DOCSLIB.ORG

History of Angiosperm Classification Artificial System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
History of Angiosperm Classification Artificial System An amazing diversity and number of types of organisms are present on earth. Taxonomy is the field of biology that deals with these organisms to classify this diversity. History of Angiosperm Classification Many systems of classification of plants have been proposed by various philosophers, herbalists and botanists based on different criteria, • Artificial System These systems of classification were based on one or few morphological characters. Many botanists used this system and classified angiosperms into different classes. Few of these botanists are a. Theophrastus (370 -285 B.C.) a Greek botanist, known as the father of botany considered habit as an essential character. And classified plants into four groups on the basis of their habits and separated according to flowering and non-flowering. ● herbs ● subshrubs ● shrubs ● trees b. Albertus Magnus (1200-1280 A.D.) produced a classification system that recognized for the first-time monocots and dicots. c. Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) was an 18th century Swedish botanist and physician. He classified plants and animals according to similarities in form and divided living things into two main kingdoms namely plant and animal kingdoms. He named the plants and animals in Latin or used latinised names in his books Species Plantarum (1753) and Systema Naturae (1758). The ​ two-kingdom classification system devised by Linnaeus is not used today. However, one of Linnaeus more appreciable systems was the system of naming organisms called binomial nomenclature. This Swedish taxonomist known as father of taxonomy, created a sexual system of classification that divided plants into 24 classes based in large part on the number, union, and length of stamens. Secondary grouping with these classes (Order) was based on the gynoecium mostly the number of styles. While the artificial approach allowed quick sorting and identification, its application produced 'unnatural' groupings. The next step along the path of systematizing flowering plants involved an effort, which progressed through the 1700s and first half of the 19th century to employ as many characters as needed to ensure that natural patterns of variation were reflected by the classification system. • Natural system Michel Adanson was the first scientist to reject all the artificial systems and support the natural systems of classification. These systems the plants were classified on the basis of their natural affinities (i.e. the basic similarities in the morphology) rather than on a character for determining the affinities. Compared to the artificial systems, it was based on the proper utilization of all facts and figures available in nature. In this system, the plants were grouped and placed into different taxa like classes, orders, families, and genera. A large number of morphological characters were taken into consideration, in the natural systems of classification . A natural system of classification is based on overall resemblances. It was recognized that many plants that look alike share suites of morphological features (leaves, flowers, fruits) and, therefore, should be grouped together. Because, these similarities indicate their relationships. On the other hand, differences or dissimilarities of characters are used for separating the plant groups from each other. Plant groups with greater differences are considered to be unrelated or distantly related. The main demerit of this system was that the classification was not based on evolutionary relationships. Different families had been placed in specific groups which do not show any evolutionary relationships. a. The most important natural system of classification of seed plants was proposed by two British botanists, George Bentham (1800-1884) and Sir Joseph D. Hooker (1817-1911), in Genera Plantarum (1862-1883), recognized 97,205 species belonging to 7,569 genera of families of flowering plants. b. August Wilhelm Eichler, (1839- 1887) was a German botanist that modified former systems to reflect a better relationship between plants. The plant kingdom was Eichler System is the first one in which the concept of Evolution was accepted and divided into non-seed (Cryptogamae) and seed plants (Phanerogamae) by him. therefore it was also the first one to be considered phylogenetic. Moreover Eichler was the first taxonomist to separate Phanerogamae in Angiosperms and Gymnosperms and the former in Monocotyledonae and Dicotyledonae. • Phylogenetic system These classification systems came up after Darwin’s theory of evolution was proposed and widely accepted. This system is based on evolutionary sequence as well as genetic relationships among different groups of plants. In addition to this, it employs as many taxonomic characters as possible. a. Concepts of natural selection and lineage relationships present in Origin of Species, published in 1859 by Charles Darwin had given enough stimulus for the creation of phylogenetic system of classification. b. Adolf Engler (1844-1930) and Karl Prantl (1849-1893) were two German botanists who published their work in the form of a book called Die Naturalichen Pflanzenfamilien, (The Natural Plant families) a work that appeared in 23 volumes during 1887-99. It is an evolutionary system proposed subsequent to the acceptance of Darwins Theory of evolution, based on the assumption that the flowering plants where perianth is absent are evolutionary primitive. American and European scientists were adopted Engler and Prantl’s system but not British scientists. These were following Bentham and Hooder’s system in the light of modifications produced by Bessey. It is based on Eicher’s system. Families and orders arranged based on the complexity of floral morphology. Characters like a perianth with one whorl, unisexual flowers and pollination by wind were considered primitive as compared to perianth with two whorls, bisexual flowers and pollination by insects. They dealt with the primitive groups as well. It is in line with Adolphe-Théodore Brongniart's 1843 work. The Plant Kingdom is divided into 14 major divisions. The first 13 divisions cover algae, fungi, bryophytes and pteridophytes. The 14th division is named Embryophyta Siphonogama. It is divided into two subdivisions : Gymnospermae (Cycads and Conifers) and Angiospermae (flowering plants). c. Charles Edwin Bessey (1845-1915), American, published The Phylogenetic Taxonomy of Flowering Plants (1915), Charles Edwin Bessey (1845-1915) made his Bessey system, with focus on the evolutionary divergence of primitive forms. The systems based on various 28 guiding rules, or “dicta”, to determine level of being, simple or advanced, of a group of plants. It is considered by many as the system most likely to form the basis of a modern, comprehensive taxonomy of the plant kingdom. Here, he considered Spermatophyta as having had polyphyletic origin, being composed by three different phyla, of which he treated only Anthophyta. Full in line with Richard Wettstein ideas. d. John Hutchinson (1884-1972), Families of Flowering Plants, Genera of Flowering Plants:-John Hutchinson proposed a radical revision of the angiosperm classification system devised by Hooker and by Engler and Prantl that had become widely accepted during the 20th century. At its simplest, his system suggested two main divisions of angiosperms, herbaceous and woody. Modern Systems of Classification Phylogeny, Cladistics & Cladogram Modern taxonomy is based on many hypotheses' of the evolutionary history of organisms, known as phylogeny. As with the Scientific Method, scientists develop a hypothesis on the history of an animal and utilise modern science and technology to prove the phylogeny. Cladistics is a classification system which is based on phylogeny. Expanding on phylogeny, cladistics is based on the assumption that each group of related species has one common ancestor and would therefore retain some ancestral characteristics. Moreover, as these related species evolve and diverge from their common ancestor, they would develop unique characteristics. Such characteristics are known as derived characteristics The principles of phylogeny and cladistics can be expressed visually as a cladogram, a branching diagram which acts as a family (phylogenetic) tree for similar species. A cladogram can also be used to test alternative hypotheses for an animal's phylogeny. In order to determine the most likely cladogram, the derived characteristics of similar species are matched and analysed. Cronquist (1981, 1988) used 3 major superfamilial ranks within Magnoliophyta, the flowering plants : class, subclass, and order. In his system, the dicotyledons were placed in Magnoliopsida, the monocotyledons in Liliopsida. Within Magnoliopsida, he distinguished 6 subclasses and 64 orders; in Liliopsida, 5 subclasses and 19 orders. A total of 389 families were accepted, 323 of them dicots and 66 monocots. A.L. Takhtajan (1987) used 4 major superfamilial ranks: class, subclass, superorder, and order. Eight subclasses of dicotyledons were distinguished and 4 among the monocots. Within the dicots, Takhtajan accepted 36 superorders, 128 orders, and 429 families; within the monocots, he had 16 superorders, 36 orders, and 104 families. Recently Takhtajan (1993) has acepted 450 dicot families arranged among 145 orders, 45 superorders, and 10 subclasses. R.F. Thorne (1992) currently recognizes 437 families (351 dicots) distributed among 28 superorders (19 dicots) and 71 orders (52 dicots). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group system A new formal code of nomenclature is the PhyloCode (1988),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter-3 Plant Kingdom 1. the System of Plant Classification
    NEET Questions- Chapter-3 Plant Kingdom 1. The system of plant classification proposed by Carolus Linnaeus was artificial because a) It was based on evolutionary relationship of plants b) It was based on similarities and differences in floral and other morphological characters only c) It took into account the physiological facts along with the morphological characters d) None of the above 2. Linnaeus is credited with introducing a) The concept of inheritance b) Law of limiting factor c) Theory of heredity d) Binomial nomenclature 3. Out of the 4 widely known systems of classification one remains less phylogenetic and more natural and that is of a) Engler and Prantl b) Hutchinson c) Bentham and Hooker d) Rendle 4. The chief merit of Bentham and Hookers classification is that a) it is a natural system of classification of all group of plants b) a system based on evolutionary concept c) it also considered the phylogenetic aspect d) The description of taxa are based on actual examination of the specimens 5. ‘SystemaNaturae’ written by Linnaeus contains a list of a) 4000 species of plants b) 2000 species of plants c) 4200 species of plants d) 4200 species of animals 6. Natural system of classification of plants differs from artificial system of classification in a) taking into account only one vegetative character b) taking into account only one floral character c) taking into account all the similarities between plants d) all of these 7. One of the best methods for understanding general relationships of plants is a) Cytotaxonomy b) Experimental Taxonomy c) Numerical Taxonomy d) Chemotaxonomy 8.
    [Show full text]
  • A Note on Host Diversity of Criconemaspp
    280 Pantnagar Journal of Research [Vol. 17(3), September-December, 2019] Short Communication A note on host diversity of Criconema spp. Y.S. RATHORE ICAR- Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur- 208 024 (U.P.) Key words: Criconema, host diversity, host range, Nematode Nematode species of the genus Criconema (Tylenchida: showed preference over monocots. Superrosids and Criconemitidae) are widely distributed and parasitize Superasterids were represented by a few host plants only. many plant species from very primitive orders to However, Magnoliids and Gymnosperms substantially advanced ones. They are migratory ectoparasites and feed contributed in the host range of this nematode species. on root tips or along more mature roots. Reports like Though Rosids revealed greater preference over Asterids, Rathore and Ali (2014) and Rathore (2017) reveal that the percent host families and orders were similar in number most nematode species prefer feeding on plants of certain as reflected by similar SAI values. The SAI value was taxonomic group (s). In the present study an attempt has slightly higher for monocots that indicate stronger affinity. been made to precisely trace the host plant affinity of The same was higher for gymnosperms (0.467) in twenty-five Criconema species feeding on diverse plant comparison to Magnolids (0.413) (Table 1). species. Host species of various Criconema species Perusal of taxonomic position of host species in Table 2 reported by Nemaplex (2018) and others in literature were revealed that 68 % of Criconema spp. were monophagous aligned with families and orders following the modern and strictly fed on one host species. Of these, 20 % from system of classification, i.e., APG IV system (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • A Visual Guide to Collecting Plant Tissues for DNA
    A visual guide to collecting plant tissues for DNA Collecting kit checklist Silica gel1 Permanent marker and pencil Resealable bags, airtight plastic container Razor blade / Surgical scissors Empty tea bags or coffee filters Ethanol and paper tissue or ethanol wipes Tags or jewellers tags Plant press and collecting book 1. Selection and preparation of fresh plant tissue: Sampling avoided. Breaking up leaf material will bruise the plant tissue, which will result in enzymes being released From a single plant, harvest 3 – 5 mature leaves, or that cause DNA degradation. Ideally, leaf material sample a piece of a leaf, if large (Picture A). Ideally should be cut into smaller fragments with thick a leaf area of 5 – 10 cm2 should be enough, but this midribs being removed (Picture C). If sampling robust amount should be adjusted if the plant material is leaf tissue (e.g. cycads, palms), use a razor blade or rich in water (e.g. a succulent plant). If leaves are surgical scissors (Picture D). small (e.g. ericoid leaves), sample enough material to equate a leaf area of 5 – 10 cm2. If no leaves are Succulent plants available, other parts can be sampled such as leaf buds, flowers, bracts, seeds or even fresh bark. If the If the leaves are succulent, use a razor blade to plant is small, select the biggest specimen, but never remove epidermal slices or scoop out parenchyma combine tissues from different individuals. tissue (Picture E). Cleaning Ideally, collect clean fresh tissues, however if the leaf or plant material is dirty or shows potential contamination (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History Mediates the Trade-Offs Among Different Components Of
    1 Life history mediates the trade-offs among different components 2 of demographic resilience 3 4 Authors: Pol Capdevila1,2*, Iain Stott3, James Cant4, Maria Beger4,5, Gwilym 5 Rowlands1, Molly Grace1, Roberto Salguero-Gómez1,5,6 6 1Zoology Department, Oxford University, Zoology Research and Administration Building, 11a 7 Mansfield Rd, Oxford OX1 3SZ, UK 8 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Ave, BS8 1TQ, Bristol, UK 9 3School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK 10 4School of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, UK, LS2 9JT 11 5Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of 12 Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia 13 6Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Konrad Zuse Straße 1, Rostock 18057, Germany 14 *Corresponding author: [email protected] 1 15 Table S1. Taxonomic summary of the matrix population models used in our 16 analyses. N sp represents the number of species and N pop the number of 17 populations. Kingdom Class Order N sp N pop Perciformes 3 3 Actinopterygii Siluriformes 1 1 Elasmobranchii Lamniformes 1 2 Accipitriformes 5 9 Anseriformes 1 3 Charadriiformes 3 6 Falconiformes 1 2 Galliformes 1 1 Aves Gruiformes 1 1 Passeriformes 1 1 Pelecaniformes 1 1 Procellariiformes 2 2 Animalia Psittaciformes 2 3 Strigiformes 1 1 Artiodactyla 5 43 Carnivora 12 24 Chiroptera 1 1 Mammalia Diprotodontia 1 1 Primates 9 14 Proboscidea 1 1 Rodentia 4 5 Crocodylia 1 1 Reptilia Squamata 1 3 Testudines 8 19 Alismatales 1 1 Asparagales 5 18 Dioscoreales 1 1 Liliopsida Liliales 14 72 Poales 7 19 Zingiberales 2 6 Apiales 7 20 Plantae Asterales 20 44 Brassicales 10 34 Caryophyllales 33 84 Magnoliopsida Cornales 1 1 Dipsacales 2 6 Ericales 11 60 Fabales 12 70 2 Fagales 4 31 Gentianales 3 4 Geraniales 2 8 Lamiales 11 45 Magnoliales 1 1 Malpighiales 10 23 Malvales 4 8 Myrtales 3 12 Proteales 1 2 Ranunculales 11 31 Rosales 4 7 Sapindales 4 4 Saxifragales 1 1 Solanales 2 2 Pinopsida Pinales 4 6 18 3 19 Table S2.
    [Show full text]
  • Systematics of Flowering Plants
    BIOL 449/ES 425 – FLOWERING PLANT DIVERSITY LECTURE OUTLINE SPRING 2019 TWF 9:30 CUNNINGHAM 146 Course Instructor: G. A. Allen office: Cunningham 218b Lab Instructor: Rande Kanne office: Cunningham 210 Lecture Date Lecture 1. Jan 8 An introduction to flowering plants 2. Jan 9 Angiosperm structure and variation: Flowers 3. Jan 11 Flowers (cont’d) 4. Jan 15 Fruits 5. Jan 16 Inflorescences; vegetative structures 6. Jan 18 Vegetative structures (cont’d) 7. Jan 22 A brief history of angiosperm classifications 8. Jan 23 Nomenclature 9. Jan 25 Keys, ID and herbaria 10. Jan 29 Defining and describing species 11. Jan 30 The hierarchy of classification: phylogenetic methods 12. Feb 1 Molecular evidence in plant systematics 13. Feb 5 Angiosperm groups: overview, ANA lineages, Magnoliids 14. Feb 6 Monocots I 15. Feb 8 Monocots II 16. Feb 12 Monocots III 17. Feb 13 Guest lecture 18. Feb 15 Basal Eudicots Feb 18-22 READING BREAK Feb 26 MIDTERM EXAM 19. Feb 27 Superrosids I 20. Mar 1 Superrosids II 21. Mar 5 Superrosids III 22. Mar 6 Guest lecture 23. Mar 8 Superasterids: Caryophyllales I 24. Mar 12 Superasterids: Caryophyllales II 25. Mar 13 Superasterids: Asterids I 26. Mar 15 Superasterids: Asterids II 27. Mar 19 Superasterids: Asterids III 28. Mar 20 Plant reproductive modes and breeding systems 29. Mar 22 Pollinators and pollination adaptations 30. Mar 26 Plant polyploidy & hybridization I 31. Mar 27 Plant polyploidy & hybridization II 32. Mar 29 Plant biogeography 33. Apr 2 Guest lecture 34. Apr 3 Plant conservation 35. Apr 5 Plant chemistry; course review LABORATORY The labs will introduce you to flowering plant diversity (variation in flowers and vegetative structures), the use of keys, and many plant families of this region.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary History of Floral Key Innovations in Angiosperms Elisabeth Reyes
    Evolutionary history of floral key innovations in angiosperms Elisabeth Reyes To cite this version: Elisabeth Reyes. Evolutionary history of floral key innovations in angiosperms. Botanics. Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), 2016. English. NNT : 2016SACLS489. tel-01443353 HAL Id: tel-01443353 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01443353 Submitted on 23 Jan 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. NNT : 2016SACLS489 THESE DE DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITE PARIS-SACLAY, préparée à l’Université Paris-Sud ÉCOLE DOCTORALE N° 567 Sciences du Végétal : du Gène à l’Ecosystème Spécialité de Doctorat : Biologie Par Mme Elisabeth Reyes Evolutionary history of floral key innovations in angiosperms Thèse présentée et soutenue à Orsay, le 13 décembre 2016 : Composition du Jury : M. Ronse de Craene, Louis Directeur de recherche aux Jardins Rapporteur Botaniques Royaux d’Édimbourg M. Forest, Félix Directeur de recherche aux Jardins Rapporteur Botaniques Royaux de Kew Mme. Damerval, Catherine Directrice de recherche au Moulon Président du jury M. Lowry, Porter Curateur en chef aux Jardins Examinateur Botaniques du Missouri M. Haevermans, Thomas Maître de conférences au MNHN Examinateur Mme. Nadot, Sophie Professeur à l’Université Paris-Sud Directeur de thèse M.
    [Show full text]
  • Full of Beans: a Study on the Alignment of Two Flowering Plants Classification Systems
    Full of beans: a study on the alignment of two flowering plants classification systems Yi-Yun Cheng and Bertram Ludäscher School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA {yiyunyc2,ludaesch}@illinois.edu Abstract. Advancements in technologies such as DNA analysis have given rise to new ways in organizing organisms in biodiversity classification systems. In this paper, we examine the feasibility of aligning two classification systems for flowering plants using a logic-based, Region Connection Calculus (RCC-5) ap- proach. The older “Cronquist system” (1981) classifies plants using their mor- phological features, while the more recent Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV (APG IV) (2016) system classifies based on many new methods including ge- nome-level analysis. In our approach, we align pairwise concepts X and Y from two taxonomies using five basic set relations: congruence (X=Y), inclusion (X>Y), inverse inclusion (X<Y), overlap (X><Y), and disjointness (X!Y). With some of the RCC-5 relationships among the Fabaceae family (beans family) and the Sapindaceae family (maple family) uncertain, we anticipate that the merging of the two classification systems will lead to numerous merged solutions, so- called possible worlds. Our research demonstrates how logic-based alignment with ambiguities can lead to multiple merged solutions, which would not have been feasible when aligning taxonomies, classifications, or other knowledge or- ganization systems (KOS) manually. We believe that this work can introduce a novel approach for aligning KOS, where merged possible worlds can serve as a minimum viable product for engaging domain experts in the loop. Keywords: taxonomy alignment, KOS alignment, interoperability 1 Introduction With the advent of large-scale technologies and datasets, it has become increasingly difficult to organize information using a stable unitary classification scheme over time.
    [Show full text]
  • (Monocot): the Story of a Gene Family Expansion Alberto Cenci, Nathalie Chantret, Mathieu Rouard
    Glycosyltransferase Family 61 in Liliopsida (Monocot): The Story of a Gene Family Expansion Alberto Cenci, Nathalie Chantret, Mathieu Rouard To cite this version: Alberto Cenci, Nathalie Chantret, Mathieu Rouard. Glycosyltransferase Family 61 in Liliopsida (Monocot): The Story of a Gene Family Expansion. Frontiers in Plant Science, Frontiers, 2018, 9, 10.3389/fpls.2018.01843. hal-02621636 HAL Id: hal-02621636 https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02621636 Submitted on 26 May 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License fpls-09-01843 December 8, 2018 Time: 15:6 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 11 December 2018 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01843 Glycosyltransferase Family 61 in Liliopsida (Monocot): The Story of a Gene Family Expansion Alberto Cenci1*, Nathalie Chantret2 and Mathieu Rouard1 1 Bioversity International, Parc Scientifique Agropolis II, Montpellier, France, 2 AGAP, INRA, CIRAD, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France Plant cell walls play a fundamental role in several plant traits and also influence crop use as livestock nutrition or biofuel production. The Glycosyltransferase family 61 (GT61) is involved in the synthesis of cell wall xylans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Botanical Exploration of Angola by Germans During the 19Th and 20Th Centuries, with Biographical Sketches and Notes on Collections and Herbaria
    Blumea 65, 2020: 126–161 www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nhn/blumea RESEARCH ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.02.06 The botanical exploration of Angola by Germans during the 19th and 20th centuries, with biographical sketches and notes on collections and herbaria E. Figueiredo1, *, G.F. Smith1, S. Dressler 2 Key words Abstract A catalogue of 29 German individuals who were active in the botanical exploration of Angola during the 19th and 20th centuries is presented. One of these is likely of Swiss nationality but with significant links to German Angola settlers in Angola. The catalogue includes information on the places of collecting activity, dates on which locations botanical exploration were visited, the whereabouts of preserved exsiccata, maps with itineraries, and biographical information on the German explorers collectors. Initial botanical exploration in Angola by Germans was linked to efforts to establish and expand Germany’s plant collections colonies in Africa. Later exploration followed after some Germans had settled in the country. However, Angola was never under German control. The most intense period of German collecting activity in this south-tropical African country took place from the early-1870s to 1900. Twenty-four Germans collected plant specimens in Angola for deposition in herbaria in continental Europe, mostly in Germany. Five other naturalists or explorers were active in Angola but collections have not been located under their names or were made by someone else. A further three col- lectors, who are sometimes cited as having collected material in Angola but did not do so, are also briefly discussed. Citation: Figueiredo E, Smith GF, Dressler S.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity in Host Preference of Rotylenchus Spp. Y.S
    International Journal of Science, Environment ISSN 2278-3687 (O) and Technology, Vol. 7, No 5, 2018, 1786 – 1793 2277-663X (P) DIVERSITY IN HOST PREFERENCE OF ROTYLENCHUS SPP. Y.S. Rathore Principal Scientist (Retd.), Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur -208024 (U.P.) E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Species of the genus Rotylenchus are ecto- or semi-endo parasites and feed on roots of their host plants. In the study it was found that 50% species of Rotylenchus were monophagous and mostly on plants in the clade Rosids followed by monocots, Asterids and gymnosperms. In general, Rosids and Asterids combined parasitized more than 50% host species followed by monocots. Though food preference was species specific but by and large woody plants were preferred from very primitive families like Magnoliaceae and Lauraceae to representatives of advanced families. Woody plants like pines and others made a substantial contribution in the host range of Rotylenchus. Maximum number of Rotylenchus species harboured plants in families Poaceae (monocots), Rosaceae (Rosids) and Oleaceae (Asterids) followed by Fabaceae, Fagaceae, Asteraceae and Pinaceae. It is, therefore, suggested that agricultural crops should be grown far away from wild vegetation and forest plantations. Keywords: Rotylenchus, Magnoliids, Rosids, Asterids, Gymnosperms, Host preference. INTRODUCTION Species of the genus Rotylenchus (Nematoda: Haplolaimidae) are migratory ectoparasites and browse on the surface of roots. The damage caused by them is usually limited to necrosis of penetrated cells (1). However, species with longer stylet penetrate to tissues more deeply and killing more cells and called as semi-endoparasites (2,3). The genus contains 97 nominal species which parasitize on a wide range of wild and cultivated plants worldwide (3).
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species List
    Effective April 15, 2009 - List is subject to revision For a complete list of Tennessee's Rare and Endangered Species, visit the Natural Areas website at http://tennessee.gov/environment/na/ Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals with Protected Status State Federal Type Class Order Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habit Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander T Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus cymatilis A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus deweesae Valley Flame Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus extraneus Chickamauga Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus obeyensis Obey Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus pristinus A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus williami "Brawley's Fork Crayfish" E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Fallicambarus hortoni Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes incomptus Tennessee Cave Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish E LE Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes wrighti A Crayfish E Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Shield Fern T Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris cristata Crested Shield-Fern T FACW, OBL, Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Trichomanes boschianum
    [Show full text]
  • History and Current Status of Systematic Research with Araceae
    HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH WITH ARACEAE Thomas B. Croat Missouri Botanical Garden P. O. Box 299 St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A. Note: This paper, originally published in Aroideana Vol. 21, pp. 26–145 in 1998, is periodically updated onto the IAS web page with current additions. Any mistakes, proposed changes, or new publications that deal with the systematics of Araceae should be brought to my attention. Mail to me at the address listed above, or e-mail me at [email protected]. Last revised November 2004 INTRODUCTION The history of systematic work with Araceae has been previously covered by Nicolson (1987b), and was the subject of a chapter in the Genera of Araceae by Mayo, Bogner & Boyce (1997) and in Curtis's Botanical Magazine new series (Mayo et al., 1995). In addition to covering many of the principal players in the field of aroid research, Nicolson's paper dealt with the evolution of family concepts and gave a comparison of the then current modern systems of classification. The papers by Mayo, Bogner and Boyce were more comprehensive in scope than that of Nicolson, but still did not cover in great detail many of the participants in Araceae research. In contrast, this paper will cover all systematic and floristic work that deals with Araceae, which is known to me. It will not, in general, deal with agronomic papers on Araceae such as the rich literature on taro and its cultivation, nor will it deal with smaller papers of a technical nature or those dealing with pollination biology.
    [Show full text]