Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:27:40.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A reappraisal of the generic status of Gastrocotyle, Hormuzakia and Phyllocara(Boraginaceae) in the light of micromorphological and karyological evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2010

M. Bigazzi ,
F. Selvi  and
G. Fiorini
M. Bigazzi
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale dell'Università, Via La Pira 4, 1-50121, Firenze, Italy.
F. Selvi
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale dell'Università, Via La Pira 4, 1-50121, Firenze, Italy.
G. Fiorini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale dell'Università, Via La Pira 4, 1-50121, Firenze, Italy.
Get access

Abstract

The results of karyological analyses and SEM micromorphological observations on vegetative and reproductive structures of the critical genera Gastrocotyle, Hormuzakia and Phyllocara (Boraginaceae: Boragineae) are presented and discussed in relation to their taxonomic position within the tribe. Each of these monotypic genera is characterized by distinctive features in stigma morphology, papillar pattern, structure of faucal scales, development of the hairy annulus at the base of the corolla tube and ornamentation of the mericarp coat surface. G. hispida and H. aggregata showed 2n = 16 and complements of medium-sized and very large chromosomes, respectively. P. aucheri was characterized by a tetraploid set of 32 chromosomes including a group similar to those of Anchusa and a group closer to those of Nonea in terms of size and centromcric position. This species could have an allopolyploid origin, resulting from the hybridization of members of these two genera. Along with distinctive traits in inflorescence structure, fruit shape and pollen morphology, karyological and micromorphological characters determine sharp phenetic discontinuities from Anchusa, from which these plants should be kept generically separated. At the same time, the presence of relevant autapomorphies in each of the three genera prevents them from being merged in a single genus.

Keywords

Boragineaekaryologypollination mechanismsstyle micromorphologysystematics
Type
Articles
Information
Edinburgh Journal of Botany , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , July 1999 , pp. 229 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Shebhaz, I. A. (1991). The genera of Boraginaceae in the Southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. Suppl., Ser. 1: 1–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, G. (1876). Boragineae. In: Bentham, G. & Hooker, J. D. (eds) Genera Plantarum 2: 832–865. London: Reve & Co., Williams.Google Scholar
Bigazzi, M. & Selvi, F. (1998). Pollen morphology in the Boragineae Bercht. & J. Presl. in relation to the taxonomy of the tribe. Pl. Syst. Evol. 213: 121 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigazzi, M., Nardi, E. & Selvi, F. (1997). Anchusella, a new genus of Boraginaceae from the Central-Eastern Mediterranean. Pl. Syst. Evol. 205: 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissier, P. E. (1879). Flora orientalis 4: 150–162. Genève, Basel, Lyon: Georg.Google Scholar
Britton, D. (1951). Cytogenetic studies on the Boraginaceae. Brittonia 7: 233–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. F. (1977). Anchusa, In: Davis, P. H. Materials for a Flora of Turkey. 34: Boraginaceae, Gentianaceae. Solanaceae. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 35: 298–299.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, D. F. (1979). Anchusa L. In: Davis, P. H. (ed.) Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands 6: 388 402. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Chater, A. O. (1972). Anchusa L. In: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A. et al. (eds) Flora Europaea 3: 106 109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, G. C. S. (1977). The Northwest European pollen flora. 10. Boraginaceae. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 24: 59–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantinidis, T. (1996). Mediterranean chromosome number reports no. 749 753. Fl. Medit. 6: 308 312.Google Scholar
D'Amato, G. & Trojani, Z. (1985). Giemsa banding and karyotype in three species of Anchusa (Boraginaceae). Caryologia 38: 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danin, A. (1995). A new Anchusa from Israel. Edinb. J. Bot. 52: 333 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Candolle, A. L. P. P. (1846). Tribus Borrageae. In: De Candolle, A. L. P. P. (ed.) Prodromus svstematis naturalis regni vegetabilis 10: 1–56. Paris: Masson; Leipzig: Michelsen.Google Scholar
Dìez, M. J. (1983). Pollen morphology of genus Anchusa L. (Boraginaceae) and its taxonomic interest. Pollen and Spores 25: 367–382.Google Scholar
Dìez, M. J. (1994). A general survey of pollen types in Anchusa L. (Boraginaceae) in relation to taxonomy. Acta Bot. Gallica 141: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulberger, R. (1970). Floral dimorphism in Anchusa hybrida Ten. Israel J. Bot. 19: 37 41.Google Scholar
Fabre, G. (1966). Les akènes des Borraginacèes et leurs rapports avec l'habitat de la plante. Bull. Soc: Bot. France 113: 212 216.Google Scholar
Fabre, G. & Nicoli, R. M. (1974). Sur la morphologie des akènes des Borraginacèes de la Flore de France. Intérêt systématique de cette étude. Bull. Soc: Bot. France 121: 133–144.Google Scholar
Feinbrun-Dothan, N. (1978). Flora Palaestina 3: 81–85. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Grau, J. (1971). Citologische Untersuchungen an Boraginaceae. II. Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 9: 177 194.Google Scholar
Greuter, W., Burdet, H. M. & Long, G. (1984). Med-Checklist 1: Pteridophyta (2nd edn), Gymnospermae, Dicotyledones (Acanthaceae-Cneoraceae), pp. 69–72. Genève: Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques.Google Scholar
Gürke, M. (1897). Borraginaceae. In: Engler, A. & Prantl, K. (eds) Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 4 (3a): 114–115. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
Guşuleac, M. (1923). Beiträgen zur Systematische der Anchuseae. Publ. Soc: Nat. Romania 6: 78–92.Google Scholar
Guşuleac, M. (1928). Die monotypischen und artenarmen Gattungen der Anchuseae (Caryolopha, Brunnera, Hormuzakia, Gastrocotyle, Phyllocara, Trachystemon, Procopiania und Borago). Bul. Fac: Şti. Cernauţi 2: 394–461.Google Scholar
Guşuleac, M. (1929). Hormuzakia und Phyllocara, zwei neue Anchuseengattungen. Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 26: 337–338.Google Scholar
Heller, D. & Heyn, C. C. (1986). Conspectus Florae Orientalis 3: 60–97. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Heslop-Harrison, Y. (1981). Stigma characteristics and angiosperm taxonomy. Nord. J. Bot. 1: 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heslop-Harrison, Y. & Shivanna, K. R. (1977). The receptive surface of the angiosperm stigma. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 41: 1233–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilger, H. H. (1985). Ontogenie, morphologie und systematische bedeutung geflügelter und glochidientragender Cynoglosseae-und Eritricheae-früchte (Boraginaceae). Bot. Jahrb. 105: 323 378.Google Scholar
Hilger, H. H., Balzer, M., Frey, W. & Podlech, D. (1985). Heteromerikarpie und fruchtpolimorphismus bei Microparacaryum gen. nov. (Boraginaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 148: 291 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, I. M. (1924). Studies in the Boraginaceae. III. 1. The old world genera of the Boraginoideae. Contr. Gray Herb. 73: 42–78.Google Scholar
Kazmi, S. M. A. (1971). A revision of the Boraginaceae of West Pakistan and Kashmir. J. Arnold Arbor. 52: 666–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, J. R. (1937). A correlation of the taxonomy and the floral anatomy of certain of the Boraginaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 24: 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levan, A., Fredga, K. & Sandberg, A. A. (1964). Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes. Hereditas 52: 201 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luque, T. (1983). Estudio cariologico de Boraginaceas españolas. I. Anchusa. Lagascalia 12: 81–97.Google Scholar
Luque, T. (1989). Estudio cariologico de Boraginaceas españolas, IV. Pulmonaria L., Symphytum L., Pentaglottis Tausch y Borago L. (Boraginaceae). Bol. Soc. Brot., Sér. 2, 62: 211 220.Google Scholar
Luque, T. (1995). Karyology of Nonea Medicus (Boraginaceae) in Spain; relationships between genera of Boragineae Barbier & Mathez (Anchuseae DC). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 117: 321 331.Google Scholar
Meikle, R. D. (1985). Flora of Cyprus 2: 1131–1137. Kew: Bentham-Moxon Trust, Royal Botanic Gardens.Google Scholar
Melchior, H. (1964). Boraginaceae. In: Melchior, H. (ed.) A. Engler's Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, 12th edn. 2: 431 434. Berlin: Borntraeger.Google Scholar
Perveen, A., Qureshi, U. S. & Qaiser, M. (1995). Pollen flora of Pakistan. 4. Boraginaceae. Pakistan J. Bot. 27: 327 360.Google Scholar
Phillip, M. & Schou, O. (1981). An unusual heteromorphic incompatibility system. Distyly, self-incompatibility, pollen load and fecundity in Anchusa officinalis (Boraginaceae). New Phytol. 19: 693 703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pignatti, A. (1982). Flora d'Italia 2: 415–418. Bologna: Edagricole.Google Scholar
Podlech, D. & Bader, O. (1974). Chromosomenstudien an afganischen pflanzen. II. Mitt. Bot. Staat. München 11: 457–488.Google Scholar
Popov, M. G. (1953). Boraginaceae. In: Komarov, V. L. (ed.) Flora SSSR 19: 97–548, 565–691. Moskva-Leningrad: Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Qaiser, M. (1979). Boraginaceae. In: JAFRI, S. M. H. & El Ghadi, A. (eds) Flora of Libya 68: 1 95. Tripoli: Al Faateh University.Google Scholar
Riedl, H. (1963). Anchusa subgen. Chamanchusa subgen. nov. und das System der Borraginoideae Anchuseae. Österr. Bot. Zeitschr.. 110: 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, H. (1967). Boraginaceae. In: Rechinger, K. H. (ed.) Flora Iranica 48: 1–281. Graz: Akademische Drück-u. Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
Riedl, H. (1968). Die neue tribus Trigonotideae und das System der Boraginoideae. Österr. Bot. Zeitschr. 115: 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero Zarco, C. (1986). A new method for estimating karyotype asymmetry. Taxon 35: 526 530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, H. (1942). Die Hohlschuppen der Boraginaceae. Bot. Jahrb. 72: 303 346.Google Scholar
Selvi, F. & Bigazzi, M. (1998). Anchusa L. and allied genera (Boraginaceae) in Italy. Pl. Biosystems 132 (2): 110 140.Google Scholar
Selvi, F., Bigazzi, M. & Bacchetta, G. (1997). Anchusa formosa (Boraginaceae), a new species from Southern Sardinia (Italy). Pl. Biosystems 131: 103 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selvi, F., Nardi, E. & Bigazzi, M. (1996). The ultimate types of Anchusa L. and Lycopsis L. (Boraginaceae). Taxon 45: 305–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shmida, A. (1978). Relationships between Paracaryum intermedium and P. boissieri on Sinai, and the generic separation of Paracaryum and Mattiastrum (Boraginaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 129: 323–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. G. (1932). Cytology of Anchusa and its relation to the taxonomy of the genus. Bot. Gaz. 94: 394 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strey, M. (1931). Karyologische Studien an Boraginoideae. Planta 14: 682 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Täckholm, V. (1954). Student's flora of Egypt, pp. 163 164. Cairo: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop.Google Scholar
Valsecchi, F. (1976). Il genere Anchusa in Sardegna. ebbia 30: 43 68.Google Scholar
Valdés, B. (1992).Hormuzakia aggregata. In: DANIN, A. Check-list of the vascular plants collected during Iter Mediterraneum II. Bocconea 3: 43 216.Google Scholar
Vural, M. & Kit, Tan (1983). New taxa and records from Turkey. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 41: 65–75.Google Scholar