DOCSLIB.ORG

A Aboitiz, F. 1988. Homology, a Comparative Or a Historical Concept? Acta Biotheoretica 37: 27-9

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Aboitiz, F. 1988. Homology, a Comparative Or a Historical Concept? Acta Biotheoretica 37: 27-9 A Aboitiz, F. 1988. Homology, a comparative or a historical concept? Acta Biotheoretica 37: 27-9. Adams, E. N., III. 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Systematic Zoology 21: 390-397. Adams, E. N., III. 1986. N-trees as nestings: Complexity, similarity, and consensus. Journal of Classification 3: 299-317. Alberch, P. 1985. Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences. Systematic Zoology 34: 46-58. Alberch, P., S. J. Gould, G. F. Oster, and D. B. Wake. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5: 296-317. Albert, V. A. In press. Phylogeny of the slipper orchids (Cypripedioideae: Orchidaceae) from congruent morphological and molecular data sets. Nordic Journal of Botany. Albert, V. A., M. W. Chase, and B. D. Mishler. 1993. Character-state weighting for cladistic analysis of protein-coding DNA sequences. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 752-766. Albert, V. A. and B. D. Mishler. 1992. On the rationale and utility of weighting nucleotide sequence data. Cladistics 8: 73-83. Albert, V. A., B. D. Mishler and M. W. Chase. 1992. Character-state weighting for restriction site data in phylogenetic reconstruction, with an example from chloroplast DNA. In: P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and J. J. Doyle [eds.], Molecular Systematics of Plants, 369-403. Chapman & Hall, New York. Albert, V. A., S. E. Williams, and M. W. Chase. 1992. Carnivorous plants: Phylogeny and structural evolution. Science 257: 1491-1495. Albrecht, G. H. 1978. Some comments on the use of ratios. Systematic Zoology 27: 67-71. Alcock, J. 1984. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Allard, M. W. 1990. Further comments on Goodman's maximum parsimony procedure. Cladistics 6: 283-289. Allard, N. W., M. M. Miyamoto. 1992. Perspective: Testing phylogenetic approaches with empirical data, as illustrated with the parsimony method. Molecular Biology and Evolution 9: 778-786. Alroy, J. 1994. Four permutation tests for the presence of phylogenetic structure. Systematic Biology 43: 430-437. Alroy, J. 1995. Continuous track analysis: A new phylogenetic and biogeographic method. Systematic Biology 44: 152-178. Altaba, C. R. 1991. The importance of ecological and historical factors in the production of benzaldehyde by Tiger Beetles. Systematic Zoology 40: 101-105. Ammerman, L. K. and D. M. Hillis. 1992. A molecular test of Bat relationships: Monophyly or diphyly? Systematic Biology 41: 222-232. Anderberg, A. 1986. The genus Pegolettia (Compositae, Inuleae). Cladistics 2: 158-186. Anderberg, A. and A. Tehler. 1990. Consensus trees, a necessity in taxonomic practice. Cladistics 6: 399-402. Andersen, N. M. 1979. Phylogenetic inference as applied to the study of evolutionary diversification of semiaquatic bugs (Hemiptera: Gerromorpha). Systematic Zoology 28: 554-578. Andersen, N. M. 1982. The Semi-aquatic bugs (Hemiptera, Gerromorpha): Phylogeny, adaptations, biogeography, and classification. Entomograph 3: 1-455. Scandinavian Science Press, Klampenborg, Denmark. Anonymous, 1973. Discussion of symposium papers on contemporary systematic philosophies. Systematic Zoology 22: 393-400. Anonymous, 1974. Trends, priorities, and needs in systematic and evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology 23: 416-439. Archibald, J. D. 1994. Metataxon concepts and assessing possible ancestry using phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Biology 43: 27-40. Archie, J. W. 1989. A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data. Systematic Zoology 38: 239-252. Archie, J. W. 1989. Homoplasy excess ratios: New indices for measuring levels of homoplasy in phylogenetic systematics and a critique of the consistency index. Systematic Zoology 38: 253-269. Archie, J. W. 1990. Homoplasy excess statistics and retention indices: A reply to Farris. Systematic Zoology 39: 169-174. Armbruster, W. S. 1992. Phylogeny and the evolution of plant-animal interactions. BioScience 42: 12-20. Armstrong, D. M. 1977. Dispersal vs. dispersion: Process vs. pattern. Systematic Zoology 26: 210-211. Arthur, W. 1984. Mechanisms of Morphological Evolution. Wiley, New York. Arévalo, E., S. K. Davis, and J. W. Sites, Jr. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence and phylogenetic relationships among eight chromosome races of the Sceloporus grammicus complex (Phrynosomatidae) in Central Mexico. Systematic Biology 43: 387-418. Ashlock, P. D. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology 20: 63-69. Ashlock, P. D. 1972. Monophyly again. Systematic Zoology 21: 430-438. Ashlock, P. D. 1974. The uses of cladistics. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 5: 81-99. Ashlock, P. D. 1979. An evolutionary systematist's view of classification. Systematic Zoology 28: 441-450. Astolfi, P., K. K. Kidd, and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1981. A comparison of methods for reconstructing evolutionary trees. Systematic Zoology 30: 156-169. Astolfi, P., A. Piazzi, and K. K. Kidd. 1978. Testing evolutionary independence in simulated phylogenetic trees. Systematic Zoology 27: 391- 400. Astolfi, P. and L. Zonta-Sparamella. 1984. Phylogenetic trees: An analysis of the treeness test. Systematic Zoology 33: 159-166. Atchley, W. R. 1978. Ratios, regression intercepts, and the scaling of data. Systematic Zoology 27: 78-83. Atchley, W. R. and D. Anderson. 1978. Ratios and the statistical analysis of biological data. Systematic Zoology 27: 71-78. Atchley, W. R., D. E. Cowley, C. Vogl, and T. McLellan. 1992. Evolutionary divergence, shape change, and genetic correlation structure in the rodent mandible. Systematic Biology 41: 196-221. Atchley, W. R., C. T. Gaskins, and D. Anderson. 1976. Statistical properties of ratios. I. Empirical results. Systematic Zoology 25: 137-148. Atchley, W. R., E. V. Nordheim, F. C. Gunsett, and P. L. Crump. 1982. Geometric and probabilistic aspects of statistical distance functions. Systematic Zoology 31: 445-460. Avise, J. C. 1974. Systematic value of electrophoretic data. Systematic Zoology 23: 465-481. Avise, J. C. and R. M. Ball. 1990. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7: 45-67. Ax, P. 1985. Stem species and the stem lineage concept. Cladistics 1: 279- 287. Ax, P. 1987. The Phylogenetic System. The Systematization of Organisms on the Basis of their Phylogenesis. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York. Axelius, B. 1991. Areas of distribution and areas of endemism. Cladistics 7: 197-199. [top] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B Backeljau, T., B. Winnepenninckx, and L. De Bruyn. 1993. Cladistic analysis of Metazoan relationships: A reappraisal. Cladistics 9: 167-181. Bacon, J. D. 1978. Taxonomy of Nerisyrenia (Cruciferae). Rhodora 80: 159-227. Baird, R. C. and M. J. Eckardt. 1972. Divergence and relationship in deep- sea Hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae). Systematic Zoology 21: 80-90. Baker, R. J. and J. W. Bickham. 1980. Karyotypic evolution in bats: Evidence of extensive and conservative chromosomal evolution in closely related taxa. Systematic Zoology 29: 239-253. Baker, R. J. and J. W. Bickham. 1984. Karyotypic megaevolution by any other name: A response to Marks. Systematic Zoology 33: 339-341. Baker, R. J., C. S. Hood, and R. L. Honeycutt. 1989. Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the higher categories of the New World Bat family Phyllostomidae. Systematic Zoology 38: 228-238. Baker, R. J., M. J. Novacek, and N. B. Simmons. 1991. On the monophyly of Bats. Systematic Zoology 40: 216-231. Ball, I. R. 1975. Nature and formulation of biogeographic hypotheses. Systematic Zoology 24: 407-430. Ball, I. R. 1983. On groups, existence and the ordering of nature. Systematic Zoology 32: 446-451. Bandoni, S. M. and D. R. Brooks. 1987. Revision and phylogenetic analysis of the Amphilinidae Poche, 1922 (Platyhelminthes: Cercomeria: Cercomeromorpha). Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 1110-1128. Banks, H. 1970. Evolution and Plants in the Past. Belmont, California. Baroni-Urbani, C. 1977. Hologenesis, phylogenetic systematics, and evolution. Systematic Zoology 26: 343-346. Barrett, M., M. J. Donoghue, and E. Sober. 1991. Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40: 486-493. Barriel, V. and P. Tassy. 1993. Characters, observations and steps: Comment on Lipscomb's "Parsimony, homology and the analysis of multistate characters." Cladistics 9: 223-232. Barthlott, W. and D. Frolich. 1983. Mikromorphologie und orientierungsmuster epicuticularer wachs-kristalloide: ein neues systematisches merkmal bei monokotylen. Plant Systematics and Evolution 142: 171-185. Barrett, M., M. J. Donoghue, and E. Sober. 1993. Crusade? A reply to Nelson. Systematic Biology 42: 216-217. Bateman, R. M. 1994. Evolutionary-developmental change in the architecture of fossil rhizomorphic lycopsids: Scenarios constructed on cladistic foundations. Biological Reviews 69(4): 71. Bateman, R. M. and W. A. Dimichele. 1994. Saltational evolution of form in vascular plants: A Neo Goldschmidian Syntheis. In: D. S. Ingram, A. Hudson [eds.]. Shape and form in plants and fungi, 63-102. Anderson Press, London. Bateman, R. M., W. A. Dimichele, and D. A. Willard. 1992. Experimental cladistic analysis of anatomically preserved arborescent lycopsids from the Carboniferous of Euramerica: An essay in paleobotanical phylogenetics. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 79: 500-559. Bateman, R. M., I. Goddard, R. O'Grady, V. A. Funk, R. Mooi, W. J. Kress, and P. Cannell. 1990. Speaking of Forked Tongues. Current Anthropology 31: 1-24.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Studies in the Compositae of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra – 3
    Willdenowia 29 – 1999 197 SUSANNE KING-JONES & NORBERT KILIAN Studies in the Compositae of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra – 3. Pluchea aromatica from Socotra is actually a species of Pulicaria (Inuleae) Abstract King-Jones [née Hunger], S. & Kilian, N.: Studies in the Compositae of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra – 3. Pluchea aromatica from Socotra is actually a species of Pulicaria (Inuleae).– Willdenowia 29: 197-202. 1999 – ISSN 0511-9618. An endemic shrub from Socotra, only known from a few late 19th century collections and hitherto misplaced in Pluchea (Plucheeae) is studied with respect to, in particular, flower, achene and pappus morphology. The species is placed in Pulicaria and the new combination Pulicaria aromatica is made. Pluchea aromatica, which was characterized by Isaac Balfour (1888: 126) as “a very beautiful, small, and strongly aromatic shrub of the higher parts of the Haghier hills” is known from only five collections, made during four expeditions to Socotra between 1880 and 1899. In spite of ex- tensive collecting activities on Socotra over the last years, the species has not been recollected. This is rather surprising, as it was collected in the late 19th century not only at higher altitudes of the Haghier Mountains but also on its foothills not far from the main settlement of the island. It was even known locally by a vernacular Socotri name, reported independently from two of its collectors. Balfour had already expressed some uncertainty about the placement of this species in Pluchea. In the course of a revision of Pluchea in the Old World and Australia by the senior au- thor (Hunger 1996, 1997, King-Jones in prep.) it became obvious that the species is not only mis- placed in Pluchea but is not even a member of the Plucheeae.
    [Show full text]
  • U·M·I University Microfilms International a 8Ell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road
    Patterns of homoplasy in North American Astragalus L. (Fabaceae). Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Sanderson, Michael John. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 10/10/2021 18:39:52 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/184764 INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UIVn a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Mosses: What Do They Tell Us About Moss Evolution?
    Bry. Div. Evo. 043 (1): 072–097 ISSN 2381-9677 (print edition) DIVERSITY & https://www.mapress.com/j/bde BRYOPHYTEEVOLUTION Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 2381-9685 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/bde.43.1.7 Fossil mosses: What do they tell us about moss evolution? MicHAEL S. IGNATOV1,2 & ELENA V. MASLOVA3 1 Tsitsin Main Botanical Garden of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 2 Faculty of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 3 Belgorod State University, Pobedy Square, 85, Belgorod, 308015 Russia �[email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1520-042X * author for correspondence: �[email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6096-6315 Abstract The moss fossil records from the Paleozoic age to the Eocene epoch are reviewed and their putative relationships to extant moss groups discussed. The incomplete preservation and lack of key characters that could define the position of an ancient moss in modern classification remain the problem. Carboniferous records are still impossible to refer to any of the modern moss taxa. Numerous Permian protosphagnalean mosses possess traits that are absent in any extant group and they are therefore treated here as an extinct lineage, whose descendants, if any remain, cannot be recognized among contemporary taxa. Non-protosphagnalean Permian mosses were also fairly diverse, representing morphotypes comparable with Dicranidae and acrocarpous Bryidae, although unequivocal representatives of these subclasses are known only since Cretaceous and Jurassic. Even though Sphagnales is one of two oldest lineages separated from the main trunk of moss phylogenetic tree, it appears in fossil state regularly only since Late Cretaceous, ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Monoicous Species Pairs in the Mniaceae (Bryophyta); Morphology, Sexual Condition and Distiribution
    ISSN 2336-3193 Acta Mus. Siles. Sci. Natur., 68: 67-81, 2019 DOI: 10.2478/cszma-2019-0008 Published: online 1 July 2019, print July 2019 On the hypothesis of dioicous − monoicous species pairs in the Mniaceae (Bryophyta); morphology, sexual condition and distiribution Timo Koponen On the hypothesis of dioicous − monoicous species pairs in the Mniaceae (Bryophyta); morphology, sexual condition and distiribution. – Acta Mus. Siles. Sci. Natur., 68: 67-81, 2019. Abstract: Some early observations seemed to show that, in the Mniaceae, the doubling of the chromo- some set affects a change from dioicous to monoicous condition, larger size of the gametophyte including larger leaf cell size, and to a wider range of the monoicous counterpart. The Mniaceae taxa are divided into four groups based on their sexual condition and morphology. 1. Dioicous – monoicous counterparts which can be distinguished by morphological characters, 2. Dioicous – monoicous taxa which have no morphological, deviating characters, 3. Monoicous species mostly with diploid chromosome number for which no dioicous counterpart is known, and 4. The taxa in Mniaceae with only dioicous plants. Most of the monoicous species of the Mniaceae have wide ranges, but a few of them are endemics in geographically isolated areas. The dioicous species have either a wide holarctic range or a limited range in the forested areas of temperate and meridional North America, Europe and SE Asia, or in subtropical Asia. Some of the monoicous species are evidently autodiploids and a few of them are allopolyploids from cross-sections of two species. Quite recently, several new possible dioicous – monoicous relationships have been discovered.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae
    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY 0 NCTMBER 52 Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae Harold Robinson, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, andJames F. Weedin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1981 ABSTRACT Robinson, Harold, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, and James F. Weedin. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Botany, number 52, 28 pages, 3 tables, 1981.-Chromosome reports are provided for 145 populations, including first reports for 33 species and three genera, Garcilassa, Riencourtia, and Helianthopsis. Chromosome numbers are arranged according to Robinson’s recently broadened concept of the Heliantheae, with citations for 212 of the ca. 265 genera and 32 of the 35 subtribes. Diverse elements, including the Ambrosieae, typical Heliantheae, most Helenieae, the Tegeteae, and genera such as Arnica from the Senecioneae, are seen to share a specialized cytological history involving polyploid ancestry. The authors disagree with one another regarding the point at which such polyploidy occurred and on whether subtribes lacking higher numbers, such as the Galinsoginae, share the polyploid ancestry. Numerous examples of aneuploid decrease, secondary polyploidy, and some secondary aneuploid decreases are cited. The Marshalliinae are considered remote from other subtribes and close to the Inuleae. Evidence from related tribes favors an ultimate base of X = 10 for the Heliantheae and at least the subfamily As teroideae. OFFICIALPUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIESCOVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XII.
    [Show full text]
  • A Landscape-Based Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability for All Native Hawaiian Plants
    Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDscape-bASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMatE CHANGE VULNEraBILITY FOR ALL NatIVE HAWAIIAN PLANts Lucas Fortini1,2, Jonathan Price3, James Jacobi2, Adam Vorsino4, Jeff Burgett1,4, Kevin Brinck5, Fred Amidon4, Steve Miller4, Sam `Ohukani`ohi`a Gon III6, Gregory Koob7, and Eben Paxton2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service —Ecological Services, Division of Climate Change and Strategic Habitat Management, Honolulu, HI 96850 5 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawai‘i National Park, HI 96718 6 The Nature Conservancy, Hawai‘i Chapter, Honolulu, HI 96817 7 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area State Office, Honolulu, HI 96850 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit University of Hawai‘i at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 933-0706 November 2013 This product was prepared under Cooperative Agreement CAG09AC00070 for the Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey. Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDSCAPE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY FOR ALL NATIVE HAWAIIAN PLANTS LUCAS FORTINI1,2, JONATHAN PRICE3, JAMES JACOBI2, ADAM VORSINO4, JEFF BURGETT1,4, KEVIN BRINCK5, FRED AMIDON4, STEVE MILLER4, SAM ʽOHUKANIʽOHIʽA GON III 6, GREGORY KOOB7, AND EBEN PAXTON2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaiʽi National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawaiʽi at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.
    [Show full text]
  • The Round Goby (Neogobius Melanostomus):A Review of European and North American Literature
    ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. CI u/l Natural History Survey cF Library (/4(I) ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY OT TSrX O IJX6V E• The Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus):A Review of European and North American Literature with notes from the Round Goby Conference, Chicago, 1996 Center for Aquatic Ecology J. Ei!en Marsden, Patrice Charlebois', Kirby Wolfe Illinois Natural History Survey and 'Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Lake Michigan Biological Station 400 17th St., Zion IL 60099 David Jude University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division 3107 Institute of Science & Technology Ann Arbor MI 48109 and Svetlana Rudnicka Institute of Fisheries Varna, Bulgaria Illinois Natural History Survey Lake Michigan Biological Station 400 17th Sti Zion, Illinois 6 Aquatic Ecology Technical Report 96/10 The Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus): A Review of European and North American Literature with Notes from the Round Goby Conference, Chicago, 1996 J. Ellen Marsden, Patrice Charlebois1, Kirby Wolfe Illinois Natural History Survey and 'Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Lake Michigan Biological Station 400 17th St., Zion IL 60099 David Jude University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division 3107 Institute of Science & Technology Ann Arbor MI 48109 and Svetlana Rudnicka Institute of Fisheries Varna, Bulgaria The Round Goby Conference, held on Feb. 21-22, 1996, was sponsored by the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program, and organized by the
    [Show full text]
  • About the Book the Format Acknowledgments
    About the Book For more than ten years I have been working on a book on bryophyte ecology and was joined by Heinjo During, who has been very helpful in critiquing multiple versions of the chapters. But as the book progressed, the field of bryophyte ecology progressed faster. No chapter ever seemed to stay finished, hence the decision to publish online. Furthermore, rather than being a textbook, it is evolving into an encyclopedia that would be at least three volumes. Having reached the age when I could retire whenever I wanted to, I no longer needed be so concerned with the publish or perish paradigm. In keeping with the sharing nature of bryologists, and the need to educate the non-bryologists about the nature and role of bryophytes in the ecosystem, it seemed my personal goals could best be accomplished by publishing online. This has several advantages for me. I can choose the format I want, I can include lots of color images, and I can post chapters or parts of chapters as I complete them and update later if I find it important. Throughout the book I have posed questions. I have even attempt to offer hypotheses for many of these. It is my hope that these questions and hypotheses will inspire students of all ages to attempt to answer these. Some are simple and could even be done by elementary school children. Others are suitable for undergraduate projects. And some will take lifelong work or a large team of researchers around the world. Have fun with them! The Format The decision to publish Bryophyte Ecology as an ebook occurred after I had a publisher, and I am sure I have not thought of all the complexities of publishing as I complete things, rather than in the order of the planned organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 1, Chapter 2-7: Bryophyta
    Glime, J. M. 2017. Bryophyta – Bryopsida. Chapt. 2-7. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 1. Physiological Ecology. Ebook 2-7-1 sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 10 January 2019 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/>. CHAPTER 2-7 BRYOPHYTA – BRYOPSIDA TABLE OF CONTENTS Bryopsida Definition........................................................................................................................................... 2-7-2 Chromosome Numbers........................................................................................................................................ 2-7-3 Spore Production and Protonemata ..................................................................................................................... 2-7-3 Gametophyte Buds.............................................................................................................................................. 2-7-4 Gametophores ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-7-4 Location of Sex Organs....................................................................................................................................... 2-7-6 Sperm Dispersal .................................................................................................................................................. 2-7-7 Release of Sperm from the Antheridium.....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Assessment of a Single Family‐Wide Hybrid Capture Locus
    APPLICATION ARTICLE An empirical assessment of a single family-wide hybrid capture locus set at multiple evolutionary timescales in Asteraceae Katy E. Jones1,14 , Tomáš Fér2 , Roswitha E. Schmickl2,3 , Rebecca B. Dikow4 , Vicki A. Funk5 , Sonia Herrando-Moraira6 , Paul R. Johnston7,8,9, Norbert Kilian1 , Carolina M. Siniscalchi10,11 , Alfonso Susanna6 , Marek Slovák2,12 , Ramhari Thapa10,11, Linda E. Watson13 , and Jennifer R. Mandel10,11 Manuscript received 27 February 2019; revision accepted PREMISE: Hybrid capture with high-throughput sequencing (Hyb-Seq) is a powerful tool for 5 September 2019. evolutionary studies. The applicability of an Asteraceae family-specific Hyb-Seq probe set and 1 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie the outcomes of different phylogenetic analyses are investigated here. Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 6–8, 14195 Berlin, Germany 2 Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University, METHODS: Hyb-Seq data from 112 Asteraceae samples were organized into groups at differ- Benátská 2, CZ 12800 Prague, Czech Republic ent taxonomic levels (tribe, genus, and species). For each group, data sets of non-paralogous 3 Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, CZ loci were built and proportions of parsimony informative characters estimated. The impacts 25243 Průhonice, Czech Republic of analyzing alternative data sets, removing long branches, and type of analysis on tree reso- 4 Data Science Lab, Office of the Chief Information lution and inferred topologies were investigated in tribe Cichorieae. Officer, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA RESULTS: Alignments of the Asteraceae family-wide Hyb-Seq locus set were parsimony infor- 5 Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural mative at all taxonomic levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Die Plantfamilie ASTERACEAE: 6
    ISSN 0254-3486 = SA Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie 23, no. 1 & 2 2004 35 Algemene artikel Die plantfamilie ASTERACEAE: 6. Die subfamilie Asteroideae P.P.J. Herman Nasionale Botaniese Instituut, Privaat sak X101, Pretoria, 0001 e-pos: [email protected] UITTREKSEL Die tribusse van die subfamilie Asteroideae word meer volledig in hierdie artikel beskryf. Die genusse wat aan dié tribusse behoort word gelys en hulle verspreiding aangedui. ABSTRACT The plant family Asteraceae: 6. The subfamily Asteroideae. The tribes of the subfamily Asteroideae are described in this article. Genera belonging to the different tribes are listed and their distribution given. INLEIDING Tribus ANTHEMIDEAE Cass. Hierdie artikel is die laaste in die reeks oor die plantfamilie Verteenwoordigers van hierdie tribus is gewoonlik aromaties, Asteraceae.1-5 In die vorige artikel is die klassifikasie bokant byvoorbeeld Artemisia afra (wilde-als), Eriocephalus-soorte, familievlak asook die indeling van die familie Asteraceae in sub- Pentzia-soorte.4 Die feit dat hulle aromaties is, beteken dat hulle families en tribusse bespreek.5 Hierdie artikel handel oor die baie chemiese stowwe bevat. Hierdie stowwe word dikwels subfamilie Asteroideae van die familie Asteraceae, met ’n aangewend vir medisyne (Artemisia) of insekgif (Tanacetum).4 bespreking van die tribusse en die genusse wat aan die verskillende Verder is hulle blaartjies gewoonlik fyn verdeeld en selfs by dié tribusse behoort. Die ‘edelweiss’ wat in die musiekblyspel The met onverdeelde blaartjies, is die blaartjies klein en naaldvormig sound of music besing word, behoort aan die tribus Gnaphalieae (Erica-agtig). Die pappus bestaan gewoonlik uit vry of vergroeide van die subfamilie Asteroideae.
    [Show full text]