Pseudanthium development in Calycopeplus paucifolius, with particular reference to the evolution of the cyathium in Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae–Malpighiales)
Gerhard Prenner A B , Stephen D. Hopper A and Paula J. Rudall AA Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, UK.
B Corresponding author. Email: g.prenner@kew.org
Australian Systematic Botany 21(3) 153-161 https://doi.org/10.1071/SB08010
Submitted: 13 February 2008 Accepted: 13 March 2008 Published: 20 August 2008
Abstract
The morphology and development of flowers and pseudanthia of Calycopeplus paucifolius are described in detail in the context of recent molecular phylogenies of the tribe Euphorbieae and a recent comparative developmental analysis of other taxa within this tribe. Calycopeplus resembles subtribes Neoguillauminiinae and Anthosteminae in some respects (dichasial formation of male flowers within male partial inflorescences, late formation of a constriction in male and female flowers and early formation of a female perianth), but resembles Dichostemma (subtribe Anthosteminae) in possessing only four male partial inflorescences. Calycopeplus and all other Euphorbieae possess only three carpels, except Dichostemma, which has four carpels per female flower. The studied species differs from the closely related Neoguillauminia cleopatra (subtribe Neoguillauminiinae) in that only four nectaries are formed, situated on the rim of the cuplike involucre (in Neoguillauminia 8–10 nectaries arise directly from the base of the pseudanthium). In contrast to all other studied Euphorbieae with trimerous gynoecia, the unpaired carpel of C. paucifolius is oriented in an upper/adaxial position (it lies in the lower/abaxial position in all other studied taxa). On the basis of these results we discuss possible pathways of cyathium evolution and the role of the cyathium as a possible key innovation within Euphorbieae.
‘Calycopeplus is as perfect an example of a connecting link as a morphologist may wish for.’ (Croizat 1937, p. 404)
Acknowledgements
Gerhard Prenner acknowledges funding from the Austrian Science Fund (Erwin–Schrödinger Fellowship, FWF-J2504). We thank three anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript.
Baillon H
(1866) Species Euphorbiacearum Euphorbiacées Australiennes. Adansonia 6, 282–345.
Bentham G
(1880) Notes on Euphorbiaceae. Journal of the Linnean Society, London 17, 185–267.
Croizat L
(1937) Notes on Euphorbiaceae, with a new genus and a new subtribe of the Euphorbieae. Philippine Journal of Science 64, 397–412.
Durand B
(1956) L’organisation morphologique de la fleur des Mercuriales annuelles. Naturalia Monspeliensia. Serie Botanique 8, 105–124.
Ehrenfeld JG
(1976) Reproductive biology of three species of Euphorbia subgenus Chamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae). American Journal of Botany 63, 406–413.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ehrenfeld JG
(1979) Pollination of three species of Euphorbia subgenus Chamaesyce, with special reference to bees. American Midland Naturalist 101, 87–98.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Forster PI
(1995) A taxonomic revision of Calycopeplus Planch. (Euphorbiaceae). Austrobaileya 4, 417–428.
Gilbert MG
(1994) The relationships of the Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 81, 283–288.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hoppe J
(1985) Die Morphogenese der Cyathiendrüse und ihrer Anhänge, ihre blattypologische Deutung und Bedeutung. Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik 105, 497–581.
Mansfeld R
(1928) Beitrag zur Morphologie des Euphorbia–Cyathiums. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 46, 674–677.
Meeuse AD,
Vinkenoog S, Vroege PW
(1989) Anthecology of Euphorbia—preliminary studies. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 38, 493–502.
Pax F
(1924) Die Phylogenie der Euphorbiaceae. Botanische Jahrbücher 59, 129–182.
Planchon MJ-E
(1861) La vraie nature de la fleur des euphorbes expliquée par un nouveau genre d’euphorbiacées. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France 8, 29–33.
Prenner G, Rudall PJ
(2007) Comparative ontogeny of the cyathium in Euphorbia and its allies: exploring the organ–flower–inflorescence boundary. American Journal of Botany 94, 1612–1629.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Prenner G,
Box MS,
Cunniff J, Rudall PJ
(2008) The branching stamens of Ricinus and the homologies of the angiosperm stamen fascicle. International Journal of Plant Sciences in press. ,
Steinmann VW, Porter JM
(2002) Phylogenetic relationships in Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae) based on ITS and ndhF sequence data. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89, 453–490.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Venkata Rao C
(1971) Anatomy of the inflorescence of some Euphorbiaceae with a discussion on the phylogeny and evolution of the inflorescence including the cyathium. Botanical Notiser 124, 39–64.
Warming E
(1870) Über die Entwicklung des Blüthenstandes von Euphorbia. Flora 53, 385–397.
Webster GL
(1975) Conspectus of a new classification of the Euphorbiaceae. Taxon 24, 593–601.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Webster GL
(1994a) Classification of the Euphorbiaceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 81, 3–32.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Webster GL
(1994b) Synopsis of the genera and suprageneric taxa of Euphorbiaceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 81, 33–144.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wurdack KJ,
Hoffmann P, Chase MW
(2005) Molecular phylogenetic analysis of uniovulate Euphorbiaceae (Euphorbiaceae sensu stricto) using plastid rbcL and trnL-F DNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 92, 1397–1420.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wydler H
(1860) Kleinere Beiträge zur Kenntniss einheimischer Gewächse. Flora 42, 657–662.
