Aruncus Dioicus North American Native

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

www.whatsnative.com Aruncus dioicus North American Native Arucus (a-run-kus) From the Greek word, aryngos, meaning beard of a goat. dioicus (dee-o-ee-kus) meaning that there are female and male flowers on separate plants. Zones: 3 – 7 Flower Color: Creamy -White Height: 3 – 6’ Spacing: 2 – 4’ About the Species: Common Name: Goat’s Beard Family: Rosaceae Goat’s Beard prefers moist, rich soil with plenty of organic matter and can tolerate full sun in constant moisture. This almost shrub-like plant is bold and will make quite a statement in the garden. Goat’s Beard looks a lot like a giant Astilbe, but it is actually related to the Spiraeas. It has a bold texture that somehow seems to look dainty. The very large flowers will bloom in April and May. Goat’s Beard may be slow to become established, but once established, transplanting can be difficult so selecting the proper garden site is important. This rhizomatous plant, with a medium growth rate, can form large clumps to 6 feet making it difficult to divide. Habitat: Found in moist woodlands, meadows and bluffs of North America. In the Garden: Group along streams or around water gardens, or use as an excellent background plant, or specimen. Goat’s Beard is also useful in large containers, perennial borders, and in transition areas between landscaped areas and woodlands. Flower heads can be dried by hanging them upside down in a warm, dark room such as a closet. Aruncus combine well with Aquilegia, Ferns, Mertensia, Polemonium and Asarum. USDA Plants Database The Goat Herders Travis and Kevin, goat herding settlers of the Appalachian Mountains (and self- proclaimed botanists), were out in the hills tending to their go ats one day. Enjoying the local flora while tromping across the hills they observed a tall plant with white flowers that reminded them of their goats’ beards, resembling the long white “whiskers” that hang down from the goat’s chins. Upon further investigation, they were able to identify the plant as Aruncus dioicus. They had learned that the Greeks had given this plant the common name “Goat’s Beard” because the flowers reminded them of their goats. One case of the same “common” name developing many worlds away. The Perennial Farm, 12017 Glen Arm Road, Glen Arm, Maryland 21057; Phone: 410-592-6106; Fax: 410-592-8338 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

The Vascular Flora of Rarău Massif (Eastern Carpathians, Romania). Note Ii
Memoirs of the Scientific Sections of the Romanian Academy Tome XXXVI, 2013 BIOLOGY THE VASCULAR FLORA OF RARĂU MASSIF (EASTERN CARPATHIANS, ROMANIA). NOTE II ADRIAN OPREA1 and CULIŢĂ SÎRBU2 1 “Anastasie Fătu” Botanical Garden, Str. Dumbrava Roşie, nr. 7-9, 700522–Iaşi, Romania 2 University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Iaşi, Faculty of Agriculture, Str. Mihail Sadoveanu, nr. 3, 700490–Iaşi, Romania Corresponding author: [email protected] This second part of the paper about the vascular flora of Rarău Massif listed approximately half of the whole number of the species registered by the authors in their field trips or already included in literature on the same area. Other taxa have been added to the initial list of plants, so that, the total number of taxa registered by the authors in Rarău Massif amount to 1443 taxa (1133 species and 310 subspecies, varieties and forms). There was signaled out the alien taxa on the surveyed area (18 species) and those dubious presence of some taxa for the same area (17 species). Also, there were listed all the vascular plants, protected by various laws or regulations, both internal or international, existing in Rarău (i.e. 189 taxa). Finally, there has been assessed the degree of wild flora conservation, using several indicators introduced in literature by Nowak, as they are: conservation indicator (C), threat conservation indicator) (CK), sozophytisation indicator (W), and conservation effectiveness indicator (E). Key words: Vascular flora, Rarău Massif, Romania, conservation indicators. 1. INTRODUCTION A comprehensive analysis of Rarău flora, in terms of plant diversity, taxonomic structure, biological, ecological and phytogeographic characteristics, as well as in terms of the richness in endemics, relict or threatened plant species was published in our previous note (see Oprea & Sîrbu 2012).
[Show full text]
Floristic Quality Assessment Report
FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
[Show full text]
Northwest Plant Names and Symbols for Ecosystem Inventory and Analysis Fourth Edition
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-46 1976 NORTHWEST PLANT NAMES AND SYMBOLS FOR ECOSYSTEM INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS FOURTH EDITION PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE PORTLAND, OREGON This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. CONTENTS Page . INTRODUCTION TO FOURTH EDITION ....... 1 Features and Additions. ......... 1 Inquiries ................ 2 History of Plant Code Development .... 3 MASTER LIST OF SPECIES AND SYMBOLS ..... 5 Grasses.. ............... 7 Grasslike Plants. ............ 29 Forbs.. ................ 43 Shrubs. .................203 Trees. .................225 ABSTRACT LIST OF SYNONYMS ..............233 This paper is basicafly'an alpha code and name 1 isting of forest and rangeland grasses, sedges, LIST OF SOIL SURFACE ITEMS .........261 rushes, forbs, shrubs, and trees of Oregon, Wash- ington, and Idaho. The code expedites recording of vegetation inventory data and is especially useful to those processing their data by contem- porary computer systems. Editorial and secretarial personnel will find the name and authorship lists i ' to be handy desk references. KEYWORDS: Plant nomenclature, vegetation survey, I Oregon, Washington, Idaho. G. A. GARRISON and J. M. SKOVLIN are Assistant Director and Project Leader, respectively, of Paci fic Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; C. E. POULTON is Director, Range and Resource Ecology Applications of Earth Sate1 1 ite Corporation; and A. H. WINWARD is Professor of Range Management at Oregon State University . and a fifth letter also appears in those instances where a varietal name is appended to the genus and INTRODUCTION species. (3) Some genera symbols consist of four letters or less, e.g., ACER, AIM, GEUM, IRIS, POA, TO FOURTH EDITION RHUS, ROSA.
[Show full text]
Ethnobotanical Review of Wild Edible Plants of Slovakia
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae Journal homepage: pbsociety.org.pl/journals/index.php/asbp INVITED REVIEW Received: 2012.01.15 Accepted: 2012.08.26 Published electronically: 2012.11.16 Acta Soc Bot Pol 81(4):245–255 DOI: 10.5586/asbp.2012.030 Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants of Slovakia Łukasz Łuczaj* Department of Botany and Biotechnology of Economic Plants, University of Rzeszów, Werynia 502, 36-100 Kolbuszowa, Poland Abstract This paper is an ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants gathered for consumption from the 19th century to the present day, within the present borders of Slovakia. Twenty-four sources (mainly ethnographic) documenting the culinary use of wild plants were analysed. The use of 106 species (over 3% of the Slovak flora) has been recorded. Nowadays most of them are no longer used, or used rarely, apart from a few species of wild fruits. The most frequently used plants include the fruits of Rubus idaeus, Fragaria spp., Rubus subgenus Rubus, Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, Fagus sylvatica, Corylus avellana, Prunus spinosa, Pyrus spp., Malus spp., Crataegus spp. and the leaves of Urtica dioica, Rumex acetosa, Chenopodiaceae species, Cardamine amara, Glechoma spp., Taraxacum spp. and Oxalis acetosella. The most commonly used wild food taxa are nearly identical to those used in Poland, and the same negative association of wild vegetables with famine exists in Slovakia, resulting in their near complete disappearance from the present-day diet. Keywords: historical ethnobotany, ethnobiology, wild green vegetables, wild food plants, wild edible plants Introduction of rural populations started at the end of the 19th century.
[Show full text]
Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments Contributors: Printing was made possible through the generous funding from Adkins Arboretum; Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management; Chesapeake Bay Trust; Irvine Natural Science Center; Maryland Native Plant Society; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; The Nature Conservancy, Maryland-DC Chapter; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cape May Plant Materials Center; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Ofﬁce. Reviewers: species included in this guide were reviewed by the following authorities regarding native range, appropriateness for use in individual states, and availability in the nursery trade: Rodney Bartgis, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Ashton Berdine, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Chris Firestone, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Chris Frye, State Botanist, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Mike Hollins, Sylva Native Nursery & Seed Co. William A. McAvoy, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mary Pat Rowan, Landscape Architect, Maryland Native Plant Society. Rod Simmons, Maryland Native Plant Society. Alison Sterling, Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Troy Weldy, Associate Botanist, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Graphic Design and Layout: Laurie Hewitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Ofﬁce. Special thanks to: Volunteer Carole Jelich; Christopher F. Miller, Regional Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service; and R. Harrison Weigand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division for assistance throughout this project.
[Show full text]
An Encyclopedia of Shade Perennials This Page Intentionally Left Blank an Encyclopedia of Shade Perennials
An Encyclopedia of Shade Perennials This page intentionally left blank An Encyclopedia of Shade Perennials W. George Schmid Timber Press Portland • Cambridge All photographs are by the author unless otherwise noted. Copyright © 2002 by W. George Schmid. All rights reserved. Published in 2002 by Timber Press, Inc. Timber Press The Haseltine Building 2 Station Road 133 S.W. Second Avenue, Suite 450 Swavesey Portland, Oregon 97204, U.S.A. Cambridge CB4 5QJ, U.K. ISBN 0-88192-549-7 Printed in Hong Kong Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schmid, Wolfram George. An encyclopedia of shade perennials / W. George Schmid. p. cm. ISBN 0-88192-549-7 1. Perennials—Encyclopedias. 2. Shade-tolerant plants—Encyclopedias. I. Title. SB434 .S297 2002 635.9′32′03—dc21 2002020456 I dedicate this book to the greatest treasure in my life, my family: Hildegarde, my wife, friend, and supporter for over half a century, and my children, Michael, Henry, Hildegarde, Wilhelmina, and Siegfried, who with their mates have given us ten grandchildren whose eyes not only see but also appreciate nature’s riches. Their combined love and encouragement made this book possible. This page intentionally left blank Contents Foreword by Allan M. Armitage 9 Acknowledgments 10 Part 1. The Shady Garden 11 1. A Personal Outlook 13 2. Fated Shade 17 3. Practical Thoughts 27 4. Plants Assigned 45 Part 2. Perennials for the Shady Garden A–Z 55 Plant Sources 339 U.S. Department of Agriculture Hardiness Zone Map 342 Index of Plant Names 343 Color photographs follow page 176 7 This page intentionally left blank Foreword As I read George Schmid’s book, I am reminded that all gardeners are kindred in spirit and that— regardless of their roots or knowledge—the gardening they do and the gardens they create are always personal.
[Show full text]
3. ARUNCUS Linnaeus, Opera Var. 259. 1758. 假升麻属 Jia Sheng Ma Shu Gu Cuizhi (谷粹芝 Ku Tsue-Chih); Crinan Alexander Herbs Perennial, Sometimes Woody at Base, Monoecious
Flora of China 9: 74–75. 2003. 3. ARUNCUS Linnaeus, Opera Var. 259. 1758. 假升麻属 jia sheng ma shu Gu Cuizhi (谷粹芝 Ku Tsue-chih); Crinan Alexander Herbs perennial, sometimes woody at base, monoecious. Rhizome robust. Stems erect, angled. Leaves exstipulate, 1–3-pinnate, rarely 3-foliolate; leaflets sharply doubly serrate. Inflorescence a large, spikelike, many-flowered panicle; peduncle and pedicels pu- bescent and sparsely stellate hairy; bracts and bracteoles linear-lanceolate. Flowers sessile or subsessile, unisexual, rarely bisexual. Hypanthium cupular, with ringlike disk on rim. Sepals (4 or)5(or 6), persistent in fruit, triangular, abaxially glabrous or nearly so, margin entire, apex acute. Petals 5, white, obovate, base cuneate, apex obtuse. Male flowers: stamens 15–30, borne on rim of hypan- thium; filaments slender, longer than petals; carpels obsolescent. Female flowers: filaments short; anthers sterile; carpels 3 or 4(–8). Follicles glabrous, pendulous in fruit, dehiscent along adaxial suture. Seeds 2. Three to six poorly defined species: N temperate zone; two species (one endemic) in China. 1a. Plants to 3 m tall; leaves 2- or 3-pinnate, leaflets rhombic-ovate, ovate-lanceolate, or long elliptic, apex acuminate or long acuminate; panicle lax, 10–40 cm ..................................................................................................................... 1. A. sylvester 1b. Plants to 0.7 m tall; leaves 1- or 2-pinnate or 1- or 2-ternate, leaflets suborbicular or broadly ovate, rarely rhombic-ovate, apex rounded, obtuse, or acute; panicle dense, 5–25 cm ............................................................... 2. A. gombalanus 1. Aruncus sylvester Kosteletzky ex Maximowicz, Trudy Imp. 贡山假升麻 gong shan jia sheng ma S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 6: 169. 1879. Pleiosepalum gombalanum Handel-Mazzetti, Anz.
[Show full text]
Multi-Species Recovery Strategy for the Princeton Landscape, Including Dwarf Woolly-Heads (Psilocarphus Brevissimus Var
British Columbia Recovery Strategy Series Multi-species Recovery Strategy for the Princeton Landscape, Including Dwarf Woolly-heads (Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus), Slender Collomia (Collomia tenella), and Stoloniferous Pussytoes (Antennaria flagellaris) in British Columbia Prepared by the Southern Interior Rare Plants Recovery Implementation Group June 2008 DRAFT About the British Columbia Recovery Strategy Series This series presents the recovery strategies that are prepared as advice to the Province of British Columbia on the general strategic approach required to recover species at risk. The Province prepares recovery strategies to meet its commitments to recover species at risk under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada, and the Canada – British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk. What is recovery? Species at risk recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the li kelihood of a species’ persistence in the wild. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy represents the best available scientific knowledge on what is required to achieve recovery of a species or ecosystem. A recovery strategy outlines what is and what is not known about a species or ecosystem; it also identifies threats to the species or ecosystem, and what should be done to mitigate those threats. Recovery strategies set recovery goals and objectives, and recommend approaches to recover the species or ecosystem. Recovery strategies are usually prepared by a recovery team with members from agencies responsible for the management of the species or ecosystem, experts from other agencies, universities, conservation groups, aboriginal groups, and stakeholder groups as appropriate.
[Show full text]
Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Acknowledgments Reviewers: Species included in this guide were reviewed by the following authorities regarding native range, appropriateness for use in individual states, and availability in the nursery trade: Rodney Bartgis, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Ashton Berdine, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Chris Firestone, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Chris Frye, State Botanist, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Mike Hollins, Sylva Native Nursery & Seed Co. William A. McAvoy, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mary Pat Rowan, Landscape Architect, Maryland Native Plant Society. Rod Simmons, Maryland Native Plant Society. Alison Sterling, Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Troy Weldy, Associate Botanist, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Graphic Design and Layout: Laurie Hewitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Special thanks to: Volunteer Carole Jelich; Christopher F. Miller, Regional Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service; and R. Harrison Wiegand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division for assistance throughout this project. Citation: Slattery, Britt E., Kathryn Reshetiloff, and Susan M. Zwicker. 2003, 2005. Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD. 82 pp. Document may also be found online at: http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/chesapeake/ First printing, 2003 Second printing, 2005 Third printing, 2009 Fourth printing 2012 The Native Plant Center Citizens, schools, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies use this resource to select native plants to create landscapes to attract wildlife and reduce pollutants going into the Chesapeake Bay.
[Show full text]
Plant Propagation Protocol for Aruncus Dioicus ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Spring 2008
Plant Propagation Protocol For Aruncus dioicus ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Spring 2008 Taxonomy Family names: Family Rosaceae (Rose family) Scientific names: Aruncus dioicus (Walter) Fernald. var. acuminatus (Rydb.) Rydb. ex Hara (Goatsbeard/Bride's feathers) Common synonyms: Aruncus sylvester Kostel USDA code: ARDI8 General Information Range: Aruncus dioicus variety acuminatus occurs along the West Coast of North America from Alaska to Northern California through Oregon and Washington. In Washington it occurs from the Cascade range to the coast. Climate/Elevation: Low to mid elevation in wooded, mountainous areas between 0 – 5000 feet. (Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture ) Habitat: Moist environments in wooded areas commonly near streambanks and other water sources Propagation Details Propagation goal: Plants Propagation method: Seeds or division from vegetation Product type: Container (Plug) Time to grow: Seeds will begin to germinate in 2 to 3 weeks. 80% germination will be achieved by 6 weeks. Outplanting after 6 to 8 weeks or in early spring. (Mahr) Target Specifications: Firm root plug, multiple leaves Propagule Collection/Processing: In late summer plants flower and the females produce seeds which are tiny brown capsules that must be separated from the dry flower. Seeds can be cold stored. (Ross, Moore. 2004) Pre-Planting Treatments: Cold stored seeds must be rinsed water for 24 hours and then fall-sown in well draining upland soil. These can be stored outside until spring when it can be brought into a greenhouse for germination. (Ross, Moore. 2004) Growing Area Preparation: Germination can occur in small tray containers. Seedlings should be moved to larger containers or directly outplanted.
[Show full text]
Phylogeny and Taxonomy of Podosphaera Filipendulae
Mycoscience VOL.62 (2021) MYC553 Short Communication Phylogeny and taxonomy of Podosphaera filipendulae (Erysiphaceae) revisited Shu-Yan Liua, Danni Jina, Monika Götzb, Michael Bradshawc, Miao Liud, Susumu Takamatsue,*, Uwe Braunf a College of Plant Protection, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun 130118, Jilin Province, People’s Republic of China b ‌Institute for Plant Protection in Horticulture and Forests, JKI, Julius Kühn-Institute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Messeweg 11/12, 38104 Braun- schweig, Germany c USDA-ARS, Food Quality Laboratory, BARC West, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Bldg. 002, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA d Biodiversity and Bioresources, Ottawa Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada e Graduate School of Bioresources, Mie University, 1577 Kurima-Machiya, Tsu 514-8507, Japan f Martin Luther University, Institute of Biology, Department of Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Herbarium, Neuwerk 21, 06099 Halle (Saale), Germany ABSTRACT The phylogeny and taxonomy of Podosphaera filipendulae (including P. filipendulensis, syn. nov.) have been examined. Asian, European and North American collections were examined and the nucleotides sequences of their partial rDNA region were determined. In particular, the relationship between P. filipendulae and P. spiraeae was analysed. The results confirmed P. filipendulae and P. spiraeae as two sepa- rate, morphologically similar species. The phylogenetic analysis revealed a similar phylogeny to that of the host genera. Although ITS sequences retrieved from Asian, European and North American specimens of P. filipendulae on various Filipendula spp. are identical to sequences from P. macularis on hop, there is consistently one base substitution at the 5’-end of 28S rRNA gene between the species.
[Show full text]
Floral Structure and Systematics in Four Orders of Rosids, Including a Broad Survey of floral Mucilage Cells
Pl. Syst. Evol. 260: 199–221 (2006) DOI 10.1007/s00606-006-0443-8 Floral structure and systematics in four orders of rosids, including a broad survey of floral mucilage cells M. L. Matthews and P. K. Endress Institute of Systematic Botany, University of Zurich, Switzerland Received November 11, 2005; accepted February 5, 2006 Published online: July 20, 2006 Ó Springer-Verlag 2006 Abstract. Phylogenetic studies have greatly ened mucilaginous inner cell wall and a distinct, impacted upon the circumscription of taxa within remaining cytoplasm is surveyed in 88 families the rosid clade, resulting in novel relationships at and 321 genera (349 species) of basal angiosperms all systematic levels. In many cases the floral and eudicots. These cells were found to be most structure of these taxa has never been compared, common in rosids, particulary fabids (Malpighi- and in some families, even studies of their floral ales, Oxalidales, Fabales, Rosales, Fagales, Cuc- structure are lacking. Over the past five years we urbitales), but were also found in some malvids have compared floral structure in both new and (Malvales). They are notably absent or rare in novel orders of rosids. Four orders have been asterids (present in campanulids: Aquifoliales, investigated including Celastrales, Oxalidales, Stemonuraceae) and do not appear to occur in Cucurbitales and Crossosomatales, and in this other eudicot clades or in basal angiosperms. paper we attempt to summarize the salient results Within the flower they are primarily found in the from these studies. The clades best supported by abaxial epidermis of sepals. floral structure are: in Celastrales, the enlarged Celastraceae and the sister relationship between Celastraceae and Parnassiaceae; in Oxalidales, the Key words: androecium, Celastrales, Crossoso- sister relationship between Oxalidaceae and Con- matales, Cucurbitales, gynoecium, Oxalidales.
[Show full text]