1981
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1981.tb0093.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Terminology and classification of stomata and stomatal development-a critical survey

Abstract: The literature on terminology of stomata and stomatal development is reviewed and the terminology rationalized. The classification of developmental types and of the developing cells should not be combined with the morphological classification of mature stomatal complexes. The cells involved in the development should be distinguished on the basis of their origin and position in the developing stomatal complex, and not on the basis of their future form and appearance. It is unsound to distinguish any kind of cel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Superficially similar mature stomatal types can arise by different developmental pathways and thus may not be homologous (Rasmussen 1981). The importance of examining stomate ontogeny in determining homologies has been strongly emphasized by Baranova (1987) and clearly outlined by Abu-Asab and Cantino (1987) in their fine study of the phylogenetic implications ofleafanatomy in the subtribe Melittidinae ofthe Labiatae.…”
Section: Comments On the Application Of Anatomical Characters To Cladmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Superficially similar mature stomatal types can arise by different developmental pathways and thus may not be homologous (Rasmussen 1981). The importance of examining stomate ontogeny in determining homologies has been strongly emphasized by Baranova (1987) and clearly outlined by Abu-Asab and Cantino (1987) in their fine study of the phylogenetic implications ofleafanatomy in the subtribe Melittidinae ofthe Labiatae.…”
Section: Comments On the Application Of Anatomical Characters To Cladmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among those, only the cells type 1 3 are undoubtedly distinct from the other epidermal cells and are found in all regular stomata observed; the cells type 2 and 2 1 reflect the cellular organization pattern of the epidermis, and therefore are not subsidiary. Tomlinson (1974), Esau (1977), Rasmussen (1981) and Baranova (1987) state that a cell should be considered a subsidiary cell when it is obviously distinct from other epidermal cells. Various studies show that the increase in number of subsidiary cells can be due to their own divisions plus the integration of modified epidermal cells that simulate subsidiary cells (Sen 1958, Pant & Kidwai 1964, Pant & Banerji 1965, Pant & Gupta 1966, Inamdar 1968, Paliwal 1967, Shah 1967, Shah & Gopal 1969.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Guard cells are specialized structures, different from the other epidermal cells (Tomlinson 1974, Esau 1977, Rasmussen 1981, Baranova 1987. The number and arrangement of subsidiary cells has long been used as characters in systematics (Stebbins & Khush 1961, Esau 1977, Baranova 1987.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3A). The larger cell acts as a spacer between adjacent stomata, whereas the smaller cell, called a meristemoid (M), undergoes several asymmetric cell divisions to generate more meristemoids before becoming a guard mother cell (GMC) (Bünning 1953;Rasmussen 1981;Geisler et al 2000;Bergmann and Sack 2007). Finally, the GMCs divide symmetrically to produce two guard cells (GCs), which act as valves surrounding a pore (Fig.…”
Section: Asymmetric Cell Divisions In Stomatal Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%