IAWA Bulletin n.s., Vol. 2 (2-3),1981 79

WOOD AND BARK ANATOMY OF . I. ANIBA AUBLET

by

Hans Georg Richter Institute für Holzbiologie und Holzschutz, Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft Hamburg-Reinbek, 2050 Hamburg 80, Leuschnerstrasse 91, Federal Republic of Germany

Summary The wood of Aniba presents a uniform struc• bining individual wood and bark anatomical tural profile which readily confonns to that ob• eharaeters evidenee is presented for further served in the group of lauraceous genera to su bdivisions ranging from the suprageneric to which it is assigned on the basis of floral and the speeifie level. vegetative morphology. In contradistinction This paper on the Aniba is the first of the bark anatomy reveals unique structural de• aseries deseribing the anatomy of the seeond• tails of the scierenchymatic tissues otherwise ary xylem of individual lauraeeous genera. In uncommon in the family. The occurrence of addition struetural features of the seeondary 'columnar' sciereids in combination with the phloem are reported whenever suffieiently re• nearly ubiquitous lack of fibres in the second• liable information is available. In fact, bark ary phloem proves the most valuable feature in anatomy has proven exeeptionally useful for defining the generie boundaries. The large Lauraceae and has added substantial support to 'tabletoid' Ca-oxalate erystals frequently pres• Moeller's (1882) and Parameswaran and Liese's ent in the xylem rays mayaiso be eonsidered a (1970) eontention that bark eharaeters appear distinetive eharaeter. Based on wood and bark no less important for taxonomie purposes than anatomy respectively the two speeies groups that of other vegetative parts of the tree. It is Aniba canelilla/A. [errea and A. cylindrijlora/ hoped that the afore mentioned general treatise A. parvijlora/A. permollis are assigned speeial and this series of individual publieations will positions within the genus. Within Lauraeeae, not only aid the interested anatomists and Aniba appears phylogenetieally advaneed and taxonomists in their task of improving the pres• shows a ciose relationship to the genus Licaria. ent ciassifieation system of the Lauraeeae, but also will provide for a more adequate assess• Preface ment of the properties and, ultimately, a more The Lauraceae form an important part of eeonomie utilization of lauraeeous woods. the ecosystem of the tropical and subtropical forest regions in the Old and the New World. Although the numerous of this family Introduetion represent a large volume of timber, at present The genus Aniba was established by Aublet only a sm all fraction is utilized. Obviously (1775) based on a single species A. guianensis. more and better information would help utili• Subsequent speeies were deseribed under the zation, espeeially if this information ean result generie denomination Aydendron introduced in elear identifieation of genera and speeies. by Nees and Martius (in Nees, 1833). In his The wood and bark anatomieal relationships monographie study of neotropical Lauraceae of the Lauraeeae have been described in detail Mez (1889) revived the genus Aniba. Mez' work in the author's Ph.D. thesis (Richter, 1981). was followed by a more detailed treatment by Aecording to this study the family represents Kostermans (1938). Late1y the of a well-marked and natural taxonomie unit. AI• the genus including ehemosystematics was though the homogeneous nature of their floral eovered by Kubitzki (1981). eharaeters makes generie delimitation extreme• Aecording to the evidence presented therein Iy diffieult as has been stated expressively by a Aniba is restrieted to the neotropics and com• number of distinguished botanists, anatomical prises 41 species of a few shrubs and most1y evidence suggests rather weil defined struetural small to large trees (see also Table I). The groupings. Thus, on a superior taxonomie level centre of distribution lies in the eentral Ama• the family ean be divided into two major strue• zonia and Guiana regions with individual spe• tural entities aeeording to, among other fea• cies radiating into the Andes, northern Venezu• tures, the selective oecurrence or lack, rcspee• ela, the lesser Antilles, and into eastern and tively, of marginal parenchyma bands. By com- southern Brazil (see map). 80 IAWA Bulletin n.s., Vol. 2(2-3),1981

Table I. - List of presently recognized speeies of Aniba Aublet (Kubitzki, 1981) based on floral and vegetative morphology. For species investigated see legend.

I. A. affinis (Meissner) Mez 22. A. kappleri Mez 2. A. citrifolia (Nees) Mez 23. A. puchury-minor (Mar!.) Mez 3. A. lancifolia Kubitzki & Rodrigues 24. A. hypoglauca Sandwith 4. A. desertorum (Nees) Mez 25. A. vaupesiana Kubitzki ined. 5. A. terminalis Ducke 26. A. perutilis Hemsley 6. A. taubertiana Mez 27. A. santaladora Ducke* 7. A. excelsa Kostermans 28. A. panurensis (Meissner) Mez 8. A. ferruginea Kubitzki ined. 29. A. rosaeodora Ducke 9. A. williamsii O.e. Schmidt 30. A. percoriacea e.K. Allen 10. A. bracteata (Nees) Mez 31. A. muca (Ruiz & Pavon) Mez 11. A. hostmanniana (Nees) Mez 32. A. cinnamomiflora e.K. Allen I 2. A. burchellii Kostermans 33. A. parviflora (Meissner) Mez 13. A. intermedia (Meissner) Mez 34. A. novo-granatensis Kubitzki ined. 14. A. robusta (Kl. & Kars!.) Mez 35. A. cylindriflora Kostermans 15. A. jenmani Mez 36. A. pennollis (Nees) Mez 16. A. guianensis Aublet 37. A. heringerii Vattimo Gil 17. A. megaphylla Mez 38. A. firmula (Nees & Mar!.) Mez 18. A. pediceJlata Kostermans 39. A. coto (Rusby) Kostermans 19. A. ramageana Mez 40. A. canelilla (H.B.K.) Mez 20. A. venezuela na Mez 41. A. feITea Kubitzki ined. 21. A. riparia (Nees) Mez

Legend; species available for anatomieal studies are; in italies: wood sampies only: in bold; wood and bark sampies. * Loan slide available only.

According to Ku bitzki (1981) floral strue• ture in general and the papillose structure of the lowcr leaf epidermis of several species ap• pear to be characters of major infrageneric cJas• sificatory importance. Phytochemical evidence seems to at least partially confirm the morphol• ogical traits (Gottlieb & Kubitzki, 1981). Wood anatomieal descriptions of Aniba were given by several authors (viz. Record & Hess, 1942, 1949; Stern, 1954: Loureiro, 1976) in• ---~---..,.~ ...... variably involving too limited a number of spe• eies to be of significance with regard to intra or ,},()) __ _ ~,'c""" '-~ intergeneric comparative analyses, " i;"" \ "\-,-",,-,- .Jr: Information on bark anatomy of Aniba is 1!"< "", j1 even scarcer; the only detailed descriptions were published by MoelJcr (1882, one species) and Roth (1973, two species), Taxonomists luve made several attempts to divide Aniba into subgcnera or sections, vize y,~/ sllbgenera Ajolleopsis and Euaniba by Mez (1889) and sections Microporantherae, Macro• porantherae, [soporantherae and Aiolleopsis by ~'"ii " ,"' Kostermans (1938). KlIbitzki's (1981) two \b:;~ major species grollps (llnnamed) corrcspond, according to his own contention, to some clc• gree to the first two sections as defined by Kos• termans (1938), Those species allocated to the Distribution of the neotropical genus Aniba, third and fourth section (Jsoporantherae, Aiou• Lauraceae. copsis according to Kostermans) are placed by