Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assessment of the Euphorbiaceae: a Review H
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Experimental Sciences Vol. 2, Issue 3, Pages 37-46 [2011] www.jexpsciences.com Regular Article Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assessment of the Euphorbiaceae: A Review H. A. Thakur1* and D. A. Patil2 1Post- Graduate Department of Botany, Gokhale Education Society's, H.P.T.Arts & R.Y.K.Science College, Nasik -422005, (M.S., India); 2Post - Graduate Department of Botany, S.S.V.P.Sanstha's L.K.Dr.P.R.Ghogrey Science College, Dhule-424005 (M.S.), (India) Porantheraceae, Ricinocarpaceae, Androstachydaceae, ABSTRACT: The family Euphorbiaceae is assessed taxonomically Bischofiaceae, Hymenocardiaceae, Uapacaceae and few others. In and phylogenetically in the light of different disciplines of botany. It his opinion, the family Euphorbiaceae is composed of genera derived lacks anatomical homogenity, probable because of diverse habit and from different stocks like those of Tiliaceae, Sterculiaceae, habitat. It is heterogenous palynologically, chemically and Malvaceae and also from Celastraceae. He placed Pandaceae and embryologically. It is, however, fairly homogenous from Aextoxicaceae under his order Celastrales, whereas families embryological point of view. The floral anatomical investigations Buxaceae, Simmondsiaceae and Daphniphyllaceae find place in the indicate reduction in the number of floral whorls as well as the order Hammamelidales. The families Dichapetalaceae and number of members of whorls from a supposedly 5 - merous, Picrodendraceae are referred to the order Rosales and Juglandales dichlamydeous, heterochlamydeous ancestral flower. A review of respectively. Hutchison (loc. cit.) discarded the cotyledonary taxonomic features especially those from exomorphology, have character whether broad or narrow than radicle. He emphasized always remained changing. The present review based on all- primitiveness of euphorbiaceous taxa based on imbrication of sepals, pervasive examination of exomorphology and endomorphology presence of petals, lack of disc, retention of vestigeal ovary in the suggests close affinities of certain families of this alliance. However, male flower and numerous stamens. Hutchinson (1973) maintained few of them apparently closer because of unisexuality and reduced his system similar to the one appeared in 1959 and 1969. floral structure. Cronquist (1968) includes other four families viz., Buxaceae, Daphniphyllaceae, Pandaceae and Aextoxicaceae, apart from proper Key words: Taxonomy, Phylogeny, Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae under the order Euphorbiales in the Rosiidae. He retained the family Dichapetalaceae in the order Celastrales. He Introduction emphasized type of fruit and its dehiscence, ovule anatropus, The family Euphorbiaceae is generally distinguished by the milky sap epitropus, raphe dorsal or ventral, number of ovules, etc. while (when present), the unisexual flower, ovary superior and generally recognising familial status of the families included in this order. trilocular, placentation axile, ovules collateral, pendulous with Cronquist (1981) included four families viz., Buxaceae, ventral raphe and usually carunculate. Although so, the family Simmondsiaceae, Pandaceae, and Euphorbiaceae. He transferred received varied treatments in the Englerian and Ranalian systems of Aextoxicaceae to the order Celastrales. He also included the family plant classification. The ordinal, familial, subfamilial and tribal Dichapetalaceae in the Celastrales. Daphniphyllaceae is also kept as boundaries of the euphorbiaceous plexus has always remained a distinct family under the order Daphniphyllales under uncertain. All pervasive scrutiny of features divulged from different Hamamelidae. Later, Cronquist (1988) maintained his earlier disciplines appear worthwhile. In past, alliance has received fair treatment appeared in 1981 for this alliance. He characterised these attention in various domains of plant morphology. The present families on similar characteristics used in the system which appeared investigators assessed the said alliance synthetically, inclusive of earlier in the 1968. their vegetative anatomical evidence. Discussion of the same is Takhtajan’s Euphorbiales (1969) contained the families viz., avoided for the take of precision here. Buxaceae, Simmondsiaceae, Daphniphyllaceae, Dichapetalaceae, Pandaceae, Picrodendraceae, apart from the Euphorbiaceae. He Taxonomic history and significance presumed that the Euphorbiales arose from ancient group In Bentham and Hooker’s treatment (1862 – 1883), the family intermediate between the Flacourtiaceae and Malvales. His order Euphorbiaceae is kept under the series Unisexuales based on Euphorbiales is kept under super order Malvineae. In his later unisexual or polygamous flowers. It is placed alongwith other system, Takhtajan (1980) included the families viz., Euphorbiaceae, families such as Balanopceae, Urticaceae, Platanaceae, Leitnerieae, Pandaceae, Dichapetalaceae and Aextoxicaceae. His Euphorbiaceae Juglandaceae, Myricaceae, Casuarinaceae and Cupuliferae. They includes Androstachydaceae, Bischofiaceae, Hymenocardiaceae, divided Euphorbiaceae into six tribes viz., Euphorbieae, Peraceae, Picrodendraceae, Stilaginaceae and Uapacaceae. He Stenolobieae, Buxeae, Phyllantheae, Galearieae, and Crotoneae. doughtfully includes Aextoxicaceae in his order Celastrinae. They included some genera in their 'Formae Abnormes'. They Soo (1975) considered the Euphorbiaceae and Buxaceae as distinct employed the features especially of embryo, ovule, distinctiveness of families in the order Euphorbiales under his subclass Malvidae. He is flowers, etc. at tribal level. silent in regard to related families of Euphorbiales. Airy Shaw (1965, Bessey (1915) included the family Euphorbiaceae in his order 1975, 1980) segregated family Hymenocardiaceae, Bischofiaceae, Geraniales under subclass Strobiloideae. However, he referred the Picrodendraceae, Androstachydaceae distinct from the family Buxaceae, which is sometimes included in the family Euphorbiaceae. Euphorbiaceae, to his order Celastrales under his subclass Engler and Diels (1936) included the Euphorbiaceae in the order Cotyloideae. His Strobiloideae represents Ranalian line characterised Geraniales alongwith other 20 families. The family Buxaceae, is by vertical connations of like parts, whereas his Cotyloideae however, treated under their order Sapindales. The placement of represented by transverse adnation of unlike parts. Euphorbiaceae is based on the ovule pendulous with a ventral raphe Hutchinson (1959) included a single family Euphorbiaceae in his and the micropyle pointing upwards, or erect with dorsal raphe and order Euphorbiales. He regards the family heterogenous and derived micropyle pointing downwards. While the family Buxaceae is probably from several stocks viz., Bixales Tiliales, Malvales, referred under Sapindales on account of pendulous ovules with a Celastrales and Sapindales. He included Pandaceae and dorsal raphe and micropyle pointing upwards or erect with ventral Aextoxicaceae in his order Celastrales. He included Buxceae and raphe and micropyle pointing downwards. Wettstein (1935) placed Daphniphyllaceae in his order Hammamelidales. Likewise, he refers the family Euphorbiaceae in Reihe Tricoccae, while the Buxaceae is Dichapetalaceae and Chailletiaceae under order Rosales, whereas treated distinctly under the order Celastrales. He regarded Apetalae Picrodendraceae is kept under order Juglandales. of Euphorbiaceae as primitive. His Tricoccae are indicated as a Hutchinson (1969) includes only the family Euphorbiaceae in the connecting link between Amentiferae and Malvalean ancestry. order Euphorbiales. His Euphorbiaceae contains Tithymalaceae, However, this theory received a little support among subsequent Stilaginaceae, Antidesmadaceae, Putranjivaceae, Peraceae, * Corresponding Author, Email: [email protected] JES ISSN: 2218-1768 J Exp Sci Vol. 2, Issue 3, Pages 37-46 [2011] workers. Rendle’s order Tricoccae (1969) comprises families viz., shows anisocytic type of stomata. Metcalfe and Chalk (1950), Euphorbiaceae, Buxaceae and Callitrichaceae. He includes however, documented anomocytic stomata in this genus. Metcalfe Daphniphyllaceae as a tribe under the Euphorbiaceae. However, and Chalk (loc. cit.) described the stomata for the genus Buxus Simmondsiaceae is merged under the Buxaceae. He is silent in surrounded by rosettes of more or less clearly defined subsidiary regard to the taxonomic treatment of the family Dichapetalaceae, cells. Aextoxicaceae, Pandaceae, Picrodendraceae, etc. He divided family The observations made by present investigators and those Euphorbiaceae, after following Pax in the 'Pflanzen Familien', into documented above by the different authors indicate that no stomata two groups viz., Platylobeae and Stenolobeae. The former is is characteristic of the any tribe sensu Bentham and Hooker (1862 – characterised by broad cotyledons. He divided the former into two 1883) of the family Euphorbiaceae. Also their distribution, whether families e.g. Phyllanthoideae and Crotonoideae. He also divided later hypostomatic or epistomatic, is not tribe - characteristic. It is to be into two subfamilies Porantheroideae and Ricinocarpoideae. He noted that paracytic type is more or less common in the genera of emphasized aestivation of calyx, size of embryo, number of ovules the Phyllantheae as well as family Euphorbiaceae. The other types per locule, etc. for the tribal and subfamilial delineations. In his such as anomocytic, anisocytic and diacytic appear to have been opinion, the Buxaceae differs