DO CUTICLE CHARACTERS SUPPORT THE RECOGNITION OF ALSEO- DAPHNE, NOTHAPHOEBE & DEHAASIA AS DISTINCT GENERA?

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: May 9, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14203/reinwardtia.v14i1.395%20
Keywords:
Alseodaphne, cuticle, Dehaasia, Lauraceae, Machilus, Nothaphoebe

Main Article Content

Sachiko Nishida
Henk van der Werff

Abstract

NISHIDA, S. & VAN DER WERFF, H. Do cuticle characters support the recognition of Alseodaphne, Nothaphoebe and Dehaasia as distinct genera? Reinwardtia 14(1): 53 – 66. ? The Asian members of the Persea group are divided among the genera Alseodaphne, Apollonias, Dehaasia, Machilus, Nothaphoebe and Phoebe. A recent phylogenetic analysis has shown that Machilus and Phoebe are supported as monophyletic genera but evidence that the closely related genera Alseodaphne, Dehaasia and Nothaphoebe are monophyletic or not was equivocal. In this study we analyzed cuticle characters of 95 collections belonging to the Asian members except for Apollonias. We anticipated two possible outcomes. If the genera were not monophyletic, we expected that the groups based on cuticle characters would consist of species belonging to different genera. If the genera were monophyletic, we expected that the groups based on cuticle characters would consist of species belonging to the same genus. We found 16 groups based on cuticles. Of these, 12 consisted of species of a single genus (one group included a single species and thus a single genus). The four mixed groups included mostly species of one genus with 1 or 2 species of a different genus. Our results support the recognition of Alseodaphne, Dehaasia, Machilus, Nothaphoebe and Phoebe as distinct genera.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 14 No. 1 (2014)
Section
Articles

References

BARANOVA, M. 1972. Systematic anatomy of the leaf epidermis in the Magnoliaceae and some related families. Taxon 21: 447–469.

BARANOVA, M. 1987. Historical development of the present classification of morphological types of stomata. Botanical Review (Lancaster) 53: 53–79.

BARANOVA, M. 1992. Principles of comparative stomatographic studies of flowering plants. Botanical Review (Lancaster) 58: 1–99.

CARPENTER, R. J., TRUSWELL, E. M. & HARRIS, W. K. 2010. Lauraceae fossils from a volcanic Palaeocene oceanic island, Ninetyeast Ridge, Indian Ocean: Ancient longdistance dispersal? Journal of Biogeography 37: 1202–1213.

CHRISTOPHEL. D. C. & ROWETT, A. I. 1996. Leaf and Cuticle atlas of Australian leaf Lauraceae. Flora of Australian Supplementary Series Number 6, Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra.

CHRISTOPHEL, D. C., KERRIGAN, R. & ROWETT, A. I. 1996. The use of cuticular features in the taxonomy of the Lauraceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 83: 419–432.

JULIA, S., SOEPADMO, E., YAHUD, W. 2009. Problem in the generic delimitation between Alseodaphne, Dehaasia and Nothaphoebe (Lauraceae) in Borneo. Blumea 192: 192-197.

KOCHUMMEN, K. M. 1989. Lauraceae. In: NG, F.S.P. (Ed.), Tree Flora of Malaya: A manual for foresters 4. Kuala Lumpur: Longman, p. 98–178.

KOSTERMANS, A. J. G. H. 1957. Lauraceae. Pengumuman Balai Besar Penjelidikan Kehutanan Indonesia 57: 1–64.

KOSTERMANS, A. J. G. H. 1973a. A synopsis of Alseodaphne Nees (Lauraceae). Candollea 28: 93–136.

KOSTERMANS, A. J. G. H. 1973b. A synopsis of the genus Dehaasia Bl. (Lauraceae). Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 93: 424–480.

LI, H.-W., LI, J., HUANG, P.-H., WEI, F.-N., CUI, H.-B. & VAN DER WERFF, H. 2008. Lauraceae. In: WU, Z.-Y., RAVEN, P. H., & HONG, D.-Y. (Eds.) Flora of China Volume 7. Beijing and St Louis: Science Press and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, p. 102–254.

LI, L., LI, J., ROHWER, J. G., VAN DER WERFF, H., WANG, Z.-H. & LI, H.-W. 2011. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Persea group (Lauraceae) and its biogeographic implications on the evolution of tropical and subtropical amphi-Pacific disjunctions. American Journal of Botany 98: 1520–1536.

NISHIDA, S. & CHRISTOPHEL, D. C. 1999. Leaf anatomy of Beilschmiedia (Lauraceae) in the neotropics. Nature and Human Activities 4: 9–43.

NISHIDA, S. & VAN DER WERFF, H. 2007. Are cuticular characters useful in solving generic relationships of problematic species of Lauraceae? Taxon 56: 1229–1237.

NISHIDA, S. & VAN DER WERFF, H. 2011. An evaluation of classification by cuticular characters of the Lauraceae: a comparison to molecular phylogeny. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 98: 348–357.

ROHWER, J. G. 1993. Lauraceae. In: KUBITZKI, K., ROHWER, J. G. & BITTRICH, V. (eds.) The families and genera of vascular plants. Flowering plants - Dicotyledons, vol. 2. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, p. 366–391.

ROHWER, J. G., LI, J., RUDOLPH, B., SCHMIDT, S. A., VAN DER WERFF, H. & LI, H.-W. 2009. Is Persea (Lauraceae) monophyletic? Evidence from nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences. Taxon 58: 1153–1167.

STACE, C. 1984. The taxonomic importance of the leaf surface. In: HEYWOOD, V. & MOORE, D. (Eds.), Current Concepts in Plant Taxonomy Vol. 25. London: Academic Press, p. 67–94.

UPCHURCH, G. 1984a. Cuticle evolution in Early Cretaceous angiosperms from the Potomac Group of Virginia and Maryland. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 192–202.

UPCHURCH, G. 1984b. Cuticular anatomy of angiosperms leaves from the Lower Cretaceous Potomac Group I. Zone I leaves. American Journal of Botany 71: 192–202.

VAN DER WERFF, H. 2001. An annotated key to the genera of Lauraceae in the Flora Malesiana region. Blumea 46: 125–140.

YANG, Z. R. & LIN, Q. 2005. Comparative morphology of the leaf epidermis in Schisandra (Schisandraceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 148: 39–56.