4.1 Article

Taxonomic significance of pollen morphology for species delimitation in Psidium (Myrtaceae)

Journal

PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 303, Issue 3, Pages 317-327

Publisher

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00606-016-1373-8

Keywords

Myrteae; Palynology; Taxonomy; Brazil

Funding

  1. FAPERJ
  2. CNPq
  3. CAPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies reported Psidium as one of the most difficult genera to delimit within the American Myrtaceae. Even though palynology has improved the taxonomy of Angiosperms, information about the usefulness of pollen morphology for taxonomic purposes in Myrtaceae remains contradictory. Here, we investigate the significance of pollen morphology for Psidium taxonomy with specific focus on its usefulness for determining species groups of taxonomic significance. Pollen traits observed by light and scanning electron microscopy were quantified and examined using cluster and ordination analyses. Average size of pollen grains was visualized by boxplots. Pollen grains of Psidium are isopolar, oblate, peroblate or oblate-spheroidal, 3-syncolporate or 4-syncolporate. The sexine ornamentation is rugulate, granulate or spinulose-granulate and differs between the mesocolpium and apocolpium. Cluster analysis revealed four distinct groups: Psidium cauliflorum (G1) and Psidium oligospermum (G3) as single-species groups; Psidium brownianum, P. oblongatum, P. ovale, P. sartorianum, P. guajava, Psidium sp. 1, Psidium sp. 2 (G2), and Psidium cattleianum, P. longipetiolatum, P. guineense, P. myrtoides (G4). Supported by ordination analysis, three traits better explained these groups: type of exine ornamentation, size of P-EV and pollen shape. The used approach efficiently distinguished related species, as well as explained species groups of taxonomic significance suggesting pollen morphology to be a significant source of information for taxonomic studies in Psidium.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available