Journal
TRENDS IN PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 5-12Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2008.10.008
Keywords
-
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Originally coined to emphasize morphological differences, 'microphyll' and 'megaphyll' became synonymous with the idea that vascular plant leaves are not homologous. Although it is now accepted that leaves evolved independently in several euphyllophyte lineages, 'megaphyll' has grown to reflect another type of homology, that of euphyllophyte leaf precursor structures. However, evidence from the fossil record and developmental pathways fails to indicate homology and suggests homoplasy of precursor structures. Thus, as I discuss here, 'megaphyll' should be abandoned because it perpetuates an unsupported idea of homology, leading to misconceptions that pervade plant biology thinking and can bias hypothesis and inference in developmental and phylogenetic studies. Alternative definitions are needed that are based on development and phylogeny for different independently evolved leaf types.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available