Origin and Evolution of Bilateral Symmetry in Flowers

Leppik, E. E.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0256-9_3

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Certainly, some floral forms limit the kinds of anthophiles that can get access to the reward (von Marilaun, 1902;Kevan and Baker, 1983). Some workers have related shape preferences to pollinator type, behavior, learning capacity, and handling efficiency (e.g., Leppik, 1972;Laverty, 1980Laverty, , 1994. The insects' performance in tasks involving shape recognition and pattern discrimination-as demonstrated mainly in behavioral experiments on honeybees-provides strong evidence that shape parameters are important in these insect's choice of flowers (e.g., Lehrer et al, 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Response of Amphicoma Spp. (Coleoptera; Glaphyridae) Beetles to Red Models Differing in Area, Shape, and Symmetry

Dafni

1997

Israel J Plant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments investigating the attraction of Amphicoma spp. beetles to red, nonrewarding, scentless models have shown that (I) attractiveness is positively and linearly related to model size; (2) for models of similar size, contour density does not affect attractiveness; (3) bilateral models are more attractive than radially symmetrical models with the same area. The results are discussed in comparison to the spatial vision of honeybees and with regard to the flower preference of beetles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Response of Amphicoma Spp. (Coleoptera; Glaphyridae) Beetles to Red Models Differing in Area, Shape, and Symmetry

Dafni

1997

Israel J Plant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Still 20 or 30 years ago there were only vague general ideas about evolution from polysymmetry to monosymmetry (e.g., Leppik, 1972). This is no longer the case, as now more or less detailed phylogenetic frameworks for the angiosperms and for many subgroups at various levels of angiosperm phylogeny (orders, families, genera) are available.…”

Section: Monosymmetric Flowersmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Immense Diversity of Floral Monosymmetry and Asymmetry Across Angiosperms

Endress

2012

Bot. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floral monosymmetry and asymmetry are traced through the angiosperm orders and families. Both are diverse and widespread in angiosperms. The systematic distribution of the different forms of monosymmetry and asymmetry indicates that both evolved numerous times. Elaborate forms occur in highly synorganized flowers. Less elaborate forms occur by curvature of organs and by simplicity with minimal organ numbers. Elaborate forms of asymmetry evolved from elaborate monosymmetry. Less elaborate form come about by curvature or torsion of organs, by imbricate aestivation of perianth organs, or also by simplicity. Floral monosymmetry appears to be a key innovation in some groups (e.g., Orchidaceae, Fabaceae, Lamiales), but not in others. Floral asymmetry appears as a key innovation in Phaseoleae (Fabaceae). Simple patterns of monosymmetry appear easily "reverted" to polysymmetry, whereas elaborate monosymmetry is difficult to lose without disruption of floral function (e.g., Orchidaceae). Monosymmetry and asymmetry can be expressed at different stages of floral (and fruit) development and may be transient in some taxa. The two symmetries are most common in bee-pollinated flowers, and appear to be especially prone to develop in some specialized biological situations: monosymmetry, e.g., with buzz-pollinated flowers or with oil flowers, and asymmetry also with buzz-pollinated flowers, both based on the particular collection mechanisms by the pollinating bees. Floral monosymmetry has developed into a model trait in evo-devo studies, whereas floral asymmetry to date has not been tackled in molecular genetic studies.

show abstract

“…However, few Palicourea grains contaminated the exserted sexual parts of Hansteinia in return (Table 5), and Palicourea pollen loads on birds scarcely affected the ability of Hansteinia to place pollen (Fig. In more general terms, the Pollen Scraping Hypothesis could provide new slants on theories about the evolution of flower form (e.g., Grant and Grant 1965, Leppik 1972, Levin 1978, Willemstein 1987, Nilsson 1988, Vogel 1990, Fenster 1991, Herrera 1993 or the evolution of pollen: ovule ratios (Cruden 1977). This reasoning might apply within polymorphic species as well: for example, pollen from long-stamened, short-styled individuals of distylous species may face fewer risks of scraping and may transfer more effectively to long-styled, short-stamened individuals than pollen travelling in the opposite direction (cf.…”

Section: Common Sense and Parsimony Are Not Always Sufficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecific Pollen Loss by Hummingbirds Visiting Flower Mixtures: Effects of Floral Architecture

Murcia¹,

Feinsinger

1996

Ecology

101

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology.Abstract. Tropical hummingbirds often forage in mixtures of several plant species. As a result, pollen is often transferred among heterospecific flowers. The "Sexual Architecture Hypothesis," a paradigm of pollination ecology and angiosperm evolution, suggests that the severity of such interspecific pollen transfer should reflect the similarity in the architecture of sexual structures (specifically, placement of stigma and anthers) among the flowers involved. We evaluated the hypothesis with six species of Costa Rican cloud-forest plants varying greatly in sexual architecture but all pollinated by the same hummingbird, Lampornis calolaema. Captive Lampornis visited five long-styled, "pollen-donor" flowers of distylous, self-incompatible Palicourea lasiorrachis (Rubiaceae), then 20 short-styled recipient flowers of Palicourea, with or without five flowers of a second species intervening. We assessed intraspecific pollen transfer from Palicourea donors by counting pollen tubes in styles of the recipients. We examined interspecific pollen transfer between Palicourea and each of the five. other species by counting heterospecific grains deposited on stigmas of Palicourea recipients, and Palicourea grains deposited on stigmas and anthers of the heterospecific flowers. In a separate experiment, we examined how mixed-species flower visits modified the pollen loads actually carried by birds.Results did not uphold the Sexual Architecture Hypothesis. A single visit to any heterospecific flower greatly affected the hummingbird's prior load of Palicourea pollen, regardless of where the second species placed its own pollen on the bird. Interspecific pollen transfer occurred consistently, but (1) heterospecific grains usurped little space on stigmas of Palicourea recipients and had no discernible effect on pollen-tube growth, whereas (2) few Palicourea grains landed specifically on anthers and stigmas of heterospecific flowers. Instead, numerous Palicourea grains apparently were scraped off on other floral structures such as the corolla. Consequently, every species of intervening flowers, regardless of its sexual architecture per se, strongly reduced pollen transfer from donor to recipient Palicourea flowers, on average by 76%. In fact, the most drastic reductions resulted from the two species whose sexual architectures least resembled that of Palicourea. Results imply that "pollen scraping" by floral structures other than anthers and stigmas may be important and widespread among some animal-pollinated flowers. Thus, except in cases where no other floral structures contact pollinators, t...

show abstract

Origin and Evolution of Bilateral Symmetry in Flowers

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

The Response of Amphicoma Spp. (Coleoptera; Glaphyridae) Beetles to Red Models Differing in Area, Shape, and Symmetry

The Response of Amphicoma Spp. (Coleoptera; Glaphyridae) Beetles to Red Models Differing in Area, Shape, and Symmetry

The Immense Diversity of Floral Monosymmetry and Asymmetry Across Angiosperms

Interspecific Pollen Loss by Hummingbirds Visiting Flower Mixtures: Effects of Floral Architecture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About