Premium
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PRIMARY VASCULAR SYSTEM OF CONIFERS. III. STELAR EVOLUTION IN GYMNOSPERMS
Author(s) -
Namboodiri Kadambari K.,
Beck Charles B.
Publication year - 1968
Publication title -
american journal of botany
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.218
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1537-2197
pISSN - 0002-9122
DOI - 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1968.tb07400.x
Subject(s) - biology , vascular bundle , botany , gymnosperm , xylem , extant taxon , fern , stele , divergence (linguistics) , evolutionary biology , linguistics , philosophy
This paper includes a survey of the nature of the primary vascular system in a large number of extinct gymnosperms and progymnosperms. The vascular system of a majority of these plants resembles closely that of living conifers, being characterized, except in the most primitive forms which are protostelic, by a eustele consisting of axial sympodial bundles from which leaf traces diverge. The vascular supply to a leaf originates as a single trace with very few exceptions. It is proposed that the eustele in the gymnosperms has evolved directly from the protostele by gradual medullation and concurrent separation of the peripheral conducting tissue into longitudinal sympodial bundles from which traces diverge radially. A subsequent modification results in divergence of traces in a tangential plane. The closed vascular system of conifers with opposite and whorled phyllotaxis, in which the vascular supply to a leaf originates as two traces which subsequently fuse, is considered to be derived from the open sympodial system characteristic of most gymnosperms. This hypothesis of stelar evolution is at variance with that of Jeffrey which suggests that the eustele of seed plants is derived by the lengthening and overlapping of leaf gaps in a siphonostele followed by further reduction in the resultant vascular bundles. This study suggests strongly that the “leaf gap” of conifers and other extant gymnosperms is not homologous with that of siphonostelic ferns and strengthens the validity of the view that Pterop‐sida is an unnatural group. It supports the position that gymnosperms have evolved from progymnosperms rather than from ferns, and the inclusion of ferns and gymnosperms in separate subdivisions or divisions.