Showing papers in "Taxon in 1978"
TL;DR: The Atlas of Distribution of Vascular Plants in Poland (ATPOL) is a new project in floristic cartography in eastern central Europe being realized by the cartogram method.
Abstract: The Atlas of Distribution of Vascular Plants in Poland (ATPOL) is a new project in floristic cartography in eastern central Europe being realized by the cartogram method. The basic map unit is a square 10km x 10km. The whole of the Polish vascular flora (about 2400 taxa) is being included. The data are being gathered and processed using electronic data processing (EDP). The concept of ATPOL was proposed by J. Kornas in 1966 as a continuation and extension of the already well advanced local cartographic projects which cover various physiographic, historic or administrative regions of Poland (e.g. the Carpathians, the Silesia, the former Lublin voivodship in central-eastern Poland, etc.), as well as some taxonomic or ecological plant groups (e.g. the trees and shrubs, Browicz, 1963-1976).
186 citations
TL;DR: A brief summary of the principles, results, and advantages of phylogenetic systematics application in botanical systematics is intended as a brief summary.
Abstract: Summary Phylogenetic systematics in the sense of W. Hennig has exerted a great influence on systematic zoology. Among botanists, however, it has been overlooked and the present paper is intended as a brief summary of the principles, results, and advantages of its application in botanical systematics. In phylogenetic reconstruction monophyletic groups are established by the use of the unique, derived features inherited by the members from the immediate ancestor of the group. Since species splitting has been mainly dichotomous, the search for sister species or sister groups is the main procedure in phylogenetic reconstruction. The effects of multiple splitting of species, parallelism, and reticulate evolution are also discussed. In traditional, "natural" or "evolutionary" classification the degree of similarity is a main criterion for relationship. Since similarity depends on both primitive and derived characters, the groups established will often be paraphyletic; some of the descendants of the common ancestor will not be included in such a group. Paraphyletic groups have no reality in nature and their use in evolutionary and biogeographic discussion is a major obstacle to progress. In a strictly phylogenetic classification all taxa must be monophyletic and all sister groups given equal rank. If these principles are followed, the classification will reflect nature's own hierarchy and its groups will be directly useful in all branches of causal biology. The effects of phylogenetic classification on different levels are demonstrated by two examples. Takhtajan's angiosperm system is discussed and it is shown that the traditional division of the angiosperms into the two classes Magnoliatae (dicotyledons) and Liliatae (monocotyledons) will have to be abandoned, since Magnoliatae is paraphyletic. On the genus level it is shown that if one wishes to maintain a number of specialized genera within the Capparidaceae-Cleomoideae, the genus Cleome becomes paraphyletic. As long as the phylogeny of the whole group is not worked out, the only solution is to include the specialized segregates within the genus Cleome. Similar examples could be found anywhere
77 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the problem of the correct position of the Conocephaloideae, a subfamily of the Moraceae in Engler's system, but transferred to the Urticaceae by Corner (1962), can be satisfactorily solved by assigning the rank of family to this taxon, to be named Cecropiaceae.
Abstract: The problem of the correct position of the Conocephaloideae, a subfamily of the Moraceae in Engler's system, but transferred to the Urticaceae by Corner (1962), can be satisfactorily solved by assigning the rank of family to this taxon, to be named Cecropiaceae. Diagnoses of and a key to the six genera constituting this family (Cecropia, Coussapoa, Musanga, Myrianthus, Poikilospermum, and Pourouma) are given. The classification of the Urticales and the relationship between the Cecropiaceae and both Moraceae and LUrticaceae are discussed. A key to the families of the Urticales is given.
TL;DR: Definition of some vascular plant families is unsatisfactory and, consequently, it is impossible to classify them adequately and the lack of an analytical key to the families based on easily observed, widespread characters sometimes results in surprising misinterpretations.
Abstract: Definition of some vascular plant families is unsatisfactory and, consequently, it is impossible to classify them adequately. The lack of an analytical key to the families based on easily observed, widespread characters sometimes results in surprising misinterpretations. A striking example in this regard is the Casuarinaceae. Engler (1897) considered them to be true Angiospermae (Dicotyledoneae, Order 1. Verticillatae). Melchior (Engler's Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, vol. 2. 1964) and Wettstein (1935) concur with Engler, but Hutchinson (1973) placed the Casuarinales (Order 18) between the Juglandales and Urticales. According to Takhtajan (1969, 1973) the Casuarinaceae probably arose from the Hamamelidales. Gaussen (1940) derived the Casuarinaceae from the Articulatae. Hegnauer (1964) recalls that authors have noted similarities between Casuarina, Equisetum, Ephedra, and the Coniferae, but states the chemistry of the family is not well enough known to determine its position in the system. The Nymphaeaceae is another difficult family to place in the system. In Engler's Syllabus, Order 16 Ranunculales includes the suborders Ranunculineae and Nymphaeineae. The latter contains families Nymphaeaceae, and Ceratophyllaceae. The first of these is divided into the subfamilies Cabomboideae, Nymphaeoideae and Nelumbonoideae. Wettstein places the Nymphaeaceae in Order 18, Polycarpicae, following Family 20, Berberidaceae. The Nymphaeaceae contains the same subfamilies as in Engler's Syllabus. The following family is Ceratophyllaceae, which is considered closely related to the Nymphaeaceae. Hegnauer (1969) states that the evidence is not sufficient to form an opinion with respect to the relationships of all the genera included in the Nymphaeaceae. Hutchinson puts the family in the Ranales and it includes Nelumbo, Euryale, Nuphar and Barclaya. He treats Cabombaceae and Ceratophyllaceae as separate families. According to Kubitzki (1972), the Nymphaeaceae, s. str., do not belong in the Polycarpicae. A third example is the Cyclanthaceae. Wettstein placed them in the Order Synanthae, with the Palmae and Araceae but the plants of the three families are very different. The Palmae are mostly derived, the Cyclanthaceae include at least two different plant types, and the Araceae, mostly herbaceous, exhibit distinctive features. In Engler's Syllabus, the Order Synanthae (Cyclanthales) comprises the family Cyclanthaceae with subfamilies Carludovicoideae and Cyclanthoideae. These are herbs of palm-like habit and deeply bilobed leaves. They are very old, reduced and derived relicts. Hegnauer considers the Palmae, Cyclanthaceae and Pandanaceae more closely related to one another than to the herbaceous Araceae, Typhaceae and Sparganiaceae. According to Takhtajan, the Arales, Arecales and Cyclanthales were derived from the immediate ancestors of the Liliales.
TL;DR: The pollination, hybridization and ethological isolation of sympatric and synchronously flowering annuals Rhinanthus minor and R.serotinus were studied to support the idea that introgression into R. serotinus was likely, and some other factors are discussed.
Abstract: The pollination, hybridization and ethological isolation of sympatric and synchronously flowering annuals Rhinanthus minor and R. serotinus were studied. Pollination was achieved by nototribically and sternotribically pollinating bumblebees (Bombus spp.), i.e. the essential parts of the flower contacts the dorsal respectively the ventral side of the insect's body. In general, pollination behaviour was related to tongue lengths of bumblebee species. Bumblebees could bring about species hybridization by visits to both plants species during one foraging trip as nototribic or as sternotribic pollinators and species isolation by visits to only one species during one foraging trip or by visits to one species nototribically and to the other sternotribically during one foraging trip. Hybridization between the two annual Rhinanthus species resulted in the rise of hybrid swarms. Partial isolation could be effected if mediumtongued or short-tongued bumblebee species visited both plant species during one foraging trip; in that case the stigma of R. minor is not able to touch the sites of R. serotinus pollen on the bodies of the bumblebees, but the reverse may be possible. The inaccessibility of the R. minor stigma resulted in R. minor remaining relatively 'pure'. By analyzing the foraging patterns of bumblebees on Rhinanthus during three successive days the significance of two different forms of ethological isolation is considered. About 40% of the observed bumblebees confined their visits to one Rhinanthus species. The long-tongued B. hortorum showed a strong preference for R. serotinus. The behaviour patterns of 60% brought about partial isolation or hybridization. The medium-tongued B. pascuorum was responsible for partial isolation (isolation of R. minor). The short-tongued species B. pratorum, B. terrestris and B. lapidarius were 'good' hybridizers. To support the idea that introgression into R. serotinus was likely, some other factors are discussed, e.g. the attractiveness of R. serotinus, and the fact that bumblebees are more likely to alternate between R. serotinus and the hybrid forms.
TL;DR: In a recent paper Richens (1977) proposed four new varietal combinations under Ulmus minor Miller for the elms generally known as U. procera Salisb.
Abstract: In a recent paper Richens (1977) proposed four new varietal combinations under Ulmus minor Miller for the elms generally known as U. procera Salisb., U plotii Druce, U. angustifolia Weston and its hybrid the Jersey elm. He did not discriminate the type variety of U. minor except to say that U. coritana Melville and U diversifolia Melville "can be conveniently relegated to U. minor var minor". Miller was not familiar with either U. coritana or U. diversifolia which were not described until 1949 and 1939 (Melville 1949, 1939) so that neither of these two elms can be used to typify U. minor Miller. One is left to assume that one or other of Richens' four varieties must be U. minor var minor Miller, since Miller was describing a British elm. Richens thus adds still further to the confusion which surrounds Miller's binomial. (Melville 1939. c) The four (or six) elms mentioned above constitute only a part of Richens' concept of U. minor, for in an earlier paper (Richens 1968) he included as well U carpinifolia Suckow (sic) and U. canescens Melville, at the same time expressing his opinion that some elms of far eastern Asia and the Himalayas should also be relegated to U minor Mill. Richens' concept of Miller's species thus embraces a large part of the section Madocarpus of Ulmus. He claims that all of the taxa mentioned are "microspecies". They are certainly not comparable with the microspecies of such genera as Rubus or Hieracium. In fact the four British elms mentioned in his last paper (Richens 1977) U. procera Salisb., U. angustifolia (Weston) Weston, U. plotii Druce and U. coritana Melville are more distinct from one another than the widely accepted species of many other genera, such as, for example, Quercus robur L. and Q. petraea (Matt.) Leibl. The difference is that the oak species mentioned are not connected by a hybrid swarm whereas the elms are. It is the existence of these hybrid swarms that is the cause of difficulties in Ulmus.
TL;DR: Serological techniques have been employed in a systematic investigation of selected taxa of the Rubiaceae and selected putative relatives to determine that one or two systems were common to the five above families, and this has been interpreted as evolutionary similarity.
Abstract: Summary Serological techniques have been employed in a systematic investigation of selected taxa of the Rubiaceae and selected putative relatives. Mature seed proteins were compared by quantitative and qualitative serological methods. Presaturation techniques were combined with the Ouchterlony tests to obtain additional data. An antiserum was presaturated and used in double diffusion tests to react against selected cross antigens. The combination of presaturation tests with double diffusion provided valuable information about the distribution of determinant groups. Various taxa belonging to 14 genera of Rubiaceae were reacted with taxa of the Apocynaceae, Asclepiadaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Cornaceae, Dipsacaceae, Gentianaceae, Nyssaceae and Umbelliferae. Quantitative data emphasized the similarity of the Rubiaceae to the Cornaceae and Caprifoliaceae. Presaturation tests using Rubiaceae antiserum revealed that the immunoprecipitating systems obtained with Apocynaceae, Asclepiadaceae and Gentianaceae were very similar to those systems obtained with the Cornaceae. Presaturation tests made it possible to determine that one or two systems were common to the five above families, and this has been interpreted as evolutionary similarity. Asperula and Galium were found to be serologically similar to each other, while being the two most dissimilar genera when compared with all other Rubiaceae genera.
TL;DR: M an y o f th ese w ere p u b lish ed b y K u tzin g (1 8 4 3 ), w h o gave n o less th a n 2 7 fam ily n am es o f red alg ae o f w h ich o n ly 6 are cu rren tly u sed.
Abstract: In tro d u c tio n W hile co m p ilin g a list o f th e p u b lish ed fam ily n am es of F lo rid eo p h y ceae fo r a recen t p u b licatio n (G u iry , in p ress) it b ecam e ap p aren t th a t a n u m b er o f cu rren tly u sed fam ily n am es in th is class h av e earlier sy n o n y m s. M an y o f th ese w ere p u b lish ed b y K u tzin g (1 8 4 3 ), w h o gave n o less th a n 2 7 fam ily n am es o f red alg ae o f w h ich o n ly 6 are cu rren tly u sed (e.g. K lin 1 9 5 6 ). In acco rd an ce w ith A rt. 1 8 , n o te