Comparative anatomy of the lip spur and additional lateral sepal spurs in a three-spurred form [F. fumeauxiana] of Anacamptis pyramidalis

• Autorzy: Kowalkowska A K , Margonska H.B. , Kozieradzka-Kiszkurno M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Anacamptis pyramidalis shows great phenotypic variability. Additional lateral sepal spurs were observed in f. fumeauxiana. We used light and scanning electron microscopy to examine the anatomy of the lip spur and additional lateral sepal spur(s). The spurs have the same anatomical structure. We describe the features of the inner and external epidermis, report the presence of an appendix at the base of the additional spur, and discuss the evolutionary context.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

pyramidal orchid; Anacamptis pyramidalis; histochemistry; light microscopy; scanning electron microscopy; comparative anatomy; plant anatomy; spur anatomy; spur

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Biologica Cracoviensia. Series Botanica
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: 52
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.13-18,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Kowalkowska A K

• Department of Plant Cytology and Embryology, University of Gdansk, Kladki 24, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland

autor

Margonska H.B.

autor

Kozieradzka-Kiszkurno M.

Bibliografia

• BATEMAN RM, and DIMICHELE WA. 2002. Generating and filtering major phenotypic novelties: neoGoldschmidtiansaltation revisited. In: Cronk CB, Bateman RM, and
• Hawkins JA [eds.], Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution, 109–159. Taylor and Francis, London.
• BATEMAN RM, and RUDALL PJ. 2006a. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Using naturally occurring terata to distinguishthe possible from the impossible in orchid floral evolution.Aliso 22: 481–496.
• BATEMAN RM, and RUDALL PJ. 2006b. Evolutionary and Morphometric Implications of Morphological VariationAmong Flowers Within an Inflorescence: A Case-StudyUsing European Orchids. Annals of Botany 98:975–993.
• BOX MS, BATEMAN RM, GLOVER BJ, and RUDALL PJ. 2008. Floral ontogenetic evidence of repeated speciation via paedomorphosis in subtribe Orchidinae (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 157: 429–454.
• BIANCO P, D'EMERICO S, MEDAGLI P, and RUGGIERO L. 1991. Polyploidy and aneuploidy in Ophrys, Orchis, and Anacamptis (Orchidaceae). Plant Systematics andEvolution 178:235–245.
• BRONNER R. 1975. Simultaneous demonstration of lipid and starch in plant tissues. Stain Technology 50: 1–4.
• COZZOLINO S, and WIDMER A. 2005. Orchid diversity: an evolutionary consequence of deception? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(9): 487–494.
• DEL PRETE C, MAZZOLA P, and MICELI P. 1991. Karyological differentiation and speciation in C. MediterraneanAnacamptis (Orchidaceae). Plant Systematics andEvolution 174: 115–123.
• FEDER N, and O'BRIEN TP. 1968. Plant microtechnique; some principles and new methods. American Journal ofBotany 55: 123–142.
• FRITZ AL, and NILSSON LA. 1996. Reproductive success and gender variation in deceit-pollinated orchids. In: Lloyd
• DG, and Barrett SCH [eds.], Floral Biology: Studies on Floral Evolution in Animal-Pollinated Plants, 319–338.Chapman and Hall, New York.
• JENSEN WA. 1962. Botanical Histochemistry. WH Freeman and Co. San Francisco.
• MARGOŃSKA HB, and KOWALKOWSKA AK. 2008. Une nouvelle forme de Anacamptis pyramidalis (Orchidaceae).Richardiana 8(1): 1–5.
• MONDRAGON-PALOMINO M, and THEIsEN G. 1991. Why are orchid flowers so diverse? Reduction of evolutionary constraints by paralogues of class B floral homeotic genes. PlantSystematics and Evolution 178: 235–245.
• MONDRAGON-PALOMINO M, and THEIsEN G. 2008. MADS about the evolution of orchid flowers. Trends in Plant Science13(2): 51–59.
• NEILAND MRM, and WILCOCK CC. 1994. Reproductive ecology of European orchids. Proceedings of 14th World OrchidConference, HMSO Edinburgh.
• NEILAND MRM, and WILCOCK CC. 1998. Fruit set, nectar reward, and rarity in the Orchidaceae. AmericanJournal of Botany 85: 1657–1671.
• PROCTOR M, YEO P, and LACK A. 1996. The Natural History of Pollination. Harper Collins Publishers, London.
• RUDALL PJ, and BATEMAN RM. 2002. Roles of synorganisation, zygomorphy and heterotopy in floral evolution: thegynostemium and labellum of orchids and other lilioidmonocots. Biological Reviews 77: 403–441.
• RUDALL PJ, and BATEMAN RM. 2003. Evolutionary change in flowers and inflorescences: evidence from naturallyoccurring terata. Trends in Plant Science 8(2): 76–82.
• RUDALL PJ, and BATEMAN RM. 2004. Evolution of zygomorphy in monocot flowers: iterative patterns and developmentalconstraints. New Phytologist 162: 25–44.
• RUZIN SE. 1999. Plant Microtechnique and Microscopy. Oxford University Press.
• SPURR AR. 1969. A low-viscosity epoxy resin embedding medium for electron microscopy. Journal of UltrastructureResearch 26: 31–43.
• THEIsEN G. 2006. The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology. Theory in Biosciences 124: 349–369.
• THOME OW. 1885. Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Gera-Untermhaus, Germany. Tafel 143.
• TICHY H, and DEL PRETE C. 2001. Chromosome numbers of European orchids: interpreting data. Journal Europäischer Orchideen 33: 217–234