Systematics of Isocarpha (Compositae: Eupatorieae)

Keil, David J.; Stuessy, Tod F.

doi:10.2307/2418285

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With that interpretation there would be no inflorescence bracts, i. e. paleae, inside the evolving capitulum; in an umbel the individual flowers are not supported by bracts. It has been suggested by Keil and Stuessy (1981) and Robinson (pers. comm.) that a paleate receptacle represents the apomorphic condition and that it evolved following breakdown and intergradation of the involucral bract and floret primordium zones in the developing capitulum.…”

Section: Capitula Involucre Receptaclementioning

confidence: 79%

“…comm.) that a paleate receptacle represents the apomorphic condition and that it evolved following breakdown and intergradation of the involucral bract and floret primordium zones in the developing capitulum. A particular example is Zsocar,?ha in the Eupatorieae (Keil and Stuessy, 1981). Hence, receptacular bracts would be involucral bracts interspersed among the florets, or, as Keil and Stuessy put it, the florets have become interspersed among the involucral bracts.…”

Section: Capitula Involucre Receptaclementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tribal Interrelationships of the Asteraceae

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cladistic analysis involving 27 tribes and subtribes of Asteraceae and 81 characters is presented. The terminal taxa are mainly those of present tribal classification, though some apparently poly-and paraphyletic tribes, notably the Mutisieae and the Inuleae, have been represented by subtribal taxa. Characters are assembled from all available sources. Corolla types, styles and stamens have provided many characters. The Lobeliaceae are used as an outgroup and are considered as the most probable sister group of the Asteraceae. There is a basal dichotomy in the family, the Mutisieae-Barnadesiinae being the monophyletic sister group of the remaining major, also monophyletic part of the family. The recent family division into two subfamilies about equal in size, the Cichorioideae and the Asteroideae, neither represents a basal dichotomy nor a sister group relationship within the Asteraceae. The Asteroideae are monophyletic and have their sister group within the paraphyletic Cichorioideae. Interrelationships among the cichorioid tribes are still unclear. The Lactuceae, Eremothamneae, Vernonieae and Liabeae may be one monophyletic group, and the Arctoteae, Carlineae, Echinopsideae and Cardueae another. The Mutisieae are a paraphyletic grade at the base of the family. Within the subfamily Asteroideae tribal interrelationships are also rather unclear. The Anthemideae and the Heliantheae sensu lato (including the Helenieae, Tageteae, Coreopsideae and all helenioid/helianthoid representatives sometimes placed in the Senecioneae) may be sister groups. The Heliantheae appear to be monophyletic and there is little support for the hypothesis that other tribes are derived from or have their sister group within the Heliantheae. The Astereae and the Eupatorieae may be sister groups, though a doser relationship between the Eupatorieae and the Heliantheae is possible. The Inuleae are a paraphyletic grade group at the base of the subfamily Asteroideae in the same way as the Mutiseae are a grade group at the base of the family.

show abstract

Section: Capitula Involucre Receptaclementioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Capitula Involucre Receptaclementioning

confidence: 99%

Tribal Interrelationships of the Asteraceae

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Blepharispermum group might be argued to belong to the Eupatorieae on the basis of the cypsela wall character, the narrowly conical receptacle (Kiel & Stuessy, 1981), and the lack of ray-florets. This interpretation, however, is rejected since it is less parsimonious than a position within the Heliantheae: The Blepharispermum group lacks the synapomorhies for the Eupatorieae, viz.…”

Section: Tribal Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This interpretation, however,is rejected since it is less parsimonious than a position within the Heliantheae: The Blepharispermum group lacks the synapomorhies for the Eupatorieae, viz. the consistently discoid capitula, the apical sterile style appendages, hairy style bases, and the glands on the adaxial sides of the style branches between the two lines of stigmatic tissue (Robinson & King, 1977;Kiel & Stuessy, 1981). Instead, it shares the aforementioned synapomorphies with the Heliantheae.…”

Section: Tribal Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The systematic position of the Blepharispermum group (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)

Eriksson

1991

TAXON

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.. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. Summary Eriksson, T.: The systematic position of the Blepharispermum group (Asteraceae, Heliantheae). -Taxon 40: 33-39. 1991. -ISSN 0040-0262.The three genera Athroisma, Blepharispermum and Leucoblepharis have previously been placed in the Inuleae. They constitute a monophyletic group whose inclusion in the Inuleae is rejected, on the basis of morphological evidence, and who instead belong to the Ecliptinae within the Heliantheae. IntroductionAthroisma DC., Blepharispermum Wight ex DC. and Leucoblepharis Arnott are Old World genera of Asteraceae Lindley hitherto placed in the tribe Inuleae Cass.The three genera together form a monophyletic group sharing the following synapomorphies: Capitula aggregated in glomerules; capitula with one distinct subtending bract and two involucral bracts subtending two opposite, filiform female florets; each capitulum with a narrow conical receptacle.During the beginning of my revisional work (in preparation) on these genera (here called the Blepharispermum group) it became apparent that they do not fit in the current systematic frame of the Inuleae. Several characters of the cypselas (their form, their coloration, and the nature of the pappus) differ significantly from those of their supposed relatives (e.g. Monarrhenus Cass., Pterocaulon Elliott and Sphaeranthus L.; Merxmiiller & al., 1977). These differences indicate that the genera were incorrectly placed in the Inuleae, especially since the reason for such a systematic position was merely the presence of a few key characters, and an Old World distribution. In the light of these observations I, in discussions with colleagues, proposed a transfer of the Blepharispermum group to the Heliantheae. Although this view was subsequently adopted by Bremer (1987), Jeffrey (1988) and Anderberg (1989), I believe that there still is reason to present the case in detail.Since Merxmiiller & al. (1977) presented their classification of the Inuleae, several new papers on tribal classifications relating to the subdivision of tribes and of the family as a whole have been published (Robinson, 1981;Bremer, 1987;Anderberg, 1989). This paper presents a better founded hypothesis of the systematic position of the Blepharispermum group, in accordance with the results of these authors. Historical backgroundThe genus Athroisma was described by Candolle (1833), based on a plant collected in Burma by Natanael Wallich which appeared in his "Numerical List" (Wallich, 1828-1849) under the name Sphaeranthus laciniatus Wallich. Candolle considered his new genus "a neighbour" to Sphaeranthus L. due to ...

show abstract

“…This perspective has been questioned by some (e.g., Stuessy, 1977), and it is worthwhile examining once more in view of the information provided here. It should also be kept in mind that the origin of pales from the receptacle is another alternative, as is their origin from phyllaries as shown in Isocarpha (Eupatorieae; Keil and Stuessy, 1981).…”

Section: Subtribes-mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Adaptive and Phylogenetic Significance of Receptacular Bracts in the Compositae

Stuessy¹,

Spooner

1988

TAXON

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many morphological features of the heads of Compositae are systematically useful. Receptacular bracts (pales or paleae) are of particular significance taxonomically. These structures occur in nine of the 13recognized tribes (absent in Arctoteae, Calenduleae,Senecioneaeand Tageteae),with the greatest concentration in the Anthemideae, Heliantheae, and Inuleae. Because the Heliantheae contain the broadest diversity of pale types, the adaptive significance of these features within this tribe deserves special emphasis. Certain subtribes of the Heliantheae are characterized by distinctive types of pales, such as flattened with orange-brown lines in the Coreopsidinae, pales subtending only the outer series of disc florets in the Madiinae, or their complete absence in the Bahiinae. Of the five principal factors affecting the evolution offeatures of heads in the family, viz., protection, dispersal, pollination, breeding systems, and seed germination, the former two are most likely the most important selective forces in the evolution of pales. Dispersal functions of pales include attachment or close envelopment of the achene by the pales with removal of the entire unit by wind from the head, conduplicate pales serving as chutes for release of unattached achenes, and brightly colored, fleshy pales being attractive to animals. Protective functions occur against predators and environmental extremes, and occur in bud, anthesis, and mature fruiting stages. Pales function during anthesis to protect ovaries and achenes from apical and lateral insect attack. The particular variations of the pales depend on the associated structures of the heads and breeding systems. In a phylogenetic context, the large and sometimes foliose pales of the Heliantheae seem best interpreted as adaptations for protection of large achenes and not necessarily as reflections of a primitive condition within the family.

show abstract

Systematics of Isocarpha (Compositae: Eupatorieae)

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Tribal Interrelationships of the Asteraceae

Tribal Interrelationships of the Asteraceae

The systematic position of the Blepharispermum group (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)

The Adaptive and Phylogenetic Significance of Receptacular Bracts in the Compositae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About