Notes on calycophyllous Rubiaceae. Part III. Systematic position of the monotypic Mexican genus Cosmocalyx and notes on the calycophyll development

Brittonia

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 309-317

  Delprete, Piero G ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF SYSTEMATIC BOTANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Calycophylls; Cosmocalyx; Dehiscent capsules; Deppea; Deppeeae; Hamelia; Hamelieae; Mexico; Phyllomelia; Pseudosamaras; Pterophylls; Ronde letieae; Rubiace ae; Semaphylls

Indexed keywords

CALYX; COSMOCALYX; DEPPEA; HAMELIA; HAMELIEAE; PHYLLOMELIA; RUBIACEAE;

EID: 0031789438     PISSN: 0007196X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2807774     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Andersson, L. & C. Persson. 1991. Circumscription of the tribe Cinchoneae (Rubiaceae) - A cladistic approach. Pl. Syst. Evol. 178: 65-94.
2. Bold, H. C., C. J. Alexopoulos & T. Delevoryas. 1980. Morphology of plant and fungi. Ed. 4. Harper & Row, New York.
3. Bremekamp, C. E. B. 1966. Remarks on the position, the delimitation, and the subdivision of the Rubiaceae. Acta Bot. Neerl. 15: 1-33.
4. Bremer, B. 1987. The sister group of the paleotropical tribe Argostemmateae: a redefined neotropical tribe Hamelieae (Rubiaceae, Rubioideae). Cladistics 3: 35-51.
5. _ & O. Eriksson. 1992. Evolution of fruit characters and dispersal modes in the tropical family Rubiaceae. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 47: 79-95.
6. _ & L. Struwe. 1992. Phylogeny of the Rubiaceae and the Loganiaceae: congruence or conflict between morphological and molecular data? Amer. J. Bot. 79: 1171-1184.
7. _, K. Andreasen & D. Olsson. 1995. Subfamilial and tribal relationships in the Rubiacea based on rbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 82: 383-397.
8. Candolle, A. P. de. 1830. Rubiaceae. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis, IV: 341-622. Treuttel & Würtz, Paris.
9. Classen-Bockhoff, R. 1996. A survey of flower-like inflorescences in the Rubiaceae. Opera Bot. Belg. 7: 329-367.
10. Delprete, P. G. 1996a. Notes on calycophyllous Rubiaceae. Part I. Morphological comparisons of the genera Chimarrhis, Bathysa, and Calycophyllum, with new combinations and a new species, Chimarrhis gentryana. Brittonia 48: 35-44.
11. _. 1996b. Evaluation of the tribes Chiococceae, Condamineeae and Catesbaeeae (Rubiaceae) based on morphological characters. Opera Bot. Belg. 7: 165-192.
12. _. 1996c. Notes on the taxonomic position of the monotypic Brazilian genus Kerianthera (Rubiaceae). Opera Bot. Belg. 7: 271-275.
13. _. 1996d. Systematics, typification, and reproductive biology of Pinckneya bracteata (W. Bartram) Raf. (Rubiaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 201: 243-261.
14. _. 1997. Notes on calycophyllous Rubiaceae. Part II. Morphological comparisons of the genera Bathysa and Schizocalyx. Brittonia 49: 480-486.
15. _. In press. Rondeletieae (Rubiaceae) - part I. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 77.
16. Esau, K. 1965. Plant anatomy. Ed. 2. John Wiley, New York.
17. Font Quer, P. 1985. Diccionario de botánica. Ed. 9. Editorial Labor, Barcelona.
18. Hooker, J. D. 1873. Ordo LXXXIV. Rubiaceae. In: G. Bentham & J. D. Hooker, editors. Genera Plantarum ad exemplaria imprimis in herbariis kewensibus servata defirmata, 2: 7-151. London.
19. Jackson, B. D. 1928. A glossary of botanic terms with their derivation and accent. Ed. 4. Reprinted 1960. Hafner, New York.
20. Kirkbride, J. H. 1984. Manipulus rubiacearum III. Deppeae, a new tribe of Rubioideae (Rubiaceae). Brittonia 36: 317-320.
21. Kunth, C. S. 1820. Hameliaceae [Hamelieae]. In A. Humboldt, A. Bonpland & C. S. Kunth. Nov. gen. sp. 3: 413.
22. Lawrence, G. H. M. 1951. Taxonomy of vascular plants. Macmillan, New York.
23. Leppik, E. E. 1956. The form and function of numeral patterns in flowers. Amer. J. Bot. 43: 445-455.
24. Lindley, J. 1951. Glosologia de los términos usados en botánica. Traducida de la segunda edición inglesa y aumentada con la terminologia equivalente alemana por J. E. Rothe. Tucumán, Argentina.
25. Lorence, D. H. 1990. A phylogenetic list of the genera of Rubiaceae in Mexico. Acta Bot. Mex. 12: 1-7.
26. _ & J. D. Dwyer. 1988. A revision of Deppea (Rubiaceae). Allertonia 4: 389-436.
27. McDowell, T. 1996. Syringantha coulteri (Hooker f.) McDowell, a new combination and remarks on the relationships of the monotypic Mexican genus Syringantha Standley (Rubiaceae). Novon 6: 273-279.
28. Moreno, N. P. 1984. Glosario botánico ilustrado. Editorial Continental, Ciudad México.
29. Robbrecht, E. 1988. Tropical woody Rubiaceae. Characteristic features and progressions. Contribution to a new subfamilial classification. Opera Bot. Belg. 1: 1-271.
30. _. 1993. Supplement to the 1988 outline of the classification of the Rubiaceae. Index to genera. In: E. Robbrecht, editor. Advances in Rubiaceae macrosystematics. Opera Bot. Belg. 6: 173-196.
31. Rova, J. H. E., L. Andersson, P. G. Delprete & V. A. Albert. 1997. Macrophylogeny of the Rubiaceae from trnL-F sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 84, suppl. [abstract]: 227-228.
32. Sampaio, A. J. 1943. Tipologia carpologia. Anais Acad. Brasil. Ci. 15: 309-323.
33. Schumann, K. 1891. Rubiaceae. In: A. Engler & K. Prantl, editors. Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 4(4): 1-156. Engelmann, Leipzig.
34. Spjut, R. W. 1994. A systematic treatment of fruit types. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 70: 1-182.
35. Standley, P. C. 1918-1934. Rubiaceae. N. Amer. Fl. 32: 1-300.
36. _. 1930. Cosmocalyx. Studies of American plants - III. Publ. Field Columbian Mus., Bot. Ser. 8: 56.
37. Verdcourt, B. 1958. Remarks on the classification of the Rubiaceae. Bull. Jard. Bot. État. 28: 209-281.