New characteristics of the papillae phytolith morphotype recovered from eleven genera of cyperaceae

Morphological diversity of phytolith structures in six species of Carex L. and Cyperus L. (Cyperaceae Juss.) from West Bengal, India

“…Among the 56 phytolith morphotypes, elongate morphotypes are found in all the studied Carex and Cyperus species, and the morphotypes were previously recorded by Fernández Honaine et al 2009and Stevanato et al (2019) from different species of the genera Carex and Cyperus of Cyperaceae. Elongate forms of morphotypes were also described by Twiss et al (1969), and Lisztesszabo et al 2015 The elongate bulbous margin phytolith morphotype was found in species of Carex (C. cruciata, C. filicina, C. setigera) (Figures 1.A-E; 4.A-C), Previously, Murungi (2017) described elongate crenate or psilate morphotype from the leaf of Bulbostylis, Fuirena, and Scleria, and also reported that elongate crenate plate as the most dominant phytolith morphotype in F. pubescens.…”

“…(Figure 2.BS) The base is narrower than the apex; club-shaped, gradually thickening from a slender base. (Figure 2.BT) These morphotypes are taxon-specific, and this pattern of distinct attributes among the different species under different genera remains ill-defined, as predicted by Stevanato et al (2019), Whereas Stevanato et al (2019) used leaf samples of different species of Cyperaceae, the present study used not only leaf blades but also leaf sheaths and culms. However, remarkable variations were not found in different parts of the same species, although interspecific variation was prominent.…”

“…From a comprehensive observation of the studied species of Cyperus and Carex, Ollendorf (1992) found a rounded, individual, psilate cone base with a pointed apex, without peripheral satellites. With the similar objective of Ollendorf (1992), Fernández Honaine et al 2009and Stevanato et al (2019) reported conical or papillae morphotypes in fruits and leaf respectively. Variations were also described in ornamentation, apex format, base form, and base shape of conical (polygonal in fruit; square, rectangular, rounded, hexagonal, oblong in leaf), The present results are similar to those of Ollendorf (1992), except for the arrangement of the satellites and conical.…”

“…Among conical second descriptors, the number of peripheral satellites, length of the conical, height of the conical, height of the apex, the width of the apex, and interapical area distance were also measured (Figures 5 and 6; Table S1), Of the quantitative characteristics, the interapical area distance ( Figure 5.A-B) is an important characteristic that was previously suggested by Ollendorf (1992), and it is also applicable for the studied species. Here, the inter-apical area was without satellites (or rarely with satellites), and the inter-apical distance in the Carex species was more than 4 µm (Figures 3, 6), Meanwhile, in Cyperus species, the inter-apical area had distinct satellites, and the distance was less than 4 µm (Figures 3, 6), Fernández Honaine et al (2009) and Stevanato et al (2019) considered the length of the conical to be a significant character. Murungi (2017) illustrated leaf cone morphotypes of three species of Cyperus (Cyperus congestus, C. haematocephalus, and C. semitrifidus), However, these qualitative and quantitative characteristics were not considered.…”

“…Piperno (1988) considered the pointed or blunted apices and smooth to nearly smooth peripheral surface as conicalshaped morphotypes, whereas Mulholland et al (1989) categorized the conical structure into two types: one is long, sharply hollow pointed, and the other is short, solid, and resembles Hershey's kisses. Eventually, many researchers applied different terms, such as Cyperaceous type (Mehra and Sharma 1965), cones (Metcalfe 1971), conical-shaped (Piperno 1985), hat-shaped (Piperno 1988), and papillae (Stevanato et al 2019), all of which are synonymous.…”