Skip Navigation

Journal of Experimental Botany 2006 57(13):3471-3503; doi:10.1093/jxb/erl128
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bateman, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rudall, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bateman, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rudall, P. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Bateman, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rudall, P. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology]. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Evolution of Flowers and Inflorescences

Morphological and molecular phylogenetic context of the angiosperms: contrasting the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches used to infer the likely characteristics of the first flowers

Richard M. Bateman1,*, Jason Hilton2 and Paula J. Rudall1

1Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, UK
2School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: r.bateman{at}rbgkew.org.uk

Recent attempts to address the long-debated ‘origin’ of the angiosperms depend on a phylogenetic framework derived from a matrix of taxa versus characters; most assume that empirical rigour is proportional to the size of the matrix. Sequence-based genotypic approaches increase the number of characters (nucleotides and indels) in the matrix but are confined to the highly restricted spectrum of extant species, whereas morphology-based approaches increase the number of phylogenetically informative taxa (including fossils) at the expense of accessing only a restricted spectrum of phenotypic characters. The two approaches are currently delivering strongly contrasting hypotheses of relationship. Most molecular studies indicate that all extant gymnosperms form a natural group, suggesting surprisingly early divergence of the lineage that led to angiosperms, whereas morphology-only phylogenies indicate that a succession of (mostly extinct) gymnosperms preceded a later angiosperm origin. Causes of this conflict include: (i) the vast phenotypic and genotypic lacuna, largely reflecting pre-Cenozoic extinctions, that separates early-divergent living angiosperms from their closest relatives among the living gymnosperms; (ii) profound uncertainty regarding which (a) extant and (b) extinct angiosperms are most closely related to gymnosperms; and (iii) profound uncertainty regarding which (a) extant and (b) extinct gymnosperms are most closely related to angiosperms, and thus best serve as ‘outgroups’ dictating the perceived evolutionary polarity of character transitions among the early-divergent angiosperms. These factors still permit a remarkable range of contrasting, yet credible, hypotheses regarding the order of acquisition of the many phenotypic characters, reproductive and vegetative, that distinguish ‘classic’ angiospermy from ‘classic’ gymnospermy. The flower remains ill-defined and its mode (or modes) of origin remains hotly disputed; some definitions and hypotheses of evolutionary relationships preclude a role for the flower in delimiting the angiosperms. We advocate maintenance of parallel, reciprocally illuminating programmes of morphological and molecular phylogeny reconstruction, respectively supported by homology testing through additional taxa (especially fossils) and evolutionary-developmental genetic studies that explore genes potentially responsible for major phenotypic transitions.

Key words: Angiosperm, character optimization, congruence, development, evolutionary-developmental genetics, flower, fossil, gene duplication, gymnosperm, morphology, ontogeny, outgroup, phylogeny, pteridophyte, taxon sampling, tree rooting


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
F. Jabbour, C. Damerval, and S. Nadot
Evolutionary Trends in the Flowers of Asteridae: Is Polyandry an Alternative to Zygomorphy?
Ann. Bot., August 1, 2008; 102(2): 153 - 165.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
P. J. Rudall, M. V. Remizowa, A. S. Beer, E. Bradshaw, D. W. Stevenson, T. D. Macfarlane, R. E. Tuckett, S. R. Yadav, and D. D. Sokoloff
Comparative Ovule and Megagametophyte Development in Hydatellaceae and Water Lilies Reveal a Mosaic of Features Among the Earliest Angiosperms
Ann. Bot., May 1, 2008; 101(7): 941 - 956.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
G. Theissen and R. Melzer
Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Origin and Diversification of the Angiosperm Flower
Ann. Bot., September 1, 2007; 100(3): 603 - 619.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Bot.Home page
P. J. Rudall, D. D. Sokoloff, M. V. Remizowa, J. G. Conran, J. I. Davis, T. D. Macfarlane, and D. W. Stevenson
Morphology of Hydatellaceae, an anomalous aquatic family recently recognized as an early-divergent angiosperm lineage
Am. J. Botany, July 1, 2007; 94(7): 1073 - 1092.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Exp BotHome page
Flowering Newsletter bibliography for 2006
J. Exp. Bot., April 20, 2007; (2007) erm028v2.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.