Macrophotographic wood atlas of Annonaceae

Abstract

In this article, a general description of the microscopic wood anatomy of Annonaceae is given. We provide a description of the wood anatomical features of the family and of all subfamilies and tribes, all from material in the Utrecht Wood collection. Hand‐lens images can be an important help in identification, not only at the family level, but also at the level of genera or below, notwithstanding the fact that the number of characters that can be easily observed in end‐grain photographs is restricted. The differences are often slight and difficult to summarize in a few words, making illustrations an indispensable tool. Therefore, we provide end‐grain photographs of cross‐sections of wood of 66 genera and > 90 species of Annonaceae. The variation seen in lens key characters is discussed against the framework of the current phylogenetic tree of the family. Additional remarks on microscopic features are given when appropriate. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 169, 135–189.

A new subfamilial and tribal classification of the pantropical flowering plant family Annonaceae informed by molecular phylogenetics

“…Apart from frequent inclusion of the monotypic Eupomatiaceae in the past (e.g. Baillon, 1868; Diels, 1912), delimitation of the Annonaceae has never been ambiguous, because of the presence of synapomorphies, such as simple vessel perforations, a ‘cobweb‐like’ wood structure in cross‐section (caused by broad and high multiseriate xylem rays with many narrow, tangential parenchyma bands perpendicular to the xylem rays; Koek‐Noorman & Westra, 2012), alternate, distichous leaves, trimerous calyx and corolla, and perichalazal ovules (Sauquet et al ., 2003). On the other hand, ambiguity has governed the delimitation of groups within the family from the stance of their recognition.…”

“…Koek-Noorman & Westra, 2012), alternate, distichous leaves, trimerous calyx and corolla, and perichalazal ovules (Sauquet et al, 2003). On the other hand, ambiguity has governed the delimitation of groups within the family from the stance of their recognition.…”

“…Despite considerable variation in floral morphology (Xu & Ronse De Craene, 2010), the floral bauplan of Annonaceae is uniform (Saunders, 2010) and provides several synapomorphies (Endress & Armstrong, 2011), such as a whorled floral phyllotaxis (vs. spiral in Eupomatiaceae), plicate carpels (vs. ascidiate carpels) and trimerous perianth (vs. many tepals). The broad and high multiseriate xylem rays with many narrow, tangential parenchyma bands perpendicular to the xylem rays is a typical wood anatomical feature characterizing every species of Annonaceae investigated so far (Koek‐Noorman & Westra, 2012). This wood structure is absent in Eupomatia (L. Y. T. Westra & L. W. Chatrou, pers.…”

The natural history of Annonaceae

“…Do these insights perhaps shed a different light on the homology assessment of these characters? These questions are addressed in two papers, focusing on pollen morphology (Doyle & Le Thomas, 2012) and wood anatomy (Koek‐Noorman & Westra, 2012).…”

A decade of uncertainty: Resolving the phylogenetic position of Diclinanona (Annonaceae), including taxonomic notes and a key to the species

“…Annonaceae are among the families with wood that is easy to recognize even to the naked eye because of the typical concentric parenchymatic bands (Koek-Noorman & Westra, 2012). Within the family, however, it is very difficult to distinguish groups or genera because of the homogeneous wood structure (e.g., Ter Welle & Du, 2003).…”