Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Floral Anatomy in the Saxifragaceae Sensu Lato. IV. Baueroideae and Conclusions

Carolyn R. Bensel and Barbara F. Palser
American Journal of Botany
Vol. 62, No. 7 (Aug., 1975), pp. 688-694
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2442057
Page Count: 7
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($12.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Floral Anatomy in the Saxifragaceae Sensu Lato. IV. Baueroideae and Conclusions
Preview not available

Abstract

This paper presents a description of the floral anatomy and morphology of Bauera rubioides and a general discussion of how the patterns of variation in floral characters among the subfamilies of the Saxifragaceae sensu lato described in this and previous papers correlate with the patterns of variation in other types of characters (i.e., embryology, biochemistry, etc.). Major conclusions are: (1) The Saxifragoideae, including Ribes, forms a rather homogeneous taxon with regard to floral and other characters. (2) Since the high degree of similarity in floral structure between Itea (Iteoideae) and members of the Saxifragoideae is not correlated with similarities in a number of other characteristics, the affinity between the two probably is not as strong as floral characters suggested. (3) The differences in floral structure between Parnassia (Parnassioideae) and the Saxifragoideae are correlated with differences in other characteristics, and on this basis the taxon should be excluded from the family. (4) Brexia and Ixerba (Brexioideae) are strikingly dissimilar in floral structure and therefore probably do not belong in the same subfamily. Tentatively, Ixerba may find a place in the Escallonioideae, but the relationships of Brexia remain problematical. (5) Bauera (Baueroideae), which has a floral structure quite distinct from that of the Saxifragoideae, shares a number of similarities in embryology, pollen morphology, vegetative anatomy, and biochemistry with the Cunoniaceae and is probably better placed in that family than in the Saxifragaceae. (6) Kirengeshoma palmata (Kirengeshomoideae) should be transferred to the Hydrangeoideae and the whole removed from the Saxifragaceae, since certain floral characters which isolate the group from the Saxifragoideae are correlated with differences in embryology, pollen morphology, leaf and nodal anatomy, and cytology. (7) The Escallonioideae remains a major taxonomic problem because so little information is available on the members of this taxon.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
688
    688
  • Thumbnail: Page 
689
    689
  • Thumbnail: Page 
690
    690
  • Thumbnail: Page 
691
    691
  • Thumbnail: Page 
692
    692
  • Thumbnail: Page 
693
    693
  • Thumbnail: Page 
694
    694