1955
DOI: 10.2307/2438589
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Foliar Venation of Angiosperms. II. Histogenesis of the Venation of Liriodendron

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

1955
1955
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
(7 reference statements)
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If, in a 1-cell wide hPED, a cell division parallel to the axis of the strand generates a spot 2-cells wide (Figures 4A,B; See also Figures 6K–N), centrobasal PIN1 localization in the two daughter cells is followed by decreased PIN1 expression in one of them (Figures 4A,B; See also Figures 6K–N), indicating a persistent mechanism of hPED self-restriction to minimal widths. This observation is consistent with earlier reports that vascular precursors in the developing leaf occasionally divide to produce one vascular daughter cell and one non-vascular daughter cell (Pray, 1955). Taken together, these results indicate that the elaboration of the leaf vascular network proceeds from relatively widespread PIN1 expression in many connected, wide hPEDs to general hPED narrowing, with procambium formation occurring in the cell files with sustained PIN1 expression.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If, in a 1-cell wide hPED, a cell division parallel to the axis of the strand generates a spot 2-cells wide (Figures 4A,B; See also Figures 6K–N), centrobasal PIN1 localization in the two daughter cells is followed by decreased PIN1 expression in one of them (Figures 4A,B; See also Figures 6K–N), indicating a persistent mechanism of hPED self-restriction to minimal widths. This observation is consistent with earlier reports that vascular precursors in the developing leaf occasionally divide to produce one vascular daughter cell and one non-vascular daughter cell (Pray, 1955). Taken together, these results indicate that the elaboration of the leaf vascular network proceeds from relatively widespread PIN1 expression in many connected, wide hPEDs to general hPED narrowing, with procambium formation occurring in the cell files with sustained PIN1 expression.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…In leaf primordia, xylem and phloem both differentiate from procambial precursors: long, narrow, cytoplasm-dense cells, (Esau, 1965) arranged in continuous strands (Esau, 1943). In leaves, procambial strands arise from continuous files of isodiametric “preprocambial” cells, which are selected from the anatomically homogeneous subepidermal tissue of the leaf primordium (Foster, 1952; Pray, 1955; Scarpella et al, 2004). Procambial cells subsequently acquire their characteristic narrow shape through coordinated, oriented cell divisions parallel to the axis of the strand (Foster, 1952; Esau, 1965).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of the distinctive characteristics of angiosperm leaves have arisen independently in other lineages, whereas other traits are unique to the flowering plants. Angiosperms have evolved leaf growth that occurs diffusely throughout the leaf without being limited to the margin (Pray 1955;Sussex 1985a, 1985b), thus, enabling the enormous diversity and complexity of angiosperm leaf venation patterns and shapes. The phylogenetic distribution of complex venation patterns suggest that the evolutionary departures from marginal growth observed in the angiosperms have also arisen repeatedly in two or three other seed plant lineages and 10 or more groups of ferns (Boyce 2005).…”
Section: A Brief History Of the Angiosperm Leaf And Shape Diversity Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vascular bundles differentiate from procambial cells: narrow, cytoplasm-dense cells, characteristically arranged in continuous strands (Esau, 1943), which in leaves seem to emerge de novo from within the morphologically homogeneous population of apparently naïve ground cells (Foster, 1952;Pray, 1955).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%