1965Annals of BotanyRequires access

Studies in the Lauraceae

R. L. N. SASTRI

Open publisher page 13 citations

Abstract

The morphological nature of the various parts of the lauraceous flower has been discussed on the basis of available evidence from floral anatomy and ontogeny. Evidence from floral anatomy supports the view that both whorls of perianth are homologous and that the inner whorl does not represent modified stamens. The perianth has not attained a level of differentiation into sepals and petals in a real sense. The lauraceous flower might have had staminal appendages in all the four whorls in the ancestral condition. The living genera represent varying degrees of reduction. These appendages are regarded as modified stamens. The stamens in the family cannot be considered as reduced branch systems. The androecium is interpreted as consisting of stamen fascicles. The two-trace carpel is common in the family. Evidence from ontogeny and vascular anatomy makes it improbable that the gynoecium consists of more than one carpel. The carpel is essentially of the conduplicate type.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The morphological nature of the various parts of the lauraceous flower has been discussed on the basis of available evidence from floral anatomy and ontogeny. Evidence from floral anatomy supports the view that both whorls of perianth are homologous and that the inner whorl does not represent modified stamens. The perianth has not attained a level of differentiation into sepals and petals in a real sense. The lauraceous flower might have had staminal appendages in all the four whorls in the ancestral condition. The living genera represent varying degrees of reduction. These appendages are regarded as modified stamens. The stamens in the family cannot be considered as reduced branch systems. The androecium is interpreted as consisting of stamen fascicles. The two-trace carpel is common in the family. Evidence from ontogeny and vascular anatomy makes it improbable that the gynoecium consists of more than one carpel. The carpel is essentially of the conduplicate type.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The morphological nature of the various parts of the lauraceous flower has been discussed on the basis of available evidence from floral anatomy and ontogeny. Evidence from floral anatomy supports the view that both whorls of perianth are homologous and that the inner whorl does not represent modified stamens. The perianth has not attained a level of differentiation into sepals and petals in a real sense. The lauraceous flower might have had staminal appendages in all the four whorls in the ancestral condition. The living genera represent varying degrees of reduction. These appendages are regarded as modified stamens. The stamens in the family cannot be considered as reduced branch systems. The androecium is interpreted as consisting of stamen fascicles. The two-trace carpel is common in the family. Evidence from ontogeny and vascular anatomy makes it improbable that the gynoecium consists of more than one carpel. The carpel is essentially of the conduplicate type.

Key concepts: Perianth, Gynoecium, Biology, Sepal, Appendage, Stamen, Petal, Whorl (mollusc)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Studies in the Lauraceae — Research Paper | ScholarLens