4.5 Review

RECONSTRUCTING THE ANCESTRAL ANGIOSPERM FLOWER AND ITS INITIAL SPECIALIZATIONS

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages 22-66

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0800047

Keywords

ancestral flowers; angiosperm phylogeny; ANITA grade; Archaefructus; basal angiosperms; Ceratophyllum; Chloranthaceae; flower evolution; Hydatellaceae; water plants

Categories

Funding

  1. School of Biological Sciences
  2. Victoria University of Wellington
  3. NSF Deep Time Research Coordination Network [RCN0090283]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Increasingly robust understanding of angiosperm phylogeny allows more secure reconstruction of the flower in the most recent common ancestor of extant angiosperms and its early evolution. The surprising emergence of several extant and fossil taxa with simple flowers near the base of the angiosperms-Chloranthaceae, Ceratophyllum, Hydatellaceae, and the Early Cretaceous fossil Archaefructus (the last three are water plants)-has brought a new twist to this problem. We evaluate early floral evolution in angiosperms by parsimony optimization of morphological characters on phylogenetic trees derived from morphological and molecular data. Our analyses imply that Ceratophyllum may be related to Chloranthaceae, and Archaefructus to either Hydatellaceae or Ceratophyllum. Inferred ancestral features include more than two whorls (or series) of tepals and stamens, stamens with protruding adaxial or lateral pollen sacs. several free. ascidiate carpels closed by secretion. extended stigma, extragynoecial compitum, and one or several ventral pendent ovule(s). The ancestral state in other characters is equivocal: e.g., bisexual vs. unisexual flowers, whorled vs. spiral floral phyllotaxis, presence vs. absence of tepal differentiation, anatropous vs. orthotropous ovules. Our results indicate that the simple flowers of the newly recognized basal groups are reduced rather than primitively simple.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available