journal article
LitStream Collection
The Evolution of the Inflorescence
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1914.tb00888.xpmid: N/A
Footnotes * A brief exposition of most of the -views expressed in this paper was given before the Botanical Section of the British Association at the Winnipeg Meeting (for Abstract see “The Annual Report,” 1909, p. 662). Since then the author has not seen reason to depart essentially from any of the views there given. * It might be more correct to write here, “Dicotyledons,” as this paper is almost wholly restricted to a consideration of the inflorescences of this group. The Monocotyledons in the author's opinion are an early offshoot from the Dicotyledons, much modified, and so of less use in studying the evolution of flower-grouping. * Linnæus, C., ‘Phil. Bot’, Stockholmiæ, p. 112, 1751. * Gray, Asa, ‘Structural Botany,’ 6th edit., London, p. 141, 1879. † Tieghem, P. E. L. van, ‘Traité de Botanique,’ 2nd edit., p. 342, 1891. † Bentham, G., ‘Handbook of the British Flora,’ 6th edit., by J. D. Hooker, p. xxii 1892. † Linnssus, C., Systema Naturæ, ed. 12, Tom. ii. Holmiæ, p. 16, 1767. † Brown, R., Trans. Linnean Soc., London, vol. xii. (1818) pp. 93–95. * Roeper, J., Mél. bot. de Seringe, No. 5, p. 71, 1826. † Guillard, A., Bull. Soc. Bot. France, iv. (1857) pp. 29–41. † Eichler, ‘Blüthendiagramme,’ pp. 33 & 34, 1875. † Celakovsky, L. J., “Gedanken über eine zeitgemasse Reform der Theorie der Blutenstande,” Bot. Jahrb. f. System (Engler), xvi. (1893) p. 33. * Hy, H. F., “Les Inflorescence en Botanique Descriptive,” Kev. Gén. de Bot. vi. (1894) p. 385. † Arber, E. A. N., “Relationships of the Indefinite Inflorescences,” Journ. Bot. xxxvii. (1899) p. 160. † Engler, A., ‘Syllabus dev Pflanzenfanrilien,’ 5th edit., 1907. † Church, A. H., ‘Types of Floral Mechanism,’ Oxford, 1908, pp. 10–13 & 182. * Ewart, A. J., ‘First Stage Botany,’ 2nd Edit. [The Organized Science Series], London 1907, p. 127. * Müller, W., “Beitrage zur Entwicklungsgeschiohte der Iuflorescenzen der Boragineen und Solaneen,” Flora, xciv, p. 385, 1905. * Pearson, H. H. W., “Notes on South African Cycads.—I.,” Trans. S. African Phil. Soc. xvi. (1906) p. 341. † Solms-Laubaeh, Graf zu, Bot. Zeit. xlviii. (1890) p. 177. * Arber & Parkin, “On the Origin of Angiosperms,” Journ. Linn. Soc, Bot. xxxviii. (1907) p. 37. † Sykes, M. G., “The Anatomy and Morphology of the Leaves and Inflorescences of Welvritschia mirabilis,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London. 1910; Thoday (Sykes) & Berridge, “The Anatomy and Morphology of the Inflorescences and Flowers of Ephedra” Ann. Bot. xxvi. 1912, p. 953. † Arber & Parkin, loc. cit. p. 62. † Arber & Parkin, “The Relationship of the Angiosperms to the Gnetales,” Annals of Botany, xxii. (1908) p. 489. * Kerner, A., ‘The Natural History of Plants,’ London, ed. F. W. Oliver, vol. i. (1894) pp. 640–641. † Tieghem, P. E. L. van, ‘Traité de Botanique,’ 2nd edit. 1891, p. 341. † Bentham, ‘Handbook of the British Flora,’ 6th edit., by J. U. Hooker, 1892, pp. xxii & xxiv. * That the arborescent habit has in general preceded the herbaceous in the course of evolution, is a view the writer has held for some time. * Church, A. H., ‘Types of Floral Mechanism,’ Oxford, 1908, pp. 10–13. * Groom, P., “Longitudinal Symmetry in Phanerogamia,” Phil. Trans. Eoy. Soc. London, vol. 200, B, p. 57, 1909. * It must not, however, be too readily assumed that all the self-supporting species are primitive; some may have become so through the loss of the climbing habit. * Cf. Campanula rapunculoides, p. 542. * The conclusions drawn and opinions expressed in this summary apply especially to the Dicotyledons; at, any rate the evidence is derived solely from these. Article PDF first page preview Close This content is only available as a PDF.