4.3 Article

The systematic value of flower structure in Crotalaria and related genera of the tribe Crotalarieae (Fabaceae)

期刊

FLORA
卷 207, 期 6, 页码 414-426

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2012.02.005

关键词

Callosities; Crotalaria; Anther dimorphism; Pollination mechanism; Saddle type flowers; Tunnel type flowers

资金

  1. University of Johannesburg
  2. National Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flowers in the tribe Crotalarieae of the family Fabaceae are generally adapted to bee pollination mechanisms. Molecular systematics have recently provided a major step towards a profound insight into generic relationships, thereby creating the opportunity to re-evaluate the taxonomic and functional significance of flower structure in the tribe, with emphasis on the large genus Crotalaria. A representative sample of flowers from 211 species was dissected to record morphological character states. These data were supplemented from the literature to allow for generalizations for the tribe as a whole. Six structural-functional flower types were identified: (1) pump; (2) gullet; (3) hugging; (4) saddle; (5) tunnel and (6) brush (saddle and tunnel types described here for the first time). Crotalaria uniquely has the brush type, characterized by a rostrate keel, highly dimorphic anthers, stylar trichomes and elaborate callosities on the standard petal. Remarkably, Crotalaria and Bolusia are the only genera of the tribe Crotalarieae with callosities present in all of the species. In other genera, callosities are generally absent or infrequent. Trends towards specialization of pollination syndromes are apparent as assemblages of apomorphic states that co-occur in what we refer to here as specialized flowers; individual characters are labile or non-homologous (e.g. callosities) and diagnostically less valuable. Unique combinations of flower characters are often useful to support current generic concepts in Crotalarieae. (c) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据