Nectary structure and nectar secretion in Maxillaria coccinea (Jacq.) LO Williams ex Hodge (Orchidaceae)

Background and Aims It had previously been assumed that Maxillaria spp. produce no nectar. However, nectar has recently been observed in Maxillaria coccinea (Jacq.) L.O. Williams ex Hodge amongst other species. Furthermore, it is speculated that M. coccinea may be pollinated by hummingbirds. The aim of this paper is to investigate these claims further. Methods Light microscopy, histochemistry, scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Key Results This is the first detailed account of nectar secretion in Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav. A 'faucet and sink' arrangement occurs in M. coccinea. Here, the nectary is represented by a small protuberance upon the ventral surface of the column and nectar collects in a semi-saccate reservoir formed by the fusion of the labellum and the base of the column-foot. The nectary comprises a single-layered epidermis and three or four layers of small subepidermal cells. Beneath these occur several layers of larger parenchyma cells. Epidermal cells lack ectodesmata and have a thin, permeable, reticulate cuticle with associated swellings that coincide with the middle lamella between adjoining epidermal cells. Nectar is thought to pass both along the apoplast and symplast and eventually through the stretched and distended cuticle. The secretory cells are collenchymatous, nucleated and have numerous pits with plasmodesmata, mitochondria, rough ER and plastics with many plastoglobuli but few lamellae. Subsecretory cells have fewer plastids than secretory cells. Nectary cells also contain large intravacuolar protein bodies. The floral morphology of M. coccinea is considered in relation to ornithophily and its nectary compared with a similar protuberance found in the entomophilous species M. parviflora (Poepp. & Endl.) Garay. Conclusions Flowers of M. coccinea produce copious amounts of nectar and, despite the absence of field data, their morphology and the exact configuration of their parts argue strongly in favour of ornithophily. (C) 2003 Annals of Botany Company.