Go to Naturalis.nl

Search results

Record: oai:ARNO:526218

AuthorsH.P. Nooteboom, A Touw, Th.J. Reichgelt, C.G.G.J. van Steenis
JournalBlumea - Biodiversity, Evolution and Biogeography of Plants
AbstractThe composition of the 2nd part of this work corresponds to that of the 1st, but, because it deals with only one class, the Monocotyledons, the whole could be more homogeneous. The Monocotyledons are systematically and anatomically less profoundly examined than the Conifers and the Dicotyledons, and for that reason it might be expected that phytochemistry could offer more often a solution in difficult taxonomical questions than in the above mentioned taxa. Unfortunately the phytochemical knowledge of the ca. 40 families of Monocotyledons has appeared to be so scant that it was impossible to base a comparison of the taxa on the chemical constituents. Only in a few cases there appeared to be clear chemical relations or differences, e.g. in the taxa of the Liliaceae – Amaryllidaceae complex.
As in the first part of this book the author followed the view of Von Wettstein regarding the circumscription of the families, except for instances where chemistry favoured the splitting into smaller ones, as one can find so often in Hutchinson’s “Families of Flowering Plants”. For this reason Von Wettstein’s large families in the Helobiae have been accepted against the smaller concepts in this group by Hutchinson; reversely, Hutchinson has partly been followed in that the Liliaceae-Dracaenoideae together with the Amaryllidaceae-Agavoideae, occur combined as Agavaceae. Subfam. Amaryllidoideae (Allioideae excepted) has been considered as a separate family Amaryllidaceae, because of the occurrence of alkaloids in this group and the total absence of this constituent in the other taxa of the former Amaryllidaceae s.l.
Document typearticle
Download paperpdf document http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/566638