On the Systematic Position of Daphniphyllaceae

Abstract

Abstract:

The present paper deals with the systematic position of Daphniphyllaceae. The

genus Daphniphyllum was first described by Blume in 1826 as a member of Rhamnaceae. In

1858 Baillon removed it to the tribe Phyllantheae of Euphorbiaceae, while Müller (1869) raised

this genus to the rank of family, Daphniphyllaceae. Although Müller’s treatment has been ac-

cepted by most botanists, including the present authors, its systematic position has been debated.

The first aim in our studies on the cladistics of Hamamelidae is to answer the question

which families should be included in this monophyletic group. By observing their pollen gr-

ains and stoma types of some representative species of Daphniphyllaceae, Hamamelidaceae and

Buxaceae under light microscope (LM) and scanning electron microscope (SEM,) and analy-

sing morphological, anatomical, palynological, embryological characters and chemical compone-

nts in the three taxa and Euphorbiaceae, we find that Daphniphyllaceae is very similar to Ha-

mamelidaceae, but greatly different from Euphorbiaceae, in inflorescence racemose or spicate,

calyx nearly reduced, stamens numerous and sometimes synandry, connective usually exserted,

disc absent, carpels 2; vessel with scalariform perforation plates and often not spiral-thickened,

fiber bordered-pitted; stomata mostly paracytic; pollen 3-colpate; tapetum glandular, endosperm

development cellular, obturator and caruncle absent; iridoid compounds present; sieve-element

plastids S-type.

The present authors have noticed the fact that Daphniphyllaceae is also similar to Mag-

noliaceae in the stamens numerous, anthers larger and filaments very short, connectives obvi-

ously exserted and with several bundles; anther wall thicker, endosperm development cellular, em-

bryo small. It is considered that not only are Daphniphyllaceae and Hamamelidaceae phene-

tically close to each other but also much possibly derived from a common ancestor, the extinct

group of Magnoliales. However, Daphniphyllaceae appears to be remote from Euphorbiaceae

and Buxaceae in relationship and should be separated from Euphorbiales and Buxales. Mean-

while, since Daphniphyllaceae differs from the members of Hamamelidales in the incompletely

septate ovary, drupaceous fruit, indistinct sexine sculpture of pollen grains, small embryo, and

an unique alkaloid, daphniphylline, but lacking proanthacyanins, the establishment of an order,

Daphniphyllales, for the family, is considered reasonable. According to our opinion, the

order is related to Hamamelidales rather than to Euphorbiales as originally suggested by Huru-

sawa (1954).

Key words: Daphniphyllaceae, Stoma, Pollen morphology, Systematic position

Zhang Zhi-Yun, Lu An-Ming. On the Systematic Position of Daphniphyllaceae[J]. .

[1]	REN Hui, PAN Kai-Yu, CHEN Zhi-Duan, WANG Ren-Qing. Structural characters of leaf epidermis and their systematic significance in Vitaceae [J]. , 2003, 41(6): 531-544.
[2]	WANG Wei, ZHAO Nan-Xian. Pollen morphology of the Araceae from China [J]. , 2002, 40(6): 517-529.
[3]	SUN Kun, CHEN Jia-Kuan, ZHANG Zhi-Yun. Pollen morphology of 15 species in nine genera of the Hydrocharitaceae [J]. , 2002, 40(6): 490-500.
[4]	LIU Jia-Xi, ZHANG Yu-Long, NING Jian-Chang, ZHAO Yun-Yun, LI Ya-Xuan, ZHANG Jing-Mei. Pollen morphology of the tribe Cynoglosseae of Boraginoideae (Boraginaceae) in China [J]. , 2001, 39(6): 515-522.
[5]	LI Wei-Lin, HE Shan-An, GU Yin, SHU Pu, PU Zu-Mao. Pollen morphology of the genus Rubus from China [J]. , 2001, 39(3): 234-247.
[6]	. [J]. , 2001, 18(1): 11-11.
[7]	ZHOU Qi-Xing, GU Zhi-Jian, YUE Zhong-Shu. Karyomorphology and relationships of Amentotaxus Pilg. [J]. , 2000, 38(6): 522-527.
[8]	SUN Cheng-Ren. Pollen morphology of the Schisandraceae and its systematic significance [J]. , 2000, 38(5): 437-445.
[9]	YANG Qin-Er. Correction of karyotype of diploid Beesia calthifolia and discovery of a tetraploid cytotype [J]. , 1999, 37(1): 1-9.
[10]	XI Yi-Zhen, LANG Kai-Yong, HU Yu-Shi. Pollen Morphology of Neottianthe (Orchidaceae) and Its Taxonomic Significance [J]. , 1998, 36(6): 496-502.
[11]	LIU Cheng-Gang, HU YU-Shi, LIN Jin-Xing. Epidermal Characters of Rattan Stems and Their Taxonomic Implications [J]. , 1998, 36(6): 503-510.
[12]	FENG Yu-Xing, WANG Xiao-Quan, PAN Kai-Yu, HONG De-Yuan. A Revaluation of the Systematic Positions of the Cercidiphyllaceae and Daphniphyllaceae Based on rbc L Gene Sequence Analysis, with Reference to the Relationship in the “Lower” Hamamelidae [J]. , 1998, 36(5): 411-422.
[13]	WANG Ping-Li, PU Fa-Ting, ZHENG Zhong-Hua. Palynological Evidence for Taxonomy of Trigonobalanus (Fagaceae) [J]. , 1998, 36(3): 238-241.
[14]	CHEN Shi-Long, HO Ting-Nong, HONG De-Yuan. On Systematic Position of Pterygocalyx (Gentianaceae) [J]. , 1998, 36(1): 58-68.
[15]	Kong Hong-zhi, Yang Qin-er. Karyomorphology and Relationships of the Genus Circaeaster Maxim. [J]. , 1997, 35(6): 494-499.

On the Systematic Position of Daphniphyllaceae

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments