Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 I I 73-26,852
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a Ibrge sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 I I 73-26,852 KEIL, David John, 19M-6- A RE-EVALUATION OF PECTIS L. SUBGENUS PECTIDOPSIS (DC.) FERNALD (COMPOSITAE: PECTIDINAE). The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 Botany University Microfilms, A XEROX, Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © 1973 DAVID JOHN KEIL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A RE-EVALUATION OF PECTIS L. SUBGENUS PECTIDOPSIS (DC.) FERNALD (COMPOSITAE: PECTIDINAE) A DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by DAVID JOHN KEIL, B.Sc., M.Sc. ************* The Ohio State University 1973 Reading Committee: Approved by Ronald L. Stuckey John A. Schmitt Tod F. Stuessy ACKNOWLE DGMENTS This study could not have been completed without the cooperation and encouragement of many individuals. I wish to acknowledge their support at this time. Dr. Tod F. Stuessy, my advisor, has given support, encouragement and thoughtful criticisms throughout the course of this study. I gratefully acknowledge the guidance and direction that he has so willingly given for my work. The advise and encouragement of two other faculty members have been of great value during my studies. Dr. Ronald L. Stuckey has been a willing source of advice, support and criticism whenever needed. Dr. John Schmitt has given his support and cooperation in many ways. Additionally, I wish to thank the various other faculty members who have given me their time and help in various matters, big and small: Drs. Dennis M. Anderson, Morris G. Cline, H. P. Hostetter, Elton F. Paddock, Richard A. Popham, Charles H. Racine, Emanuel D. Rudolph, Roland L. Seymour, Carrol A. Swanson, Clarence E. Taft and Clara G. Weishaupt. I wish to gratefully thank my former advisor, Dr. Donald J. Pinkava, whose lasting support and encourage ment have greatly aided me in the pursuit of my studies. ii My two collecting partners on my Mexican field trip deserve special recognition. Without the assistance of Miss Judith M. Canne and Mr. Lyle A. McGill, this trip could not have been the success that it was. Numerous other fellow graduate students are deserving of my thanks: Messrs. Steven Buttrick, Robert Gardner, Robert Haynes, Robert Kalinsky, Jan Mikesell and Ronald Mossman have provided help in various ways during the course of my investigations. Additionally, the past and present assistant curators of the herbarium, Mr. Alan Wentz and Mr. Marvin Roberts, who have helped to make my time at Ohio State a success. I particularly want to acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (Grant GB-30240) in providing funds for the field studies which have so greatly aided me in the pursuit of my investigation. Finally, X gratefully thank the curators of all the herbaria which have so generously made their collections available to me on loan for my examination: A Arnold Arboretom, Harvard University ARIZ University of Arizona ASC Northern Arizona University ASU Arizona State University CAS California Academy of Sciences DES Desert Botanical Garden, Phoenix DS Dudley Herbarium, Stanford University DUKE Duke University ENCB Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biologicas, Mexico, D. F. F Field Museum FSU Florida State University GH Gray Herbarium, Harvard University K Kew Garden KANU University of Kansas KSC Kansas State University L Rijksherbarium, Leiden, Netherlands LL Lundell Herbarium, University of Texas MA Instituto Jose^ Cavanilles, Madrid MICH University of Michigan MO Missouri Botanical Garden ND Nieuwland Herbarium, Notre Dame University ND-G Greene Herbarium, Notre Dame University NMC New Mexico State University NY New York Botanical Garden PH Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia POM Pomona College RSA Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden iv SD San Diego Museum of Natural History SMU Southern Methodist University TEX University of Texas TRIN Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland TTC Texas Tech University UC University of California UNM University of New Mexico US United States National Herbarium WIS University of Wisconsin V VITA David John Keil was born on December 13, 1946 in Elmhurst, Illinois. He is the third of six children of John B. Keil and Clara E. Keil. He received his elementary education from the Villa Park, Illinois public school system and graduated from Willowbrook High School, Villa Park, Illinois, in 1964. He received his undergraduate education at Arizona State University, majoring in botany, and in 1968 he graduated with distinction with the degree, Bachelor of Science. At the same time he received a commission as a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserves. Continu ing his education at Arizona State University, Mr. Keil received his Master of Science degree in botany in 1970 with the thesis: "Vegetation and Flora of the White Tank Mountains Regional Park, Maricopa County, Arizona." In 1971, after a brief tour of military duty, he resumed his education at The Ohio State University as an N. D. E. A. Title IV Fellow in Botany. For the past year he has served as a graduate teaching associate in botany at The Ohio State University. He is not married. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................. ii VITA ............................................. Vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ................................... x LIST OF FIGURES .................................. xi INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 TAXONOMIC HISTORY ................................ 2 Generic History of Pectis ..................... 2 History of Subgenus Pectidopsis ............... 4 RE-EVALUATION OF INFRAGENERIC BOUNDARIES ......... 5 TAXONOMIC CHARACTERS ............................. 9 Habit ......................................... 10 Leaves ........................................ 10 Inflorescence ..... n Involucre ............................. 11 Receptacle .................................... 12 Ray Florets ................................... 12 Disc Florets .................................. 13 Anthers ....................................... 14 Style Branches ................................ 14 Achenes ....................................... 14 Pappus ........................................ 14 Odor .......................................... 15 vii CHROMOSOME STUDIES ............................... 17 Methods ....................................... 17 Results ....................................... 17 Discussion .................................... 23 EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS ....................... 31 TAXONOMIC PHILOSOPHY ............................. 38 TAXONOMIC SECTION ................................ 42 Key to the Taxa ............................... 44 Section Pectothrix.................... 50 Pectis stenophylla ......................... 52 Pectis rusbyi .............................. 67 Pectis papposa ............................. 74 Pectis angustifolia ........................ 88 Pectis pringlei ........................... 108 Pectis incisifolia ........................ 115 Pectis filipes................ 118 Pectis vollmeri ........................... 129 Section Agloneta .............................. 132 Pectis linearis ........................... 133 Pectis uniaristata ........................ 149 Pectis diffusa ............................ 167 Pectis berlandieri ........................ 173 Pectis elongata ........................... 176 Pectis gardneri ........................... 194 viii EXCLUDED AND DOUBTFUL T A X A ...................... 196 LITERATURE CITED ................................ 197 ix LIST OF TABLES Table no.