamelidoideae: phytogeny and character evolution. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 141 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. R. Crane &P. S. Herendeen. 1999. Phylogenetic pattern, diversity, and diversification of eudicots. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 297–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,P. S. Herendeen &P. R. Crane. 2001.Androdecidua endressii gen. et sp. nov., from the Late Cretaceous of Georgia (United States): further floral diversity in Hamamelidoideae (Hamamelidaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 963–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malécot, V., D. L. Nickrent, P. Baas, L. van den Oever &D. Lobreau-Callen. 2004. A morphological cladistic analysis of Olacaceae. Syst. Bot. 29: 569–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manchester, S. R. 2001a. Leaves and fruits ofDavidia (Cornales) from the Paleocene of North America. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001b. Leaves and fruits ofAesculus (Sapindales) from the Paleocene of North America. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 985–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. Leaves and fruit ofDavidia (Cornales) from the Paleocene of North America. Syst. Bot. 27: 368–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &M. J. Donoghue. 1995. Winged fruits of Linnaeeae (Caprifoliaceae) in the Tertiary of western North America:Diplodipelta gen. nov. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 156: 709–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manns, U. &A. A. Anderberg. 2005a. Molecular phylogeny ofAnagallis (Myrsinaceae) based on ITS, trnL-F, and ndhF sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 1019–1028.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2005b. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Crossosomatales (Crossosomataceae, Stachyuraceae, Staphyleaceae, Aphloiaceae, Geissolomataceae, Ixerbaceae, Strasburgeriaceae). J. Linn. Soc, Bot. 147: 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2005c. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Celastrales (Celastraceae, Parnassiaceae, Lepidobotryaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 149: 129–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manos, P. S. &D. E. Stone. 2001. Evolution, phylogeny, and systematics of the Juglandaceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 231–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,Z.-K. Zhou &C. H. Cannon. 2001. Systematics of Fagaceae: phylogenetic tests of reproductive trait evolution. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 1361–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Millán, M. S., R. S. Cevallos-Ferriz &T. Terrazas-Salgado. 2002. Leaf architecture of Anacardiaceae, phylogeny and biogeography. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, T. R. &T. J. Barkman. 2005. Reconstruction of Solanaceae phylogeny using the nuclear gene SAMT. Syst. Bot. 30: 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mast, A., P. H. Weston, E. Jones, H. Sauquet, D. Cantrill, G. Jordan &N. Barker. 2006. The timing of disjunctions in the southern hemisphere family Proteaceae: sensitivity analysis with 6 genes, multiple calibration points, and 70+ genera. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, S. 2006. The positions ofCeratophyllum and Chloranthaceae inferred from phytochrome data. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &M. J. Donoghue. 2000. Basal angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochromes A and C. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S41-S55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. L. &P. K. Endress. 2002a. Combination of Elaeocarpaceae and Tremandraceae supported by floral structure. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002b. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Oxalidales (Oxalidaceae, Connaraceae, Brunelliacerae, Cephalotaceae, Cunoniaceae, Elaeocarpaceae, Tremandraceae.) Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 140: 321–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2004. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Cucurbitales (Corynocarpaceae, Coriariaceae, Tetramelaceae, Datiscaceae, Begoniaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Anisophylleaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 145: 129–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2005a. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Crossosomatales (Crossosomataceae, Stachyuraceae, Staphyleaceae, Aphloiaceae, Geissolomataceae, Ixerbaceae, Strasburgeriaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 147: 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2005b. Comparative floral structure and systematics in Celastrales (Celastraceae, Parnassiaceae, Lepidobotryaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 149: 129–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006. Malpighiales: comparative floral structure of Chrysobalanaceae s.l. and other supporting clades. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,J. Schönenberger &E. M. Friis. 2001. Anisophylleaceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,R. C. Tsai &E. A. Kellogg. 2000. Phylogenetic structure in the grass family (Poaceae): evidence from the nuclear gene phytochrome B. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayuzumi, S. &H. Ohba. 2004. The phylogenetic position of eastern Asian Sedoideae (Crassulaceae) inferred from chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 29: 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, R.A. 2002. Toward a preliminary phylogeny of the American Gomphrenoideae (Amaranthaceae): morphology and ITS1 sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 137–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClain, A. M. &S. R. Manchester. 2001.Dipteronia (Sapindaceae) from the Tertiary of North America and implications for the phytogeographic history of the Aceroideae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1316–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDade, L. A., T. F. Daniel &C. A. Kiel. 2006. Relationships among the major lineages of Acanthaceae s.l.: The big picture. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 238–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, L. E. &N. H. Russell. 2002. Violaceae of the southeastern United States. Castanea 67: 369–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, J., F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, D. L. Hawksworth, K. Marhold, D. H. Nicolson, J. Prado, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, J. H. Wiersema & N. J. Turland (eds.). 2006. International code of botanical nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress Vienna, Austria, July 2005. Regnum Veg. 146: 1–568.

  • Mcpherson, M. A. &S. W. Graham. 2001. Inference of Asparagales phylogeny using a large chloroplast data set. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. F. Fay, M. W. Chase &S. W. Graham. 2004. Parallel loss of a slowly evolving intron from two closely related families in Asparagales. Syst. Bot. 29: 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,C. L. Guy, Q.-B. Li, D. Snijman &S.-L. Yang. 2000. Phylogeny of Amaryllidaceae: molecules and morphology. Pp. 372–386in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meerow, A. W. &D. A. Snijman. 2001. Phylogeny of Amaryllidaceae tribe Amaryllideae based on nrDNA ITS sequences and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2321–2330.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006. The never-ending story: multigene approaches to the phylogeny of Amaryllidaceae. Aliso 22: 355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. F. Fay, M. W. Chase, C. L. Guy &Q.-B. Li. 1999a. The new phylogeny of the Amaryllidaceae. Herbertia 54: 180–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,C. L. Guy, Q.-B. Li, F. Q. Zaman &M. W. Chase. 1999b. Systematics of Amaryllidaceae based on cladistic analysis of plastid rbcL and trnL-F sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1325–1345.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mello-Silva, R. de. 2000. Partial cladistic analysis ofVellozia and characters for the phylogeny of Velloziaceae. Pp. 505–522in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meney, K. A. &J. S. Pate (eds.). 1999. Australian rushes. Biology, identification and conservation of Restionaceae and allied families. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, S.-W, A. W. Douglas, D.-Z. Li, Z.-D. Chen, H.-X. Liang &J. B. Yang. 2003. Phylogeny of Saururaceae based on morphology and five regions from three genomes. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 592–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennega, A. M. W. 2005. Wood anatomy of the subfamily Euphorbioideae. A comparison with subfamilies Crotonoideae and Acalyphoideae and the implications for the circumscription of the Euphorbiaceae. I. A. W. A. J. 26: 1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merckx, V., P. Schols, H. Maas-van de Kamer, P. Maas, S. Huysmans &E. Smets. 2006. Phylogeny and evolution of Burmanniaceae (Dioscoreales) based on nuclear and mitochondrial data. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 1684–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meve, U. 2002. Species numbers and progress in asclepiad taxonomy. Kew Bull. 57: 459–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelangeli, F. A., J. I Davis &D. W. Stevenson. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among Poaceae and related families as inferred from morphology, inversions of the plastid genome, and sequence data from mitochondrial and plastid genomes. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 93–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mildbraed, J. 1908. Stylidiaceae. Pflanzenreich 4 (Heft 278): 1–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. J., D. A. Young &J. Wen. 2001. Phylogeny and biogeography ofRhus (Anacardiaceae) based on ITS sequence data. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 1401–1407.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. S. 2003. Classification of Boraginaceae subfam. Ehretioideae: resurrection of the genusHilsenbergia Tausch. ex Meisn. Adansonia, ser. 3, 25: 151–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. T. &R. J. Bayer. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics ofAcacia (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) based on the chloroplast matK coding sequence and flanking trnK intron spacer regions. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 697–705.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N. G. 2001. The Callitrichaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 277–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B. 2002. Wood anatomy of Vochysiaceae with special reference toQualea andRuizterania. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mindell, R., S. J. Karafit &R. A. Stocky. 2006. Bisexual Platanaceae flowers and inflorescences from the Late Cretaceous of Vancouver Island, Canada. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 167–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A. D., C. D. Meurk &S. J. Wagstaff. 1999. Evolution ofStilbocarpa, a megaherb from New Zealand’s sub-antarctic islands. New Zealand J. Bot. 37: 205–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, M. L., L. Hufford, D. E. Soltis &P. S. Soltis. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Loasaceae subfamily Gronovioideae inferred from matK and ITS sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 326–336.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. R. &K. R. Robertson. 2002. Fruit evolution in Rosaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, R. J. &C. W. Dick. 2003. Missing fossils, molecular clocks and the origin of the Melastomataceae. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1638–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mort, M. E., D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, J. Francisco-Ortega &A Santos-Gierra. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of Crassulaceae inferred from matK sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 76–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, C. M. &M. Grant. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Aurantioideae (Rutaceae): a cladistic analysis using the Nuclear Internal Transcribed Spacer region. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &S. Blackmore. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships of the Aurantioideae inferred from chloroplast DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1463–1469.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Motley, T. J., K. J. Wurdack &P. G. Delprete. 2005. Molecular systematics of the Catesbaeeae-Chiococceae complex (Rubiaceae): flower and fruit evolution and biogeographic implications. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 316–329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Muasya, A. M., J. J. Bruhl, D. A. Simpson, A. Culham &M. W. Chase. 2000a. Suprageneric phylogeny of Cyperaceae: a combined analysis. Pp. 593–601in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,D. A. Simpson, M. W. Chase &A. Culham. 2000b. Phylogenetic relationships within the heterogeneousScirpus s. lat. (Cyperaceae) inferred from rbcL and trnL-F sequence data. Pp. 610–614in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,——. 2001. A phytogeny ofIsolepis (Cyperaceae) inferred using plastid rbcL and trnL-F sequence data. Syst. Bot. 26: 342–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, K. F. &T. Borsch. 2002. A phylogeny based on matK sequence data reveals patterns of pollen evolution in Amaranthaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005. Phylogenetics of Amaranthaceae based on matK/trnK sequence data—evidence from parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 92: 66–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muellner, A. N., R. Samuel, S. A. Johnson, M. Cheek, T. D. Pennington &M. W. Chase. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics of Meliaceae (Sapindales) based on nuclear and plastid DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 471–480.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, K., T. Borsch, L. Legendre, S. Porembski &W. Barthlott 2000. A phylogeny of Lentibulariaceae based on sequences of matK and adjacent non-coding regions. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 145–146 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,—,I. Theisen &W. Barthlott. 2004. Evolution of carnivory in Lentibulariaceae and the Lamiales. Pl. Biol. 6: 477–490.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Munzinger, J. K. &H. E. Ballard Jr. 2003.Hekkingia (Violaceae), a new arborescent violet genus from French Guiana, with a key to genera in the family. Syst. Bot. 28: 345–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muschner, V. C., A. P. Lorenz, A. C. Cervi, S. L. Bonatto, T. T. Souza-Chies, F. M. Salzano &L. B. Freitas. 2003. A first molecular phylogenetic analysis ofPassiflora (Passifloraceae). Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1229–1238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Neinhuis, C., S. Wanke, K. W. Hilu &T. Borsch. 2001. Peppers and pipevines: phylogenetic relationships within Piperales. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson S. C. 2002. Plantas descritas originalmente de Honduras y sus nomenclaturas equivalentes actuales. Ceiba 42: 1–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nepokroeff, M., W. L. Wagner, R. K. Rabeler, E. A. Zimmer, G. Weller &A. K. Sakai. 2002. Relationships within Caryophyllaceae inferred from molecular sequence data. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neves, S. S., L. A. Alice &K. W. Hilu. 2002. The root of the Chloridoideae (Poaceae) revisited: a preliminary assessment based on trnT-trnF and matK DNA. sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyland, R. 2001. A phylogeny inferred from large ribosomal subunit (26S) rDNA sequences suggests thatCuscuta is a derived member of the Convolvulaceae. Brittonia 53: 108–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002a. A phylogeny inferred from large subunit (26S) ribosomal DNA sequences suggests that Burmanniales are polyphyletic. Austral. Syst. Bot. 15: 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002b. A phylogeny inferred from large-subunit (26S) ribosomal DNA sequences suggests that the family Dasypogonaceae is closely aligned with the Restionaceae allies. Austral. Syst. Bot. 15: 749–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &M. Hennigan. 2003. A phylogenetic analysis of large-subunit (26S) ribosome DNA sequences suggests that the Corsiaceae are polyphyletic. New Zealand J. Bot. 41: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickrent, D. L., A. Blarer, Y.-L. Qiu, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis &M. Zanis. 2002. Molecular data place Hydnoraceae with Aristolochiaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1809–1817.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolova, I. &J. M. Canne-Hilliker. 2002. Comparative floral development ofAgalinis (Scrophulariaceae s.l.). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowicke, J. W. &M. Takahashi. 2002. Pollen morphology, exine structure and systematics of Acalyphoideae (Euphorbiaceae), part 4, Tribes Acalypheae pro parte (Etythrococca, Claoxylon, Claoxylopis, Mareya, Mareyopsis, Discoclaoxylon, Micwcocca, Amyrea, Lobanilia, Mallotus, Deuteronmallotus, Cordemoya, Cococceras, Trewia, Neotrewia, Rockinghamia, Octospermum, Acalypa, Lasiococca, Spathiseomon, Homonoia), Plukenetieae (Haemantostemon, Astrococcus, Angostyles, Romanoa, Eleutherostigma, Plukenitia, Vigia, Cnesmone, Megistostigma, Spherostylis, Tragiella, Platygyna, Tragia, Acidoton, Pachystylidium, Dalechampia), Omphaeae (Omphalea), and discussion and summary of the complete subfamily. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 121: 231–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyffeler, R. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the cactus family (Cactaceae) based on evidence from trnK/matK and trnL-trnF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 312–326.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &D. A. Baum. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of the durians (Bombacaceae-Durioneae or /Malvaceae/Helicteroideae/Durioneae) based on chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 224: 55–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oganezova, G. G. 2000a. Fruit and seed structure of some Asparagaceae s.l. in connection with the volume and phylogeny of the family. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 85(8): 14–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000b. Systematic position of the Trilliaceae, Smilacaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Herreriaceae, Tecophilaeaceae families and the volume and phylogeny of the Asparagales (based on seed structure). Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 85(9): 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, I.-C., T. Denk &E. M. Friis. 2003. Evolution ofIllicium (Illiciaceae): mapping morphological characters on the molecular tree. Pl. Syst. Evol. 240: 175–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, S.-H. &P. S. Manos. 2006. Cups, nuts, and catkins: a phylogeny of Fagaceae based on CRABS CLAW sequences. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 246.

    Google Scholar 

  • -& D. Potter. 2002. Where doesGuametela belong? Botany 2002, Abstracts: 109.

  • ——. 2006. Description and phylogenetic position of a new angiosperm family, Guamatelaceae, inferred from chloroplast rbcL, atpB, and matK sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 730–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohashi, H. 2000.Petrosavia (Petrosaviaceae) in Taiwan and Hainan. Taiwania 45: 263–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohi-Toma, T., T. Sugawara, H. Murata, S. Wanke, C. Neinhuis &J. Murata. 2006. Molecular phylogeny ofAristolochia sensu lato (Aristolochiaceae) based on sequences of rbcL, matK, and phyA genes, with special reference to differentiation of chromosome numbers. Syst. Bot. 31: 481–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead, R. G. &D. Ferguson. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the Boraginaceae/Hydrophyllaceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. D. Cantino, B. Lepschi &P. A. Reeves. 2000. A molecular systematic study of the Prostanteroideae (Lamiaceae), including Chloantheae (formerly Verbenaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 148 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —,C. W. Depamphilis, A. D. Wolfe, N. D. Young, W. J. Elisons &P. A. Reeves. 2001. Disintegration of the Scrophulariaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 348–361.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,K.-J. Kim, R. K. Jansen &S. J. Wagstaff. 2000. The phylogeny of the Asteridae sensu lato based on chloroplast ndhF gene sequences. Molec. Biol. Evol. 16: 96–112.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. A. Sweere, R. E. Spangler, L. Bohs &J. D. Palmer. 1999. Phylogeny and provisional classification of the Solanaceae based on chloroplast DNA. Pp. 111–137in M. Nee, D. E. Symon, R. N. Lester & J. P. Jessop (eds.), Solanaceae IV. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. E. 2002a. Combining data from DNA sequences and morphology for a phylogeny of Moringaceae (Brassicales). Syst. Bot. 27: 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002b. Intergeneric relationships within the Caricaceae-Moringaceae clade (Brassicales) and potential morphological synapomorphies of the clade and its families. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 163: 51–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &B. A. Schaal. 2002. Paleotropical Moringaceae and neotropical Caricaceae: vicariance or dispersal? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,J. F. Gaskin &F. Ghahremani-nejad. 2003. Stem anatomy is congruent with molecular phylogenies placingHypericopsis persica inFrankenia (Frankeniaceae): comments on vasicentric tracheids. Taxon 52: 525–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oskolski, A. A. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships within Apiales: evidence from wood anatomy. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Systematic wood anatomy of Apiaceae and related taxa. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 80 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • — &P. P. Lowry II. 2000. Wood anatomy ofMackinlaya andApiopetalum (Araliaceae) and its systematic implications. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxelman, B., P. Kornhall, R. G. Olmstead &B. Bremen 2005. Further disintegration of Scrophulariaceae. Taxon 54: 411–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, D. J. &D. H. Les. 2001. Preliminary phylogenetic studies in the Menyanthaceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &G. E. Crow. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships inNuphar (Nymphaeaceae): evidence from morphology, chloroplast DNA, and nuclear ribosomal DNA. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1316–1324.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Padhye, M. D. &K. H. Makde. 1982. Pollen morphology of Cyperaceae. J. Palynol. 16: 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panero, J. L., B. G. Baldwin, E. E. Schilling &J. A. Clevinger. 2001. Molecular phylogenetic studies of members of tribes Helenieae, Heliantheae, and Eupatorieae (Asteraceae). Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 131–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, K-R. &W. J. Elisens. 2000. A phylogenetic study of tribe Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161:425–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, L. B. 2001. Four new species ofOrchidantha (Lowiaceae) from Sabah. Nordic J. Bot. 21: 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of the subfamily Alpinoideae (Zingiberaceae), particularlyEtlingera Giseke, based on nuclear and plastid DNA. Pl. Syst. Evol. 245: 239–258.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pell, S. K. &L. E. Urbatsch. 2001. Tribal relationships and character evolution in the cashew family (Anacardiaceae): inferences from three regions of the chloroplast genome. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, T. D., M. Lavin, H. Ireland, B. Klitgaard, J. Preston &J.-M. Hu. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of basal papilionoid legumes based upon sequences of the chloroplast trnL intron. Syst. Bot. 26: 537–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, C. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Polygalaceae based on plastid DNA sequences from the trnL-F region. Taxon 50: 763–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, F. P. &D. E. Fairbrothers. 1980. Serological investigation of selected amentiferous taxa. Syst. Bot. 4: 230–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1985. A serotaxonomic appraisal of the “Amentiferae.” Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 112: 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, G., O. Seberg, J. I Davis, D. H. Goldman, D. W. Stevenson, L. M. Campbell, F. A. Michelangeli, C. D. Specht, M. W. Chase, M. F. Fay, J. C. Pires, J. V. Freudenstein, C. R. Hardy &M. P. Simmons. 2006. Mitochondrial data in monocot phylogenetics. Aliso 22: 52–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &S. Larsen. 2002. The phylogenetic and taxonomic position ofLilaeopsis (Apiaceae) with notes on the applicability of ITS sequence data for phylogenetic reconstruction. Austral. Syst. Bot. 125: 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. M. 2000. Systematics of the Muhlenbergiinae (Chloridoideae: Eragrostideae). Pp. 195–212in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeil, B. E., C. L. Brubaker, L. A. Craven &M. D. Crisp. 2002. Phylogeny ofHibiscus and the tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) using chloroplast DNA sequences of ndhF and the rpl16 intron. Syst. Bot. 27: 333–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. Pfosser &F. Speta. 1999. Phylogenetics of Hyacinthaceae based on plastid DNA sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 852–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philbrick, C. T., A. Novelo R. & B. E. Irgang. 2004. Two new genera of Podostemaceae from the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Syst. Bot. 29: 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigg, K. B., R. M. Dillhoff &M. L. Devore. 2006. New diversity among the Trochodendraceae from the Early Eocene McAbee and Early/Middle Epocene One Mile Creek floras, Okanogan Highlands of British Columbia, Canada. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &W. C. Wehr. 2000.Trochodendron (Trochodendraceae) from the early middle Eocene Republic Flora, Washington, USA. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 74 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &S. M. Ickert-Bond. 2001.Trochodendron andNordenskioldia (Trochodendraceae) from the Middle Eocene of Washington State, U.S.A. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 162: 1187–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pires, J. C. &K. J. Sytsma. 2002. A phylogenetic evaluation of a biosystematic framework:Brodiaea and related petaloid monocots (Themidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1342–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. F. Fay, W. S. Davis, L. Hufford, J. Rova, M. W. Chase &J. Sytsma. 2001. Molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses of Themidaceae (Asparagales). Kew Bull. 56: 601–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,I. J. Maureira, T. J. Givnish, K. J. Sytsma, O. Seberg, G. Petersen, J. I Davis, D. W. Stevenson, P. J. Rudall, M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2006. Phylogeny, genome size, and chromosome evolution of Asparagales. Aliso 22: 287–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,J. P. Rebman, G. A. Salazar, L. I. Cabrera, M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2004. Molecular data confirm the phylogenetic placement of the enigmaticHesperocallis (Hesperocallidaceae) with Agave. Madrono 51: 307–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plana, V. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships of the Afro-Malagasy members of the large genusBegonia inferred from trnL intron sequences. Syst. Bot. 28: 693–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, M. S. &M. J. Sanderson. 1997. Molecular phylogenetic analysis and biogeography of Limnanthaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 84(6): 222–223 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Plunkett, G. M. 2001. Relationship of the order Apiales to subclass Asteridae: a re-evaluation of morphological characters based on insights from molecular data. Edinburgh J. Bot. 58: 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &P. P. Lowry II. 2001. Relationships among ‘ancient araliads’ and their significance for the systematics of Apiales. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 259–276.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,G. T. Chandler, P. P. Lowry II,S. M. Pinney &T. S. Sprenkle. 2004a. Recent advances in understanding Apiales, with a revised classification. S. African J. Bot. 70: 371–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &P. P. Lowry II &M. K. Burke. 2001. The phylogenetic status ofPolyscias (Araliaceae) based on nuclear ITS sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Wen &P. P. Lowry II. 2004b. Infrafamilial classifications and characters in Araliaceae: insights from the phylogenetic analysis of nuclear (ITS) and plastid (trnL-trnF) sequence data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 245: 1–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, I. 2002. Systematics of Cretaceous and TertiaryNothofagoxylon: implications for southern hemisphere biogeography and evolution of the Nothofagaceae. Austral. Syst. Bot. 15: 247–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, J. M. &L. A. Johnson. 2000. Age and diversification and their implications for historical biogeography of Polemoniaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 150 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Posluszny, U. &P. B. Tomlinson. 2002. Early floral development inAmborella trichopoda Baill. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potgieter, K. &V. S. Albert. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships within Apocynaceae s.l. based on trnL intron and trnL-F spacer sequences and propagule characters. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 523–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, D., F. Gao, P. E. Bortiri, S.-H. Oh &S. Baggett. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in Rosaceae inferred from chloroplast matK and trnL-trnF nucleotide sequence data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 231: 77–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &J. V. Freudenstein. 2005. Character-based phylogenetic Linnaean classification: taxa should be both ranked and monophyletic. Taxon 54: 1033–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, E. A. &K. A. Kron. 2001. An analysis of the phylogenetic relationships in the wintergreen group (Diplocosia, Gaultheria, Pernettya, Tepuia; Ericaceae). Syst. Bot. 26: 808–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, N. &M. Ramsey. 2000. Embryological development inBlandfordia andNeoastelia with comments on their systematic position. Pp. 214–217in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pridgeon, A. M., R. Solano &M. W. Chase. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Pleurothallidineae (Orchidaceae): combined evidence from nuclear and plastid DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2286–2308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, L. M. &W. J. Kress. 2006a. Phylogenetic relationships and classification in Marantaceae: insights from plastid DNA sequence data. Taxon 55: 281–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2006b. Phylogeny and biogeography of the prayer plant family: getting to the root problem in Marantaceae. Aliso 22: 643–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &C. R. Parks. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of Theaceae inferred from chloroplast DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2309–2320.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prychid, C. J. &P. J. Rudall. 2000. Distribution of calcium oxalate crystals in monocotyledons. Pp. 159–162in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &M. Gregory. 2004. Systematics and biology of silica-bodies in monocotyledons. Bot. Rev. 69: 377–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyck, N. &E. Smets. 2001. Dipsacales phylogeny: combining chloroplast sequences with morphological evidence. Laboratory of Plant Systematics, Leuven, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Geeraerts, K. Geuten &E. Smets. 2003. Systematic relations in Ebenaceae: a survey based on nrDNA ITS sequence data. Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 216 (Abstr.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, H. N. 1989. An investigation on carpels of Lardizabalaceae in relation to taxonomy and phylogeny. Cathaya 1:61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, Y.-L., J. Lee, F. Bernasconi-Quadroni, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, M. Zanis, E. A. Zimmer, Z. Chen, V. Savolainen &M. W. Chase. 2000. Phylogeny of basal angiosperms: analyses of five genes from three genomes. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S3-S27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,L. Li, T. A. Hendry, R. Li, D. W. Taylor, M. J. Issa, A. J. Ronen, M. L. Vekaria &A. M. White. 2006. Reconstructing the basal angiosperm phylogeny: evaluating information content of mitochondrial genes. Taxon 55: 837–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, C. J., D. M. Crayn, M. M. Heslewood, E. A. Brown &P. A. Gadek. 2003. A molecular estimate of the phylogeny of Styphelieae (Ericaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 16: 581–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quint, M. &R. Classen-Bockhoff. 2006. Phylogeny of Bruniaceae based on matK and its sequence data. Int. J. Plant Sci. 167: 135–146.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Radtke, M. G., K. B. Pigg &W. Wehr. 2005. FossilCorylopsis andFothergilla leaves (Hamamelidaceae) from the lower Eocene flora of Republic, Washington, USA., and their evolutionary and biogeographic significance. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmanzadeh, R., K. Müller, E. Fischer, D. Bartels &T. Borsch. 2005. The Linderniaceae and Gratiolaceae are further lineages distinct from the Scropulariaceae (Lamiales). Pl. Biol. (Stuttgart) 7: 67–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rapini, A., M. W. Chase, D. J. Goyder &J. Griffiths. 2003. Asclepiadeae classification: evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of New World Asclepiadoideae (Apocynaceae). Taxon 52: 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, F. N. 2000. Ins and outs of orchid phylogeny. Pp. 430–435in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, G., M. W. Chase, P. Goldblatt, P. Rudall, M. F. Fay, A. V. Cox, B. Lejeune &T. Souza-Chies. 2001. Molecular systematics of Iridaceae: evidence from four plastid DNA regions. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2074–2087.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Remizowa, M. V., D. D. Sokoloff &P. J. Rudall. 2006. Patterns of floral structure and orientation inJaponolirion, Narthecium, andTofieldia. Aliso 22: 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renner, S. S. 1999. Circumscription and phylogeny of the Laurales: evidence from molecular and morphological data. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1301–1315.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. S. Chanderbali. 2000. What is the relationship among Hernandiaceae, Lauraceae, and Monimiaceae, and why is this question so difficult to answer? Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S109-S119.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &T. J. Givnish. 2002. Tropical intercontinental disjunctions: Gondwana break-up, immigration from the boreotropics, and transoceanic dispersal. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. Tropical intercontinental disjunctions: Gondwana break-up, immigration from the boreotropics, and transoceanic dispersal. Int. J. Plant Sci. 165(4): S1-S6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &G. Hausner. 2005. Monograph of Siparunaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 95: 1–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &K. Meyer. 2001. Melastomeae come full circle: biogeographic reconstruction and molecular clock dating. Evolution 55: 1315–1324.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. Weerasooriya. 2002a. Roles of Gondwana break-up and transoceanic dispersal in the evolution of Hernandiaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002b. Phylogeny ofPistia and its 16 closest generic relatives among Aroideae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,G. Clausing &K. Meyer. 2001. Historical biogeography of Melastomataceae: the roles of Tertiary migration and long-distance dispersal. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1290–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,D. B. Forman &D. Murray. 2000. Timing transantarctic disjunctions in the Atherospermataceae (Laurales): evidence from coding and noncoding chloroplast sequences. Syst. Biol. 49: 579–591.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Weerasooriya &M. E. Olson. 2002. Phylogeny of Cucurbitaceae inferred from multiple chloroplast loci. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reveal, J. L. 1995-onward. Index nominum supragenericorum plantarum vascularium. [http://www.life.umd.edu/emeritus/reveal/pbio/WWW/supragen.html]

  • — &C. S. Pires. 2002. Phylogeny and classification of the monocotyledons: an update. Pp. 3–36in Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 26. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, H. 1997. Boraginaceae. Fl. Males. 13: 43–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivadavia, F., K. Kondo, M. Kato &M. Hasebe. 2003. Phylogeny of the sundews,Drosera (Droseraceae), based on chloroplast rbcL and nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 123–130.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rix, M. &A. Jackson. 2004.Berberidopsis beckleri. Bot. Mag. 21: 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roalson, E. H., J. K. Boggan, L. E. Skog &E. A. Zimmer. 2005. Untangling Gloxinieae (Gesneriaceae). 1. Phylogenetic patterns and generic boundaries inferred from nuclear, chloroplast, and morphological cladistic data sets. Taxon 54: 389–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,J. T. Columbus &E. A. Friar. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in Cariceae (Cyperaceae) based on ITS (nrDNA) and trnT-L-F (cpDNA) region sequences: assessment of subgeneric and sectional relationships inCarex with emphasis on sectionAcrocystis. Syst. Bot. 26: 318–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, H. &D. C. Taylor. 1999. The status of the pitcairnioid genera of the Bromeliaceae. Harvard Pap. Bot. 4: 195–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roels, P. &E. Smets. 1996. A floral ontogenetic study in the Dipsacales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 157: 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Z. S. 2005. A revision ofOctolepis Oliv. (Thymelaeaceae, Octolepidoideae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 27: 89–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rönblom, K. &A. A. Anderberg. 2002. Phylogeny of Diapensiaceae based on molecular data and morphology. Syst. Bot. 27: 383–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronse Decraene, L. P. &E. Smets. 2001. Floral developmental evidence for the systematic relationships ofTropaeolum (Tropaeolaceae). Ann. Bot. (London) 88: 879–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &L. Wanntorp. 2006. Evolution of floral characters inGunnera (Gunneraceae). Syst. Bot. 31: 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,P. K. Endress &J. S. Faris. 2003. Gunnerales are sister to other core eudicots: implications for the evolution of pentamery. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,P. S. Soltis &D. E. Soltis. 2003. Evolution of floral structures in basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S329-S363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, E. S. 2003.Rafflesia: the super flower. Calif. Wild 56(3): 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, G. W., M. R. Van Atta, H. E. Ballard Jr. &R. A. Stockey. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic relationships among Lemnaceae and Araceae using the chloroplast trnL-trnF intergenic spacer. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 30: 378–385.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rova, J. H. E., P. G. Delprete, L. Andersson &V. A. Albert. 2002. A trnL-F cpDNA sequence study of the Condamineeae-Rondeletieae-Sipaneeae complex with implications on the phylogeny of the Rubiaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 145–159.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rudall, P. 2003a. Unique floral structures and iterative evolutionary themes in Asparagales: insights from a morphological cladistic analysis. Bot. Rev. 68: 488–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003b. Monocot pseudanthia revisited: floral structure of the mycoheterotrophic family Triuridaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S307-S320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &R. M. Bateman. 2006. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of Pandanales: testing contrasting hypotheses of floral evolution. Syst. Bot. 31: 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &G. Campbell. 1999. Flower and pollen structure of Ruscaceae in relation to Aspidistreae and other Convallariaceae. Flora 194: 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &N. G. Sajo. 1999. Systematic position ofXyris: flower and seed anatomy. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 160: 795–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Cunniff, M. S. Box, A. Strange &R. M. Bateman. 2006. Fascicles and filamentous structures: comparative ontogeny of morphological novelties in Triuridaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 106–107.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • —,D. W. Stevenson &H. P. Linder. 1999. Structure and systematics ofHanguana, a monocotyledon of uncertain affinity. Austral. Syst. Bot. 12: 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,K. L. Stobart, W.-P. Hong, J. G. Conran, C. A Furness. G. C. Kite &M. W. Chase. 2000. Consider the lilies: systematics of Liliales. Pp. 347–359in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutschmann, F., T. Eriksson, J. Shönenberger &E. Conti. 2004. Did Crypteroniaceae really disperse out-of-India? Molecular dating evidence from rbcL, ndhF, and rpl16 intron sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4 Suppl): S69-S83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, F. B. 2000. The pollen ofTakhtajania perrieri (Winteraceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 380–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. Pollen diversity in some modern magnoliids. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S193-S210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, R., H. Kathriarachchi, P. Hoffmann, M. H. J. Barfuss, K. J. Wurdack, C. C. Davis &M. W. Chase. 2005. Molecular phylogenetics of Phyllanthaceae: evidence from plastid matK and nuclear PHYC sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 132–141.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Ken, J. G. & L. G. Clark. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships within the Centothecoideae + Panicoideae clade (Poaceae) based on dnhF and rpL16 sequences and structural data. Aliso 23.

  • Sanders, R. W. 2001. The genera of Verbenaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 5: 303–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, M. J. S. 2001. The desert date and its relatives: a revision of the genusBalanites. Kew Bull. 56: 1–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santiago-Valentin, E. &R. G. Olmstead. 2003. Phylogenetics of the Antillean Goetzeoideae (Solanaceae) and their relationships within the Solanaceae based on chloroplast and ITS DNA sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 452–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauquet, H. &A. Le Thomas. 2003. Pollen diversity and evolution in Myristicaceae (Magnoliales). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164: 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. A. Doyle, T. Schjaraschkin, T. Boersch, K. W. Hilu, L. W. Chatrou &A. Le Thomas. 2003. Phylogenetic analysis of Magnoliales and Myristicaceae based on multiple data sets: implications for character evolution. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 142: 125–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savinov, I. A. 2003. Comparative carpology of the genusSphenostemon (Sphenostemonaceae) in the context of its taxonomy and phylogeny. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 88(2): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savolainen, V., M. W. Chase, S. B. Hoot, C. M. Morton, D. E. Soltis, C. Bayer, M. F. Fay, A. Y. de Bruijn, S. Sullivan &Y.-L. Qiu. 2000a. Phylogenetics of flowering plants based upon a combined analysis of plastid atpB and rbcL gene sequences. Syst. Biol. 49: 306–362.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,M. F. Fay, D. C. Albach, A. Backlund, M. van der Bank, K. M. Cameron, S. A. Johsnon, M. D. Lledo, J.-C. Pintaud, M. Powell, M. C. Sheahan, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, P. Weston, W. M. Whitten, K. J. Wurdack &M. W. Chase. 2000b. Phylogeny of the eudicots: a nearly complete familial analysis based on rbcL gene sequences. Kew Bull. 55: 257–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatz, G. E. 2000. The rediscovery of a Malagasy endemic:Takhtajania perrieri (Winteraceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &P. P. Lowry II. 2004. A synoptic revision ofBrexia (Celastraceae) in Madagascar. Adansonia, ser. 3, 26:67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,P. P. Lowry II &A.-E. Wolf. 1998. Endemic families of Madagascar. 1. A synoptic revision ofMelanophylla Baker (Melanophyllaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 20: 233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,——. 2000. Endemic families of Madagascar. VI. A synoptic revision ofRhodolaena (Sarcolaenaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 22: 239–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,——. 2001. Endemic families of Madagascar. VII. A synoptic revision ofLeptolaena Thouars sensu stricto (Sarcolaenaceae). Adansonia, ser. 3, 23: 171–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, J., G. Upchurch &G. Mack. 2006. A new species ofPandanites from the Maastrichtian of south-central New Mexico: implications for the history of Pandanaceae. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 170–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, G. J. &E. E. Schilling. 2000. Phylogeny and biogeography ofEupatorium (Asteraceae: Eupatorieae) based on nuclear ITS sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 716–726.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, E. L. &S. Carlquist. 2001. SEM studies on vessel elements of Saururaceae. I. A. W. A. J. 22: 183–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005. Origin and nature of vessels in monocotyledons. 6.Hanguana (Hanguanaceae). Pacific Sci. 59: 393–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,S. C. Tucker &P. S. Williamson. 2003. Floral development in the Nymphaeales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164(5 Suppl.): S279-S292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. V., M. Siebich &G. Zizka. 2003. Systematics and evolution of the Quiinaceae (Malpighiales). Palm. Hortus Francofurt. 7: 100 (abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • —,U. Swenson &G. Zizka. 2002. Phylogenetic reconstruction of the neotropical family Quiinaceae (Malpighiales) based on morphology with remarks on the evolution of androdioecious sex distribution. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 89: 64–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönenberger, J. 2006. Comparative floral structure of Polemoniaceae and Fouquieriaceae in light of their phylogenetic position in the Ericales. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &E. Conti. 2003. Molecular phylogeny and floral evolution of Penaeaceae, Oliniaceae, Rhynchocalycaceae, and Alzateaceae (Myrtales). Amer. J. Bot. 90: 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &E.M. Friis. 2001. Fossil flowers of ericalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of southern Sweden. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. A. Anderberg &K. J. Sytsma. 2005. Molecular phylogenetics and patterns of floral evolution in the Ericales. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 166: 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,R. K. Petersen &E. M. Friis. 2001.Normapolles flowers of fagalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of Portugal. Pl. Syst. Evol. 226: 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schols, P., C. A Furness, F. Wilkin, E. Smets, V. Ciales &S. Huysmans. 2003. Pollen morphology ofDioscorea (Dioscoreaceae) and its relation to systematics. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 143: 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultheis, L. M. &M. J. Donoghue. 2004. Molecular phylogeny and biogeography ofRibes (Grossulariaceae), with an emphasis on gooseberries (subg.Grossularia). Syst. Bot. 29: 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzbach, A. E. &L. A. McDade. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the mangrove family Avicenniaceae based on chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 27: 84–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &R. E. Ricklefs. 2000. Systematic affinities of Rhizophoraceae and Anisophylleaceae, and intergeneric relationships within Rhizophoraceae, based on chloroplast DNA, nuclear ribosomal DNA and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 547–564.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002. Tropical intercontinental disjunctions in Rhizophoraceae: vicariance or long distance dispersal? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotland, R. W. 2000. Are angiosperms firmly rooted? Taxon 49: 529–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &K. Vollesen. 2000. Classification of Acanthaceae. Kew Bull. 55: 513–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. H. Wortley. 2003. How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 52: 101–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seelanan, T., A. Schnabel &J. F. Wendel. 1997. Congruence and consensus in the cotton tribe (Malvaceae). Syst. Bot. 22: 259–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senters, A. E. &D. E. Soltis. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships inRibes (Grossulariaceae) inferred from ITS sequence data. Taxon 52: 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppherd, K. A., T. D. Macfarlane &T. D. Colmer. 2005. Morphology, anatomy, and histochemistry of Salicornioideae (Chenopodiaceae) fruits and seeds. Ann. Bot. (London) 95: 917–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, S.-H., Y. Huang, Y. Zhong, Y. Du, Q. Zhang, H. Chang &D. E. Boufford. 2001. Phylogeny of the Altingiaceae based on cpDNA, matK,PY-IGS and nrDNA ITS sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 230: 13–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shipunov, A. B. 2005. The system of flowering plants. Version 4.8. [http://www.herba.msu.ru/ shipunov/ang/ang-en.htm]

  • Silberbauer-Gottsberger, I., G. Gottsberger &A. C. Webber. 2003. Morphological and functional flower characteristics of New and Old World Annonaceae with respect to their mode of pollination. Taxon 52: 701–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, M. P. 2004. Celastraceae. Pp. 29–64in K. Kubitzki (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. VI. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Celastrales, Oxalidales, Rosales, Cornales, Ericales. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,C. C. Clevinger, M. W. Chase, P. K. Endress &P. R. Crane. 2004. The diversification of flowering plants. Pp. 154–167in J. Cracraft & M. J. Donoghue (eds.), Assembling the tree of life. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,V. Savolainen, R. H. Archer, S. Mathew &J. J. Doyle. 2001. Phylogeny of the Celastraceae inferred from phytochrome B gene sequence and morphology. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 313–325.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,V. Savolainen, C. C. Clevinger, R. H. Archer &J. I Davis. 2001. Phylogeny of the Celastraceae inferred from 26S nuclear ribosomal DNA, phytochrome B, rbcL, atpB, and morphology. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 353–366.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, S. L. &J. L. Panero. 2000. Phylogeny and biogeography of Staphyleaceae (DC.) Lindl. Amer. J. Bot. 57(6): 157 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, B. K. 2007. Grass phylogeny and classification: conflict of morphology and molecules. Aliso 23: 259–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, B. B., A. Weeks, D. M. Helfgott &L. L. Larkin. 2004. Species relationships inKrameria (Krameriaceae) based on ITS sequences and morphology: implications for character utility and biogeography. Syst. Bot. 29: 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. A., C. A. Furness, T. R. Hodkinson, A. M. Muasya &M. W. Chase. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Cyperaceae subfamily Mapanioideae inferred from pollen and plastid DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1071–1086.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. M. Muasya, M. Alves, J. J. Bruhl, S. Dhooge, M. W. Chase, C. A. Furness, K. Ghamkhar, P. Goetghebeur, T. R. Hodkinson, A. D. Marchant, A. A. Reznicek, R. Nieuwborg, E. H. Roalson, E. Smets, J. R. Starr, W. W. Thomas, K. L. Wilson &X. Zhang. 2007. Phylogeny of Cyperaceae based on DNA sequence data—a new rbcL analysis. Aliso 23: 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, M. G. &D. H. Burton. 2006. Systematic floral anatomy of Pontederiaceae. Aliso 22: 499–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,L. Aerne, M. F. Fay &S. Hopper. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the Haemodoraceae using morphological and molecular data and implications for classification and character evolution. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleumer, H. 1980b. Flacourtiaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 22: 1–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smets, E. F., L. P. Ronse Decraene, P. Caris &P. J. Rudall. 2000. Floral nectaries in monocotyledons: distribution and evolution. Pp. 230–240in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. Y. &R. A. Stockey. 2006. Fossil perianthless Piperales: a saururaceous inflorescence and flowers with in situ pollen from the Princeton Chert [British Columbia]. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soejima, A. &J. Wen. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the grape family (Vitaceae) based on three chloroplast markers. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 278–287.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soltis, D. E. &P. S. Soltis. 2004.Amborella not a “basal angiosperm”? Not so fast. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 997–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. E. Mort, P. S. Soltis, C. Hibsch-Jetter, E. A. Zimmer &D. Morgan. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic angiosperm family Podostemaceae inferred from 18S rDNA and rbcL sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 11: 261–272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. E. Senters, M. J. Zanis, S. Kim, J. D. Thompson, P. S. Soltis, L. P. Ronse Decraene, P. K. Endress &J. S. Faris. 2003. Gunnerales are sister to other core eudicots: implications for the evolution of pentamery. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,—,—,—,M. G. Simpson, M. L. Aerne, M. F. Fay &S. Hopper. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the Haemodoraceae using morphological and molecular data and implications for classification and character evolution. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 257.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. J. Zanis &S. Kim. 2000. Basal lineages of angiosperms: relationships and implications for floral evolution. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S97-S107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. D. Bennett &I. J. Leitch. 2003. Evolution of genome size in the angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1596–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. W. Chase, P. K. Endress &P. R. Crane. 2004. The diversification of flowering plants. Pp. 154–167in J. Cracraft & M. J. Donoghue (eds.), Assembling the tree of life. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. W. Chase, M. E. Mort, D. C. Albach, M. Zanis, V. Savolainen, W. H. Hahn, S. B. Hoot, M. F. Fay, M. Axtell, S. M. Swensen, K. C. Nixon &J. S. Farris. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from a combined data set of 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 133: 381–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. E. Mort, M. W. Chase, V. Savolainen, S. B. Hoot &C. M. Morton. 1998. Inferring complex phylogenies using parsimony: an empirical approach using three large DNA datasets for angiosperms. Syst. Biol. 47: 32–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,M. Zanis, M. Fishbein, L. Hufford, J. Koontz &M. K. Arroyo. 2001. Elucidating deep-level phylogenetic relationships in Saxifragaceae using sequences for six chloroplastic and nuclear DNA regions. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 669–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soltis, P. S. &D. E. Soltis. 2001. Molecular systematics: assembling and using the Tree of Life. Taxon 50: 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2004. The origin and diversification of angiosperms. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1614–1626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, B.-H, X.-Q. Wang, F.-Z. Li &C.-Y. Hong. 2001. Further evidence for paraphyly of the Celtidaceae from the chloroplast gene matK. Pl. Syst. Evol. 228: 107–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Z.-C., W.-M. Wang &H. Fei. 2004. Fossil pollen records of extant angiosperms in China. Bot. Rev. 70: 425–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soreng, R. J. &J. I Davis. 2000. Phylogenetic structure in Poaceae subfamily Pooideae as inferred from molecular and morphological characters: misclassification versus reticulation. Pp. 61–74in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soros, C. L. &D. H. Les. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in the Alismataceae. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the Alismataceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, V. &M. W. Chase. 2003. Phylogenetics of Crossosomataceae based on rbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 96–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,— &C. Barcenas. 2003.Chiangiodendron (Achariaceae): an example of the Laurasian flora of tropical forests of Central America. Taxon 52: 519–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalik, K. &S. R. Downie. 2001. The utility of morphological characters for inferring phylogeny in Scandiceae subtribe Scanicinae (Apiaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 270–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Specht, C. D. 2006. Gondwanan vicariance or dispersal in the tropics? The biogeographic history of the tropical monocot family Costaceae (Zingiberales). Aliso 22: 633–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &D. W. Stevenson. 2001. A phylogeny of Costaceae: implications concerning floral morphology. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006. A new phylogeny-based generic classification of Costaceae (Zingiberales). Taxon 55: 153–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stace, C. A. 2000. Cytology and cytogenetics as a fundamental taxonomic resource for the 20th and 21st centuries. Taxon 49: 451–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005. Plant taxonomy and biosystematics—does DNA provide all the answers? Taxon 54: 999–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staedler, Y. M., P. H. Weston &P. K. Endress. 2006. Floral architecture and phyllotaxis in Calycanthaceae (Laurales). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, J. R., V. Teoh, E. Roalson, A. M. Muasya &D. A. Simpson. 2006. Towards a phylogenetic classification of sedges (Cyperaceae): chloroplast (rbcL, matK, ndhF) and nuclear (ADC) data. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 258–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steane, D. A., K. L. Wilson &R. S. Hill. 2003. Using matK sequence data to unravel the phylogeny of Casuarinaceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 28: 47–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stedje, B. 2001. Generic delimitation of Hyacinthaceae, with special emphasis on sub Saharan genera. Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 71: 449–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanović, S., D. F. Austin &R. G. Olmstead. 2003. Classification of Convolvulaceae: a phylogenetic approach. Syst. Bot. 28: 791–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,L. Krueger &R. G. Olmstead. 2002. Monophyly of the Convolvulaceae and circumscription of their major lineages based on DNA sequences of multiple chloroplast loci. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1510–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P. F. 2000. Botanical systematics 1950–2000: change, progress, or both? Taxon 49: 635–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • -. 2001. Angiosperm phylogeny website. [http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/ welcome.html].

  • Stevenson, D. W., J. I Davis, J. V. Freudenstein, C. R. Hardy, M. P. Simmons &C. C. Specht. 2000. A phylogenetic analysis of the monocotyledons based on morphological and molecular character sets, with comments on the placement ofAcorus and Hydatellaceae. Pp. 17–24in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockey, R. A. 2006. The fossil record of basal monocots. Aliso 22: 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. D. 2006. Phylogeny of major lineages in Melastomataceae, subfamily Olisbeoideae: utility of nuclear glyceraldehydes 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GapC) gene sequences. Syst. Bot. 31: 107–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strother, J. L. 1977. Tageteae: systematic review. Pp 769–783in V.H. Heywood, J. B. Harbourne & B. L. Turner (eds.), The biology and chemistry of the Compositae. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struwe, L. 2002. Overview of the new classification of the gentian family (Gentianaceae: Asteridae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &V. A. Albert (eds.). 2002. Gentianaceae: systematics and natural History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuessy, T. F. 2004. A transitional-combinational theory for the origin of angiosperms. Taxon 53: 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, G., Q. Ji, D. L. Dilcher, S. Zheng, K. C. Nixon &S. Wang. 2002. Archaefructaceae, a new basal angiosperm family. Science 296: 899–904.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, D. M. &P. K. Endress. 2003. Female flower and cupule structure in Balanopaceae, an enigmatic rosid family. Ann. Bot. (London) 92: 459–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swensen, S. M., W. L. Clement, L. L. Forrest &M. C. Tebbitt. 2001.Hillebrandia sandwichensis: evolutionary relationships and biogeography. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swenson, U. &A. A. Anderberg. 2005. Phylogeny, character evolution, and classification of Sapotaceae (Ericales). Cladistics 21: 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Backlund, S. McLoughlin &R. S. Hill. 2001.Nothofagus biogeography revisited with special emphasis on the enigmatic distribution of subgenusBrassospora in New Caledonia. Cladistics 17: 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sytsma, K. J. &D. A. Baum. 1996. Molecular phylogenies and the diversification of the angiosperms. Pp. 314–340in D. W. Taylor & L. J. Hickey (eds.), Flowering plant origin, evolution & phylogeny. Chapman & Hall, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • — &A. Litt. 2002. Tropical disjunctions in and among the Myrtaceae clade (Myrtaceae, Heteropyxidaceae, Psiloxylaceae, Vochysiaceae): Gondwanan vicariance or dispersal? Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 178–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. L. Zjhra, J. C. Pires, M. Nepokroeff, E. Conti, J. Walker &P. G. Wilson. 2004. Clades, clocks, and continents: historical and biogeographical analysis of Myrtaceae, Vochysiaceae, and relatives in the southern hemisphere. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165(4 Suppl.): S85-S105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. Morawtz, J. C. Pires, M. Nepokroeff, E. Conti, M. Zjhra, J. C. Hall &M. W. Chase. 2002. Urticalean rosids: circumscription, rosid ancestry, and phylogenetics based on rbcL, trnL-F, and ndhF sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1531–1546.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,J. B. Walker, J. Schönenberger &A. A. Anderberg. 2006. Phylogenetics, biogeography, and radiation of Ericales. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhtajan, A. 1987. Systema magnoliophytorum. Nauka, Leningrad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam, S. M., P. C. Boyce, T. M. Upson, D. Barabe, A. Bruneau, F. Forest &J. S. Parker. 2004. Intergeneric and infrafamilial phylogeny of subfamily Monsteroideae (Araceae) revealed by chloroplast trnL-F sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 490–498.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, E, S. Shi, Y. Zhong &X. Gong. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Combretoideae (Combretaceae) inferred from plastid, nuclear gene and spacer sequences. J. Pl. Res. 115: 475–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, N. 2001. Taxonomic revision of the family Cannaceae in the New World and Asia. Makinoa, ser. 2, 1:1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tank, D. C. &R. G. Olmstead. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis of subtribe Castillejinae (tribe Rhinantheae: Orobanchaceae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &T. Sang. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of the glycerol-3-phosphate acyltransferase gene: evolution and implications inPaeonia (Paeoniaceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 19: 421–429.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. W. &L. J. Hickey. 1992. Phylogenetic evidence for the herbaceous origin of angiosperms. Pl. Syst. Evol. 180: 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrazas, T. &S. Arias. 2003. Comparative stem anatomy in the subfamily Cactoideae. Bot. Rev. 68: 444–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thien, L. B., H. Azuma &S. Kawano. 2000. New perspectives on the pollination biology of basal angiosperms. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 161(6 Suppl.): S225-S235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,T. L. Sage, T. Jaffré, P. Bernhardt, V. Pontieri, P. H. Weston, D. Malloch, H. Azuma, S. W. Graham, M. A. McPherson, H. S. Rai, R. F. Sage &J.-L. Dupre. 2003. The population structure and floral biology ofAmborella trichopoda (Amborellaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 466–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, R. F. 2000a. The classification and geography of the angiosperm subclasses Alismatidae, Lili-idae, and Commelinidae: Monocotyledoneae (Liliidae). Pp. 75–124in B. Nordenstam, G. El-Ghazaly, M. Kassas & T. C. Laurent (eds.), Plant systematics for the 21st century. Portland Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000b. The classification and geography of the flowering plants: dicotyledons of the class Angiospermae (subclasses Magnoliidae, Ranunculidae, Caryophyllidae, Dilleniidae, Rosidae, Asteridae, and Lamiidae). Bot. Rev. 66: 441–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 51: 511–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. Tropical plant disjunctions: a personal reflection. Int. J. Plant Sci. 165(4): S137-S138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillich, H.-J. 2000. Ancestral and derived character states in seedlings of monocotyledons. Pp. 221–229in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Seedling diversity in Araceae and its systematic implications. Feddes Repert. 114: 454–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &E. Sill. 1999. Systematische Studien zur Morphologie und Anatomie vonHanguana Blume (Hanguanaceae) undFlagellaria L. (Flagellariaceae), mit der Beschreibung einer neuen Art,Hanguana bogneri spec. nov. Sendtnera 6: 215–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tippery, N. P., D. H. Les, D. Padgett &S. Jacobs. 2006. Clades and grades: an evaluation of generic circumscriptions in Menyanthaceae Dumort. (Asterales). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 262–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobe, H. &B. Sampson. 2000. Embryology ofTakhtajania (Winteraceae) and a summary statement of embryological features for the family. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87: 389–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, P. B. &U. Posluszny. 2001. Generic limits in the seagrass family Zosteraceae. Taxon 50: 429–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treutlein, J., G. F. Smith, B.-E. Van Wyk &M. Wink. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Asphodelaceae (subfamily Alooideae) inferred from chloroplast DNA sequences (rbcL, matK) and from genomic finger-printing (ISSR). Taxon 52: 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trift, I., M. Källersjö &A. A. Anderberg. 2002. The monophyly ofPrimula (Primulaceae) evaluated by analysis of sequences from the chloroplast gene rbcL. Syst. Bot. 27: 396–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unwin, M. M., P. T. Sano &L. E. Watson. 2001. Molecular systematics of the Eriocaulaceae: evidence from chloroplast sequence data. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,— &F. Nepomucento da Costa. 2002. Systematics of the Eriocaulaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valiejo-Roman, K. M., E. I. Terentieva, T. H. Samigullin &M. G. Pimenov. 2002. Relationships among genera in Saniculoideae and selected Apioideae (Umbelliferae) inferred from nrITS sequences. Taxon 51: 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Borre, A. &L. Watson. 2000. On the classification of the Chloridoideae: results from morphological and leaf anatomical data analyses. Pp. 180–183in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Bank, M., M. F. Fay &M. W. Chase. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Thymelaeaceae with particular reference to African and Australian genera. Taxon 51: 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Steenis, C. G. G. J. &M. M. J. van Balgooy (eds.). 1963-1993. Pacific plant areas. 5 volumes. National Institute of Science and Technology, Manila & Rijksherbarium/Hortus Botanicus, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varma, P. G. &B. Vijayavalli. 2002. Studies in the pollen morphology of Inulaeae and Heliantheae of Asteraceae. J. Palynol. 34: 51–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venter, H. J. T. &R. L. Verhoeven. 2001. Diversity and relationships within the Periplocoideae (Apocynaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 550–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, R. L. &H. J. T. Venter. 2001. Pollen morphology of the Periplocoideae, Secamonoideae, and Asclepiadoideae (Apocynaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 88: 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Russell, R. &D. Nickrent. 2006. A molecular phylogeny of the feathery mistletoeMisodendrum (Misodendraceae). Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006. Misodendraceae: the first aerial parasites of Santalales. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinckier, S. &E. Smets. 2002a. Morphology, ultrastructure and typology of orbicules in Loganiaceae s.l. and related genera, in relation to systematics. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 119: 161–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2002b. Systematic importance of orbicule diversity in Gentianales. Grana 41: 1589–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnersten, A. &K. Bremen 2001. Age and biogeography of major clades in Liliales. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1695–1703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &G. Reeves. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships within Colchicaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1455–1462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, S. 1990. History of the Malpighiaceae in the light of pollination ecology. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 55: 130–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallick, K. P., W. Elisens &P. Kores. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis of trnL-F sequence variation indicates a monophyletic Buddlejaceae and a paraphyleticBuddleia. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 156–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. Molvray, P. J. Kores &W. J. Elisens. 2000. A phylogenetic analysis of Buddlejaceae s.S. inferred from the trnL region of cpDNA. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 183 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallnöffer, B. 2004. A revision ofLissocarpa Benth. (Ebenaceae subfam. Lissocarpoideae (Gilg in Engler) B. Walln.) Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B 105: 515–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. &D. L. Dilcher. 2006. Aquatic angiosperms from the Dakota Formation (Albian, Lower Cretaceous), Hoisington III Locality, Kansas, USA. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 167: 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., P. W. Fritsch, S. Shi, F. Almeda, B. C. Cruz &L. M Kelly. 2004. Phylogeny and infrageneric classification ofSymplocos (Symplocaceae) inferred from DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1901–1914.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wannan, B. S. 2006. Analysis of generic relationships in Anacardiaceae. Blumea 51: 165–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanntorp, L., M. E. Dettmann &D. M. Jarzen. 2004. Tracking the Mesozoic distribution ofGunnera: comparison with the fossil pollen speciesTricolpites reticulatus Cookson. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 132: 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,H-E. Wanntorp &M. Källersjö. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships ofGunnera based on nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS region, rbcL and rps16 intron sequences. Syst. Bot. 27: 512–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—,B. Oxelman &M. Källersjö. 2001. Phylogeny ofGunnera. Pl. Syst. Evol. 226: 85–107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, N. M. &R. A. Price. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of Marcgraviaceae: insights from three chloroplast genes. Syst. Bot. 27: 149–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, A., D. C. Daly &B. B. Simpson. 2005. The phylogenetic history and biogeography of the frankincense and myrrh family (Burseraceae) based on nuclear and chloroplast sequence data. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 30: 85–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Z.-X, F. Wang, Q.-J. Jin &H. Wang. 2002. A cladistic analysis of Stachyuraceae and related taxa. Acta Bot. Yunnan. 24: 591–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend, M., O. Mohr &T. J. Motley. 2002. Phylogeny and classification of the genusRibes (Grossulariaceae) based on 5 S-NTS sequences and morphological and anatomical data. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 124: 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, J., G. M. Plunkett, A. D. Mitchell &S. J. Wagstaff. 2001. The evolution of Araliaceae: a phylogenetic analysis based on ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Syst. Bot. 26: 144–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, N. M. &R. A. Price. 2000. Phylogeny and morphological evolution of Marcgraviaceae: insights from three chloroplast genes. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 183 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetschnig, W. &M. Pfosser. 2003. TheScilla plumbea puzzle—present status of the genusScilla sensu lato in southern Africa and descriptions ofSpetaea lachenaliiflora, a new genus and species of Massonieae (Hyacinthaceae). Taxon 52: 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, E. A. &S. R. Manchester. 2000. Survey of the diverse middle Eocene wood assemblage of the Clarno formation, northcentral Oregon. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 79–80 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • White, P. J. &D. W. Stevenson. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships and character evolution in Menispermaceae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegler, G. &Z. Kaplan. 1998. An account of the species ofPotamogeton L. (Potamogetonaceae). Folia Geobot. 33: 241–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, V., H. Frankenhaeuser &B. Nickel. 2000. A chloranthaceous inflorescence with pollen in situ from the Middle Eocene of Germany. Amer. J. Bot. 87(6): 80 (Abstr.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, W. J. J. O. de. 2000. Myristicaceae. Fl. Males. 14: 1–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2006. Redefinition ofZehneria and four new related genera (Cucurbitaceae), with an enumeration of the Australasian and Pacific species. Blumea 51: 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. H. &W. E. Friedman. 2004. The four-celled female gametophyte ofIllicium (Illiciaceae; Austrobaileyales): implications for understanding the origin and early evolution of monocots, eumagnoliids, and eudicots. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. A. &C. L. Calvin. 2003. Development, taxonomic significance and ecological role of the cuticular epithelium in the Santalales. I. A. W. A. J. 24: 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006a. Character divergences and convergences in canopy-dwelling Loranthaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 150: 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 2006b. An origin of aerial branch parasitism in the mistletoe family, Loranthaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 93: 787–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. L. &D. A. Morrison (eds.). 2000. Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. G., M. M. O’Brien, P. A. Gadek &C. J. Quinn. 2001. Myrtaceae revisited: a reassessment of infrafamilial groups. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2013–2028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,M. M. Heslewood &C. J. Quinn. 2005. Relationships within Myrtaceae sensu lato based on a matK phytogeny. Pl. Syst. Evol. 251: 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, A. D., S. L. Datwyler &C. P. Randle. 2002. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of the Cheloneae (Scrophulariaceae) based on ITS and matK sequence data. Syst. Bot. 27: 138–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worbert, A., D. Quandt, A.-M. Barniske, C. Löhne, K. W. Hilu &T. Borsch. 2006. Towards understanding early Eudicot diversification: insights from rapidly evolving and non-coding DNA. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.-Y., Y.-C. Tang, Z.-D. Chen &D.-Z. Li. 2002. Synopsis of a new ‘polyphyletic-polychronicpolytopic’ system of the angiosperms. Acta Phytotax. Sinica 40: 289–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,A. Lu, Y. Tang, Z. Chen &D. Li. 2003. The families and genera of angiosperms in China, a comprehensive analysis. Science Press, Beijing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurdack, K. J. &M. W. Chase. 2002. Phylogenetics of Euphorbiaceae s.s. using plastid (rbcL and trnL-F) sequences. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &J. W. Horn. 2001. A reevaluation of the affinities of the Tepuianthaceae: molecular and morphological evidence for placement in the Malvales. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 151.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,P. Hoffman, R. Samuel, A. de Bruijn, M. van der Bank &M. W. Chase. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Phyllanthaceae (Phyllanthoideae pro parte, Euphorbiaceae sensu lato) using plastid rbcL DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1882–1900.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xi, Q.Y., D. T. Thomas, W. Zhang, S. R. Manchester &Z. Murrell. 2006. Species level phytogeny of the genusCornus (Cornaceae) based on molecular and morphological evidence—implications for taxonomy and Tertiary intercontinental migration. Taxon 55: 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, Q.-Y., A. J. Harris &D. Thomas. 2006. Phytogeny and biogeography of the buckeye genus (Aesculus; Sapindaceae)—a reevaluation with broader sampling, new method of phylogenetic dating, and new fossil evidence. Botany 2006 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, pp. 24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,M. L. Moody, D. E. Soltis, C. Z. Fan &P. S. Soltis. 2002. Relationships within Cornales and circumscription of Cornaceae—matK and rbcL sequence data and effects of out-groups and long branches. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 24: 35–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,D. E. Soltis, D. R. Morgan &P. S. Soltis. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships ofCornus L. sensu lato and putative relatives inferred from rbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 723–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamada, T., R. Imaaichi &M. Kato. 2001. Developmental morphology of ovules and seeds of Nymphaeales. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 963–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamashita, J. &M. N. Tamura. 2000. Molecular phytogeny of the Convallariaceae (Asparagales). Pp. 387–400in K. L. Wilson & D. A. Morrison (eds.), Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi, T., P. P. Lowry II,G. M. Plunkett &J. Wen. 2004. Chromosomal evolution in Araliaceae and close relatives. Taxon 53: 987–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, K. O. &J. Wen. 2002. Phytogeny ofCarpinus and subfamily Coryloideae. Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y.-M., Y. Song, K. Geuten, E. Rahelivololona, S. Wohlhauser, E. Fischer, E. Smets &P. Küpfer. 2004. Phylogeny and biogeography of Balsaminaceae inferred from ITS sequences. Taxon 53: 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,S. Wohlhauser, M. Möller, P. Chassot, G. Mansion, J. Grant, P. Küpfer &J. Klackenberg. 2003. Monophyly and relationships of the tribe Exaceae (Gentianaceae) inferred from nuclear ribosomal and chloroplast DNA sequences. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 28: 500–517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zanis, M. J., P. S. Soltis, Y. L. Qiu, E. Zimmer &D. E. Soltis. 2003. Phylogenetic analyses and perianth evolution in basal angiosperms. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 90: 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerega, N. J. C., W. L. Clement, S. L. Datwyler &G. D. Weiblen. 2005. Biogeography and divergence times in the mulberry family (Moraceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 37: 402–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D., R. M. K. Saunders &C.-M. Hu. 1999.Corsiopsis chinensis gen. et sp. nov. (Corsiaceae): first record of the family in Asia. Syst. Bot. 24: 311–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L.-B. &S. S. Renner. 2003. The deepest splits in Chloranthaceae as resolved by chloroplast sequences. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 164 (5 Suppl.): S383-S392.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &M. P. Simmons. 2006. Phylogeny and delimitation of the Celastrales inferred from nuclear and plastid genes. Syst. Bot. 31: 122–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W. &L. G. Clark. 2000. Phylogeny and classification of the Bambusoideae (Poaceae). Pp. 35–42in S. W. L. Jacobs & J. Everett (eds.), Grasses: systematics and evolution. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W.-H, Z.-D. Chen, J.-H. Li, H.-B. Chen &Y.-C. Tang. 2003 Phylogeny of the Dipsacales s.l. based on chloroplast trnL-F and ndhF sequences. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 26: 176–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, S., S. S. Renner &J. Wen. 2006. Molecular phylogeny and intra- and intercontinental biogeography of Calycanthaceae. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 39: 1–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Z.-K., W. L. Crepet &K. C. Nixon. 2001. The earliest fossil evidence of the Hamamelidaceae: Late Cretaceous (Turonian) inflorescences and fruits of Altingioideae. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 753–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Y.-P., J. Wen, Z.-Y. Zhang &Z.-D. Chen. 2006. Evolutionary relationships and diversification of Stachyuraceae based on sequences of four chloroplast markers and the nuclear ribosomal ITS region. Taxon 55: 931–940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zomlefer, W. B. 1998. The genera of Hemerocallidaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Pap. Bot. 3: 113–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1999. Advances in angiosperm systematics: examples from the Liliales and Asparagales. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 126: 58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. The genera of Melanthieae (Liliales, Melanthiaceae): circumscription and relationships based on ITS and trnL-F sequence data. Botany 2001 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships and character evolution in the Melanthieae (Liliales: Melanthiaceae). Botany 2002 Abstracts. Botanical Society of America, St. Louis, p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,W. S Judd, W. M. Whitten &N. H. Williams. 2006. A synopsis of Melanthiaceae (Liliales) with focus on character evolution in tribe Melanthieae. Aliso 22: 566–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,N. H. Williams, W. M. Whitten &W. S. Judd. 2001. Generic circumscription and relationships in the tribe Melanthieae (Liliales, Melanthiaceae), with emphasis onZigadenus: evidence from ITS and trnL-F sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1657–1669.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,W. M. Whitten, N. H. Williams &W. S. Judd. 2003. An overview ofVeratrum s.l. (Liliales: Melanthiaceae) and an infrageneric phylogeny based on ITS sequence data. Syst. Bot. 28: 250–269.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 N. College Avenue, 91711, Claremont, CA, USA

    Robert F. Thorne

  2. University of Maryland Honorary Curator, The New York Botanical Garden, 10458-5126, Bronx, NY, USA

    James L. Reveal (Professor Emeritus, Adjunct Professor)

  3. Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, 14853-4301, Ithaca, NY

    James L. Reveal (Professor Emeritus, Adjunct Professor)

Authors
  1. Robert F. Thorne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James L. Reveal
    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

Thorne, R.F., Reveal, J.L. An updated classification of the class Magnoliopsida (“Angiospermae”). Bot. Rev 73, 67 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2007)73[67:AUCOTC]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2007)73[67:AUCOTC]2.0.CO;2

Search

Navigation