Stomata of Takhtajania perrieri (Winteraceae)

The Stomatal Apparatus of Takhtajania perrieri (Capuron). M. Baranova & J.-F. Leroy (Winteraceae)

Baranova M. A. (2004)

Margarita A. Baranova

Kew Bulletin 59(1): 141-144 – doi:10.2307/4111089 –

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4111089?seq=1

Abstract

The distinctness of the stomatal structure of Takhtajania perrieri from that of all other Winteraceae is re-affirmed; the majority of the stomata are typically anomocytic.

Stomata in Takhtajania (Winteraceae)

The Stomatal Apparatus of Takhtajania perrieri (Capuron). M. Baranova & J.-F. Leroy (Winteraceae)

by Baranova M. A. (2004)

Figure Google

===

in Kew Bulletin 59(1): 141-144 – DOI: 10.2307/4111089

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4111089?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Summary

The distinctness of the stomatal structure of Takhtajania perrieri from that of all other Winteraceae is re-affirmed; the majority of the stomata are typically anomocytic.

Comment on stomata in Austrobaileya (Austrobaileyaceae)

Photo credit : Google

Austrobaileya scandens

 

The epidermal structure of Austrobaileya (Austrobaileyaceae)—a further comment

by Baranova M. A. (2004)

Margarita A. Baranova

in Kew Bulletin 59: 489-491 – CrossRef Google Scholar –

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4110956?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract

Attention is drawn to the close similarity in epidermal structure between Austrobaileya (Austrobaileyaceae) and Schisandraceae and to the presence in both families of the laterocytic stomatal type.

Stomata: classification of morphological types

 

Historical development of the present classification of morphological types of stomates

by Baranova M. A. (1987)

Komarov Botanical Institute, Leningrad, USSR.

• Margarita A. Baranova

in Bot. Rev., 53: 53-79. – doi:10.1007/BF02858182 –

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02858182

Abstract

There is a long-standing confusion between morphologic and ontogenetic classifications of stomates.

The earliest scheme, by Vesque (1889) was proposed as basically ontogenetic, but it was soon widely applied to mature leaves. The ontogenetic distinction between haplocheilic and syndetocheilic stomates in gymnosperms, proposed by Florin (1931, 1933) soon suffered a similar fate.

Continuing studies over the past half-century have shown that stomatal ontogeny is only poorly correlated with the mature morphology. Efforts to combine ontogenetic and morphologic features in a single scheme have led to classifications so complex as to be impractical.

The explicitly morphological classification by Metcalfe and Chalk (1950) is the foundation for the most widely used present scheme, in which some 14 morphological types are recognized. The distinctions among these types are conceptually useful, though often arbitrary in practice.

Anisocytic stomata: Peperomia maculosa (L.) Hook.

Epidermal structure of Austrobaileya

 

The epidermal structure of Austrobaileya (Austrobaileyaceae – A further comment

by Baranova M. A. (2004)

Margarita A. Baranova,

===

in Kew Bulletin 59: 489-491 – DOI: 10.2307/4110956

CrossRef

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4110956?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Summary

Attention is drawn to the close similarity in epidermal structure between Austrobaileya (Austrobaileyaceae) and Schizandraceae and to the presence in both families of the laterocytic stomatal type.

 

See : JSTOR