1996
DOI: 10.1016/s0367-2530(17)30709-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Waterlily, poppy, or sycamore: on the systematic position of Nelumbo

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
27
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Chase et al ., 1993; Savolainen et al ., 2000) justified the exclusion of Nelumbo and Ceratophyllum and substantiated the monophyly of Nymphaeales in the sense described above. The re‐evaluation of morphological characters showed the presence of certain states such as tricolpate pollen (Nandi, Chase & Endress, 1998) or epicuticular wax tubules mainly composed of nonacosan‐10‐ol (Barthlott et al ., 1996) in Nelumbo and further substantiated its exclusion from Nymphaeales. As already noted, contemporary treatments of Nymphaeales favour recognition of two families (Cabombaceae and Nymphaeaceae), although further families, such as Barclayaceae (Li, 1955; Takhtajan, 1987; Cronquist, 1988), Euryalaceae (Li, 1955), or Nupharaceae (Kerner von Marilaun, 1891; Nakai, 1943; Takhtajan, 1997) have been suggested (see Les, Garvin & Wimpee, 1991, for a review of taxonomic history).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chase et al ., 1993; Savolainen et al ., 2000) justified the exclusion of Nelumbo and Ceratophyllum and substantiated the monophyly of Nymphaeales in the sense described above. The re‐evaluation of morphological characters showed the presence of certain states such as tricolpate pollen (Nandi, Chase & Endress, 1998) or epicuticular wax tubules mainly composed of nonacosan‐10‐ol (Barthlott et al ., 1996) in Nelumbo and further substantiated its exclusion from Nymphaeales. As already noted, contemporary treatments of Nymphaeales favour recognition of two families (Cabombaceae and Nymphaeaceae), although further families, such as Barclayaceae (Li, 1955; Takhtajan, 1987; Cronquist, 1988), Euryalaceae (Li, 1955), or Nupharaceae (Kerner von Marilaun, 1891; Nakai, 1943; Takhtajan, 1997) have been suggested (see Les, Garvin & Wimpee, 1991, for a review of taxonomic history).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cronquist, 1988). Past investigations have included studies of floral anatomy (e.g., Moseley and Uhl, 1985;Ito, 1986), leaf anatomy and alkaloids (e.g., Goleniewska-Furmanowa, 1970;Kristen, 1971;Rao and Banerjee, 1979;Barthlott et al, 1996), and seed anatomy (e.g., Collinson, 1980). However, there has been disagreement regarding this classification, and several studies have attempted to resolve the phylogenetic relationship of lotuses and water lilies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the longest time scientist considered water lilies ( Nymphaea ) to be the closest relatives of lotus. However, epicuticular waxes, small tubules mainly composed of the secondary alcohol nonacosan-10-ol, as well as a specific group of alkaloids, implied that poppies (Papaveraceae) were more likely the sistergroup [42], results which were independently substantiated by molecular data [43]. …”
Section: So What Happened and What Can We Derive?mentioning
confidence: 99%