Die weibliche Koniferenblüte

Herzfeld, Stephanie

doi:10.1007/bf01647708

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Herzfeld (1909Herzfeld ( , 1910Herzfeld ( , 1914 and Wettstein (191 I ) regarded the female conifer cone as an inflorescence, but presented a new interpretation of the ovuliferous scale. Lashevsky considered this scale equivalent to the bract.…”

Section: Research In the First Three Decades Of The Twentieth Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He (1952~) gave recently a brief account of the history of the research on the structure of the female conifer cones. He appears to have preferred Wettstein's (191 I, 1935) and Herzfeld's (1914) view of the nature of the ovuliferous scale, dismissing that of Neumayer (1924), another Austrian morphologist. de FerrC, 1946) regarded the female strobilus as a brachyblast placed axillary to an euphyll (bract) on a mesoblast (cone axis).…”

Section: 'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its position in the axil of the latter would be the result of displacement from a higher level occupied at an earlier evolutionary stage. Herzfeld (1909Herzfeld ( , 1910Herzfeld ( , 1914 and Wettstein (191 I ) regarded the female conifer cone as an inflorescence, but presented a new interpretation of the ovuliferous scale. The flower was said to consist of a strongly reduced axis axillary to the bract, and of one or more carpels (megasporophylls) which were almost completely used up in the formation of the terminal ovules.…”

Section: Research In the First Three Decades Of The Twentieth Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Female Reproductive Organs of Conifers and Taxads

Florin¹

1954

Biological Reviews

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY The morphology of the female conifer cones has long been a matter of dispute. In 1900 an account of the theories put forward so far was given by Worsdell. After a brief characterization of the situation at that time, the present article deals with the later history of the subject. At the turn of the century there were rivalling concepts of the nature of the so‐called ovuliferous scale in the conifers: (a) the Excrescence or Ligular theory of Sachs‐Eichler, (b) the general Brachyblast theory of Braun, Caspary, čelakovský and others, (c) van Tieghem's modification of the Brachyblast theory, and (d) the Foliolar theory of Delpino‐Penzig. In the subsequent three decades the discussion proceeded on the same or similar lines. The Excrescence theory retained a strong position until the end of the nineteen‐twenties, but, as before, some morphologists professed the general Brachyblast theory. Herzfeld and Wettstein considered that the axillary conifer strobilus had one or more reduced carpels (megasporophylls) which were used up in the formation of terminal ovules, as well as an ‘ovuliferous scale’ consisting of secondary outgrowths from the strobilar axis. In Goebeľs opinion these outgrowths were instead produced by the megasporophylls. Doubts were expressed of the unity of the true conifer group, but Eames showed that the apparently widely different female cones of the Pinaceae and Araucariaceae are homologous, and that the Araucariaceae, Taxodiaceae and Podocarpaceae exhibit complete transitions by fusion and reduction from types with distinctly compound strobilar units–each with an ‘ovuliferous scale’ in the axil of a bract–to others of the most simple form. In contradistinction to the true conifers, the genus Taxus has no compound strobilus, and its ovule is a direct continuation of the axis of the fertile short shoot (Dupler). In the first half of the period after 1930 opinions differed as much as ever, although the general Brachyblast theory now prevailed over the Excrescence theory and other concepts. Chadefaud believed the ‘ovuliferous scale’ and the bract to represent between them a carpel derived from a prototype analogous to the pinnate megasporophyll of Cycas. Hirmer interpreted the ‘ovuliferous scale’ and the bract as formed by a serial splitting of one single member. Lanfer supported Goebeľs views of the terminal position of the conifer ovules on reduced megasporophylls, and of the nature of the ‘ovuliferous scale’. In Hagerup's opinion the female cones of most true conifers are compound and have a short secondary axis developed axillary to each bract. This axis was supposed to carry two transversal prophylls, fertile (megasporangial) or sterile, and a varying number of sterile leaves; and the megasporophyll, with a megasporangium on its upper side, to constitute the integument of the ovule, and be homologous to a lycopod sporophyll. Florin (1938‐45) found that the Palaeozoic cordaites and conifers furnished the principal clue to the interpretation of the true conifer cones of Mesozoic and more re...

show abstract

Section: Research In the First Three Decades Of The Twentieth Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research In the First Three Decades Of The Twentieth Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Female Reproductive Organs of Conifers and Taxads

Florin¹

1954

Biological Reviews

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Strasburger (1872), adopted by Pilger (1926Pilger ( , 1931 and others, the loss of one of these ovules should have led to a phylogenetic secondary shift of the remaining ovule into the gap between the scales. Herzfeld (1914) differs from this interpretation in assuming an ontogenetic shift ( fig. 17A).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Cone morphology in Juniperus in the light of cone evolution in Cupressaceae s.l.

Schulz

Jagel

Stützel

2003

Flora - Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The bract scale represents a leaf carrying axillary a fertile short shoot (= seed scale). Thus, the seed cones of all conifers can be generalized as a compound, polyaxial, inflorescence (Schuhmann 1902;Herzfeld 1914;Pilger 1926;Florin 1951Florin , 1954Schweitzer 1963;Farjon 1984Farjon , 2005St€ utzel & R€ owekamp 1997St€ utzel & R€ owekamp , 1999Mundry 2000;Farjon & Garcia 2003;Eckenwalder 2009;D€ orken 2012). However, the male reproductive structures (= pollen cones) can be either simple, uniaxial flowers or compound, polyaxial inflorescences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollen cone teratologies in Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. and Widdringtonia nodiflora (L.) Powrie (Cupressaceae) in the light of conifer evolution

Dörken

Stützel

2019

Feddes Repertorium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different types of pollen cone teratologies in Sequoia sempervirens and Widdringtonia nodiflora were investigated. While wild type pollen cones are uniaxial and hyposporangiate, some teratological polyaxial pollen cones and also perisporangiate microsporangiophores were found. The teratological compound pollen cones in Sequoia seem to represent just random artifacts caused by a spitting of the pollen cone apex, maybe due to a pathogenic event in early developmental stages. In Widdringtonia it remains open, if the compound male reproductive units represent a dense distal cluster of pollen cones or a compound, polyaxial inflorescence comparable to other conifers, e.g. Cephalotaxus (Taxaceae). The perisporangiate microsporangiophores found in some of the teratological pollen cones in Widdringtonia are remarkable, because among extant conifers this type of microsporangiophores is developed only in Taxaceae. Previous studies showed that the perisporangiate type of microsporangiophores represents a radial synangium consisting of several fused hyposporangiate microsporangiophores. However, the perisporangiate microsporangiophores in Taxaceae and Widdringtonia show some distinct structural differences excluding the perisporangiate microsporangiophores in Widdringtonia as representing a radial synangium.

show abstract

Die weibliche Koniferenblüte

Cited by 12 publications

References 28 publications

The Female Reproductive Organs of Conifers and Taxads

The Female Reproductive Organs of Conifers and Taxads

Cone morphology in Juniperus in the light of cone evolution in Cupressaceae s.l.

Pollen cone teratologies in Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. and Widdringtonia nodiflora (L.) Powrie (Cupressaceae) in the light of conifer evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About