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.

Two Theories of Origin of the Land-Plant Sporophyte: Which Is Left Standing?

Will H. Blackwell
Botanical Review
Vol. 69, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2003), pp. 125-148
Published by: Springer on behalf of New York Botanical Garden Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4354452
Page Count: 24
  • Read Online (Free)
  • 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.
Two Theories of Origin of the Land-Plant Sporophyte: Which Is Left Standing?
Preview not available

Abstract

Questions concerning the two competing theories of the development of alternating generations in land plants, the homologous theory and the antithetic theory, have never been fully resolved. In the majority of recent accounts there appears to have been increasing de facto support (if one considers the ontogenetic processes and phylogenetic consequences discussed) for the antithetic theory. However, this preference is usually not plainly stated (as such) in these discussions, and some support has also continued for the homologous theory. The crux of both theories (homologous and antithetic) centers upon how the sporophyte may have originated in the life cycle. One problem with the homologous theory is that it is not made explicit how the development of a dependent sporophyte could have occurred in the life cycle (when the precedent organisms are considered to have had free-living, putatively similar, gametophytes and sporophytes). The antithetic theory, by contrast, offers a definite ontogenetic mechanism or process (retention of the zygote on the gametophyte, delay of zygotic meiosis, with zygotic mitoses occurring first) by which a dependent sporophyte might have originated and persisted, in the context of a life cycle formerly lacking a sporophyte generation. Also, a review of a variety of evidence (morphological, cytological, biochemical, etc.) would appear to lend more support to the antithetic theory than to the homologous theory. In discussing types of algae now known to be most clearly related to land plants (i.e., charophytes, particularly advanced forms), the type of life cycle exhibited by these particular algae (haplontic, with zygotic meiosis; no sporophyte present) suggests that only an antithetic origin of the sporophyte in land plants is actually feasible.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
125
    125
  • Thumbnail: Page 
126
    126
  • Thumbnail: Page 
127
    127
  • Thumbnail: Page 
128
    128
  • Thumbnail: Page 
129
    129
  • Thumbnail: Page 
130
    130
  • Thumbnail: Page 
131
    131
  • Thumbnail: Page 
132
    132
  • Thumbnail: Page 
133
    133
  • Thumbnail: Page 
134
    134
  • Thumbnail: Page 
135
    135
  • Thumbnail: Page 
136
    136
  • Thumbnail: Page 
137
    137
  • Thumbnail: Page 
138
    138
  • Thumbnail: Page 
139
    139
  • Thumbnail: Page 
140
    140
  • Thumbnail: Page 
141
    141
  • Thumbnail: Page 
142
    142
  • Thumbnail: Page 
143
    143
  • Thumbnail: Page 
144
    144
  • Thumbnail: Page 
145
    145
  • Thumbnail: Page 
146
    146
  • Thumbnail: Page 
147
    147
  • Thumbnail: Page 
148
    148