identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
281A87C0C44DFF98FD7BF977237EF8F2.text	281A87C0C44DFF98FD7BF977237EF8F2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Loranthaceae	<div><p>Loranthaceae</p><p>The loranthaceous material used in Wanntorp &amp; Ronse De Craene’s (2009) study consists of one species each of Passovia (‘ Phthirusa ’) and Struthanthus . Each of these genera is characterized by inflorescences bearing various numbers of paired, lateral triads. A triad consists of one central flower subtended by the primary bract (called pherophyll by Wanntorp &amp; Ronse</p><p>© 2013 Nationaal Herbarium Nederland</p><p>De Craene) and a pair of flowers positioned in the axils of its prophylls. Triads may be pedunculate or essentially sessile on the inflorescence axis. It should be added that the term ‘dichasium’ applied by Wanntorp &amp; Ronse De Craene to lateral triads has also been variously circumscribed in botanical literature (Lawrence 1951, Endress 2010).</p><p>The relevant new interpretation that the authors advance, apparently based on SEM images, is that the prophylls of a loranthaceous flower fuse to form its calyculus, as is also said to be the case in Olacaceae . There is abundant evidence in the known structure especially of neotropical small-flowered Loranthaceae to the effect that this interpretation (which here will be called the ‘prophyllar hypothesis’) has flaws and is difficult to reconcile with the relevant literature, as detailed below.</p><p>The structure of triads and dyads</p><p>When studying the triads of Struthanthus and Passovia as well as those of other Loranthaceae, it is immediately obvious that their prophylls are physically far removed from the ovary of the median flower. It follows that there cannot have been a developmental connection between prophylls and calyculus. This is true not only for triadic small-flowered genera (all of which are neotropical), but also for Psittacanthus, Tripodanthus and others where the lateral flowers of triads (or, in Aetanthus and some Psittacanthus species, dyads) are placed on elongated pedicels. In such cases, there is no evidence that the prophylls of the triad or dyad have a developmental relationship to any of the calyculi.</p><p>Monads</p><p>Many genera, both in the New and Old World, develop inflorescences bearing single lateral flowers (monads). In many cases ( Cladocolea, Tristerix, Loranthus, the upper inflorescence portions of Peristethium, etc.) flowers show no evidence of associated prophylls. In other genera, however, each flower is accompanied by a distinctive pair of prophylls; such is the case in Maracanthus (Kuijt 1976a), Oryctanthus (Kuijt 1976b), Oryctina (Kuijt (1981a), Dendropemon (Kuijt 2011a), two species of Tristerix (Kuijt 1988b) and Panamanthus (Kuijt 1991) . In all these cases, a regular calyculus is formed without any developmental involvement by prophylls.</p><p>Terminal flowers</p><p>Inflorescences that are morphologically terminated by a single flower are known in a number of genera (Kuijt 1981b), for example in Loranthus, Cladocolea (Kuijt 1975), Peristethium (Kuijt 2012) and at least two Struthanthus species. Prophylls by definition are the first two phyllomes of a branch and thus do not accompany terminal flowers. In such inflorescences it would be difficult to assert that the calyculus of a lateral flower would have a different morphological origin from that of a terminal flower.</p><p>Phthirusa</p><p>Almost uniquely in Phthirusa, inflorescences are absent, the flowers being sessile in leaf axils, often in clusters. Each flower is associated with a distinctive pair of prophylls (Kuijt 2011b), which again, cannot have been developmentally involved with the formation of the ovary and its calyculus.</p><p>Single pedicellate flowers</p><p>In Ligaria and Sogerianthe, the individual flowers are stalked, no inflorescence being present, and the possibility that we are concerned with greatly reduced inflorescences remains. In any case, where prophylls are present, the calyculus is far removed from them.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/281A87C0C44DFF98FD7BF977237EF8F2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kuijt, J.	Kuijt, J. (2013): Prophyll, calyculus, and perianth in Santalales. Blumea 57 (3): 248-252, DOI: 10.3767/000651913X664009, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651913x664009
281A87C0C44CFF9AFD7BFFA52345FC07.text	281A87C0C44CFF9AFD7BFFA52345FC07.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Viscaceae	<div><p>Viscaceae</p><p>While in Loranthaceae prophylls appear to be of minor significance in the vegetative parts of plants, this is not so in several genera of Viscaceae . Nevertheless, here also they have not been given adequate attention. In Ginalloa and Notothixos they have not been mentioned in the relevant literature, even though the inflorescences in the former genus appear to bear them, as in the axillary ‘triads’ mentioned and illustrated in Barlow (1997), where they subtend secondary lateral flowers. In Korthalsella we find an unclear situation in flower­bearing regions (the concept ‘inflorescence’ itself is not always applicable in the genus) but, again, there is no published record of prophylls in vegetative parts of the plant (Barlow 1997). In fact, Mekel (1935) explicitly denies the presence of any prophylls in the axillary groups of flowers.</p><p>Viscum</p><p>There appears to be no previous mention of prophylls in the extensive literature on Viscum . This is surprising in what is the most famous, and most written-about of all mistletoes, V. album L. In V. album, there are regular, annual innovations of one internode each, topped by one pair of foliage leaves and a terminal inflorescence. At the very base of each innovation, there is one pair of minute, translucent, fimbriate prophylls. These structures are visible even during the winter, well before new innovations have started to elongate, and turn blackish in later years (Fig. 1a). In the axil of each prophyll, an inflorescence often develops in the next growing season. It seems safe to assume that other species of Viscum, even though most have a very different branching pattern, also have prophylls in comparable locations. Thus the position of later inflorescences can demonstrate the presence of prophylls.</p><p>Dendrophthora and Phoradendron</p><p>It is important to realize that, in contrast to the view of Eichler (1868), prophylls in Phoradendreae are distinct from any so-called basal cataphylls that may also be present. Basal cataphylls are pairs of leaf scales placed at the base of lateral ramifications in many species in both genera (Kuijt 2003), but they occur in addition to, and distal to, the prophylls. In those species that lack basal cataphylls, prophylls are nevertheless present. In a few species of Dendrophthora, the prophylls of a lateral branch may be fused to form a compound structure (Kuijt 1959). Especially in those species of Phoradendron where innovations abort terminally (dichotomous species), such prophylls usually subtend inflorescences or vegetative branches. These ramifications themselves are again provided with prophylls, etc., resulting in a highly complex but extremely regular, symmetrical grouping (Fig. 1b). The degree of prominence and the shape of prophylls, particularly in Dendrophthora, may provide important specific features taxonomically.</p><p>Arceuthobium</p><p>As far as I am aware, no mention of prophylls has appeared in the literature dealing with Arceuthobium . As in all Viscaceae, phyllotaxy is paired. Branching patterns in the genus are of two types, flabellate and verticillate (Kuijt 1970), and this has led Hawksworth &amp; Wiens (1970) to recognize two subgenera, subgenus Vaginata Hawksw. &amp; Wiens and subgenus Arceuthobium, respectively. In the flabellate pattern, younger, secondary lateral branches are added abaxially to the primary one, so that a flat, fan-like arrangement results. No prophylls are present. The branching pattern in male A. americanum Nutt. ex Engelm. is essentially a replica of that of Viscum album, with one important difference: there is no sign of even minute prophylls, even though the relevant secondary branches develop in the expected positions, flanking the primary lateral branches (Fig. 1c). A second difference is that female A. americanum has a percurrent stem system, while V. album is uniformly dichotomous by means of a terminal inflorescence. (The verticillate branching pattern illustrated in Hawksworth &amp; Wiens (1996, f. 2-1d) is incorrect). Another species, A. azoricum Hawksw. &amp; Wiens, an endemic to the Azores, is said to be “crucial to an understanding the migrational history of the genus” (Nickrent et al. 2004). The species is also characterized by verticillate branching, as are the related A. oxycedri (DC.) M.Bieb. from Eurasia and Africa and A. juniperi-procerae Chiov. from Ethiopia and Kenya (Hawksworth &amp; Wiens 1976). The whorled female flowers of A. azoricum are said to be subtended by ‘minute bracts’ but, unfortunately, no details are available, and I have not been able to inspect female material. A comparison of male A. azoricum with the North American A. americanum leads to some intriguing facts. The main branching pattern of A. azoricum is identical to that of A. americanum; but here, each secondary lateral is subtended by a minute prophyll that emerges slightly from above the nearby leaf scale (Fig. 1d). These prophylls are black or nearly so (Fig. 1d, e), and may be basally fused into a single, compound structure (Fig. 1e). They are almost entirely hidden by the associated leaf scales, usually extending for no more than 0.5 mm beyond them. The tip of a prophyll may be acute and fimbriate, or it may be blunt to laterally expanded. The existence of prophylls in this species almost certainly means that the A. americanum ancestry also had prophylls in the relevant positions, and that they have been eliminated in the past, even though its ‘axillary’ secondary branches do form. That leaves us with the remarkable notion of ‘phantom prophylls’, organs that have disappeared in the course of evolution while their morphogenetic influence has remained. Endress (2010) lists a number of comparable instances of this phenomenon in angiosperms.</p><p>Eremolepidaceae</p><p>Flowers of Eremolepidaceae lack prophylls throughout (Kuijt 1988a).</p><p>Prophylls in non-mistletoe families</p><p>While I cannot judge the data and illustrations provided by Wanntorp &amp; Ronse De Craene (2009) for ‘ Olacaceae ’ ( Diogoa, Heisteria and Olax), there are convincing indications that in non-mistletoe families the prophyllar hypothesis must also be rejected. In those flowers where undeniable calyculi develop (sometimes after anthesis), non-articulated pedicels support them, thus making the idea of any morphogenetic contribution by even very small or unnoticed prophylls a very questionable and remote proposition.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/281A87C0C44CFF9AFD7BFFA52345FC07	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kuijt, J.	Kuijt, J. (2013): Prophyll, calyculus, and perianth in Santalales. Blumea 57 (3): 248-252, DOI: 10.3767/000651913X664009, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651913x664009
