Leaf anatomy and its implications for phylogenetic relationships in Taxaceae s . l .

TLDR: Differences in leaf and stomata morphology neither strongly support the two tribes in Taxaceae nor fairly recognize the monogeneric family, Cephalotaxaceae, so Taxaceae should be redefined with broad circumscriptions including Cep Halotaxus.

Abstract: The comparative study on leaf anatomy and stomata structures of six genera of Taxaceae s. l. was conducted. Leaf anatomical structures were very comparable to each other in tissue shape and their arrangements. Taxus, Austrotaxus, and Pseudotaxus have no foliar resin canal, whereas Amentotaxus, Cephalotaxus, and Torreya have a single resin canal located below the vascular bundle. Among them, Torreya was unique with thick-walled, almost round sclerenchymatous epidermal cells. In addition, Amentotaxus and Torreya were comprised of some fiber cells around the vascular bundle. Also, Amentotaxus resembled Cephalotaxus harringtonia and its var. nana because they have discontinuous fibrous hypodermis. However, C. fortunei lacked the same kind of cells. Stomata were arranged in two stomatal bands separated by a mid-vein. The most unique stomatal structure was of Taxus with papillose accessory cells forming stomatal apparatus and of Torreya with deeply seated stomata covered with a special filament structure. Some morphological and molecular studies have already been discussed for the alternative classification of taxad genera into different minor families. The present study is also similar to these hypotheses because each genus has their own individuality in anatomical structure and stomata morphology. In conclusion, these differences in leaf and stomata morphology neither strongly support the two tribes in Taxaceae nor fairly recognize the monogeneric family, Cephalotaxaceae. Rather, it might support an alternative classification of taxad genera in different minor families or a single family Taxaceae including Cephalotaxus. In this study, we would prefer the latter one because there is no clear reason to separate Cephalotaxus from the rest genera of Taxaceae. Therefore, Taxaceae should be redefined with broad circumscriptions including Cephalotaxus.