*CHARACTER NOTES 
#1. An attempt has been made via this character to distinguish synonyms
denoting (more or less) the same taxonomic concept as the name used here.
It is also intended to encompass spelling variants of the accepted name.
Family names constituting nomenclaturally valid alternatives to those used
are indicated (\i{}nom. altern.\i0{}). Combine characters 1 and 3 to list
all the synonyms entered for a family. \par{}Synonym: a name rejected
because of different taxonomic interpretation, or under the rules of
nomenclature. 
#2. ~ (alternatively) is here used to indicate sometimes not
unreasonably included in or reduced to; cf. Airy Shaw (1973). The
\i{}sensu lato\i0{} interpretations indicated often correspond with
Cronquists (1981) treatment, but to an increasing extent refer to more
recent cladistic pronouncements (few of which are accompanied by any
serious attempt to provide revised family descriptions). Sound practical
reasons for adopting tenable \i{}sensu stricto\i0{} interpretations \i{}in
the present context\i0{} are given in Watson and Dallwitz (1991). 
#3. These nomenclatural data are a compilation, containing no original
research. The main source of synonyms has been Airy Shaw (1973), who
conducted genuine nomenclatural research and aimed to include every
published family name from the appearance of the \i{}Genera Plantarum\i0{}
of Jussieu in 1789; and the data have subsequently been checked against
Gunn \i{}et al.\i0{} (1992 onwards). There no doubt remain numerous
omissions, and it would be impossible to obtain comprehensive coverage of
variant spellings. The latter, including misprints, insertion or omission
of accents, deliberate corrections and intended etymological
improvements, inevitably pose problems in computer searches.
Nevertheless, if used properly this package should permit referal to
appropriate descriptions of most of the family names used (as opposed to
appearing in lists of synonyms) in twentieth century floras and research
publications. Combine characters 1 and 3 to list all the synonyms entered
for a family. \par{}Synonym: a name rejected because of different
taxonomic interpretation, or under the rules of nomenclature. 
#5. Tree: a relatively large, perennial woody plant with an evident trunk
(bole), nearly always producing bark (the visual syndrome nearly always
reflecting persistent vascular and cork cambia). \par{}Arborescent:
perennial, attaining more or less treelike aspect without exhibiting all
the tree characteristics. \par{}Shrub: a woody, branching perennial
with persistent above-ground parts, of smaller stature than a tree and
without a well expressed trunk. \par{}Subshrub: an under-shrub, or small
shrub which may have partially herbaceous stems. \par{}Liana or liane:
a woody climber. \par{}Herb: a plant without persistent above-ground
stems. 
#9-10. Switch-plants: plants with the functions normally fulfilled by
leaves transferred to chlorophyllous, more or less modified shoots and/or
petioles (the true leaves more or less reduced or lacking).
\par{}Cladode: a phylloclade of one internode. \par{}Phyllode: a flat,
dilated petiole fulfilling the functions of a leaf. \par{}Phylloclade: a
stem modified to function as a leaf or leaves. \par{}The cactaceous
\i{}areole\i0{} is a highly specialized, non-photosynthesizing short-shoot,
usually borne at the tip of, or adaxially on, or in the axil of, a more or
less conspicuous \i{}tubercle\i0{}. The tubercles seem to represent
morphologically the expanded bases of main stem leaves, which except in
\i{}Pereskia\i0{} and \i{}Maihuenia\i0{} have no green lamina. The
laterally bi-symmetrical areole (which lacks an axillant leaf, except in
the Opuntioideae where this is ephemeral) is represented by a pair of buds
which may be closely apposed or more or less clearly separated. The
'leaves' from the lower (abaxial) bud are represented by spines, while a
flower or flowers may develop from the upper, adaxial one. 
#12. Reduced leaves denotes leaves present and identifiable as such, but
more or less vestigial. Not applied to phyllodes and cladodes (though they
commonly occur in association with the latter \emdash{} e.g. in
\i{}Ruscus\i0{}). 
#14. This composite character was introduced (a), as a colloquial
improver in natural language descriptions, and (b) as an aid in seeking
likely additional records for CAM photosynthesis. 
#21. Annual: plants progressing from germination to seed production and
perishing, within that period. \par{}Biennial: a plant requiring two
years to complete its life-cycle, growing vegetatively in the first, then
flowering, fruiting and perishing in the second. \par{}Perennial: a plant
which persists and continues growth for several to many years. 
#25. Bulb: underground bud, modified for vegetative
reproduction/perennation. \par{}Corm: bulblike, fleshy, rooted stem or
stem base, associated with vegetative reproduction/perennation.
\par{}Rhizome: perennial, prostrate or oblique, more or less
subterranean, more or less dorsiventral stem, producing roots below and
leaves and/or stems apically or above and apically. \par{}Tuber: a thick,
short, swollen vegetative part concerned with food storage (may represent
either root or stem). \par{}Pseudobulbaceous: rhizomes with conspicuous 
bulb-like structures derived from thickening of one or more internodes.
\par{}Unsatisfactory character state definitions,
which in practice are not properly exclusive. Tuberous or not and
specification of kinds of tubers await resolving into separate characters. 
#29. Preliminary data only, from Darwin (1882). \par{}Clockwise (viewed
from above and/or as the stem approaches you) = ascending a vertical
support from right to left when viewed from the side = Darwins following
the sun. Dextrorotatory = anticlockwise. 
#31. Pachycaul: thick-stemmed, not twiggy (unbranched, or the branches
few and thick). \par{}Leptocaul (= leptocladous): twiggy, with abundant,
relatively slender branches. 
#32. Hydrophytes: plants normally living with the vegetative parts
submerged or floating in water, or only partially emergent.
\par{}Helophytes: marsh plants. \par{}Mesophytes: plants avoiding
extremes of moisture and drought \emdash{} in habitats intermediate between
those of hydrophytes and xerophytes. \par{}Xerophytes: plants which
normally subsist in habitats affording relatively little moisture. Usually
exhibiting one or more recognisable xeromorphic features, which include
extreme hairiness; thick cuticles; harsh, pungent or rolled leaves with
much sclerenchyma; spines, prickles and switch-plant properties (q.v.);
succulence. 
#36. Heterophyllous: having leaves of two (or more) conspicuously
different forms. Exclusive of prophylls, bud-scales etc., and of the
relatively minor variations associated with normal annual-incremental leaf
spectra. 
#37. Of trees and shrubs: a loose but meaningful character, imprecisely
expressing differences regarding presence/absence and/or performance of
leaf abscission zones. \par{}Deciduous implies seasonally synchronized
leaf fall resulting in a leafless condition in winter, and the leaves are
usually non-leathery. \par{}Evergreens are leafy all year round, and the
leaves are often more or less leathery. 
#38:203:426. Size here denotes a colloquial character, contributing
helpful but imprecisely defined adjectives to some of the natural language
descriptions. It is frequently left uncoded. Reliable data on dimensions
(lengths, widths, diameters) are not readily available for the larger
families, and their practical value would scarcely justify the effort
required to obtain them. On the other hand, it is absurd to ignore the
identificatory potential of extreme size differences, especially in
connection with small families. Liberal overlaps in the attempted state
definitions indicate the need for extreme caution in their application
during identifications, and the advisability of entering broadly inclusive
ranges. 
#39. Opposite: the leaves in pairs, the members of each pair on the same
level as one another and on opposite sides of the stem. \par{}Alternate:
the leaves neither manifestly opposite nor genuinely whorled. A loose
term in widespread taxonomic usage, reflecting failure to describe
phyllotaxy more precisely. Implies spiral or distichous. \par{}Whorled:
the leaves (or structures reasonably interpretable as such) disposed in
rings of three or more per node. 
#40. Spiral: disposed on the axis such that an imaginary line joining the
bases of successive, adjacent members constitutes a spiral.
\par{}Distichous: borne in two longitudinal ranks, these on opposite
sides of the axis. \par{}Tristichous: borne in three longitudinal ranks.
\par{} \par{} Published taxonomic descriptions and illustrations are
essentially non-comparative and very inadequately informative over
conspicuous aspects of monocotyledonous leaf morphology, notably phyllotaxy
and orientation of blades relative to sheaths. Consequently, the data
compiled here are unreliable, and there is abundant scope for original
observations. 
#45. Here applied indiscriminately to Monocots and Dicots; i.e. ignoring
for practical purposes the rather compelling morphological proposition that
typical Monocot leaves represent phyllodes, and treating the
pseudopetioles of bamboos, palms, etc. as petioles. \par{}Perfoliate:
when the stem appears to pass through the blade of the leaf. 
#46. Connate: united, congenitally or subsequently. Here, referring to
opposite or whorled leaves having their bases joined around the supporting
axis. 
#50. This refers to internal, translucent glands, readily observable in
anatomical sections or when the blade is viewed against a strong light. It
does not refer to glandular trichomes (leaves gland-dotted below, etc.). 
#52. Published taxonomic descriptions and illustrations are essentially
non-comparative and very inadequately informative over conspicuous aspects
of monocotyledonous leaf morphology, notably phyllotaxy and orientation of
blades relative to sheaths. Consequently, the data compiled here are
unreliable, and there is abundant scope for original observations. \par{}
\par{}The combination of distichous and ensiform can result in Monocots
being described as "fan-shaped". 
#54. Peltate: having the petiole attached to the lower surface of the
blade, instead of to its end or margin. 
#55. Leaf pulvinate: having a swelling on the petiole (usually at its
base), of the kind often associated with movement. Pulvinate/epulvinate is
a distinction of demonstrated taxonomic utility (and classificatory value),
for example in Leguminosae; but it has been under-utilized, and is rarely
mentioned in published descriptions. 
#56. Leaf unifoliolate: presumed (by inference from morphological
peculiarities and/or inference from taxonomic relationships) to represent a
compound leaf reduced to a single leaflet (plus petiole). Typically
indicated by a distinct joint at junction of blade and petiole, or by a
pulvinus at the base of the blade (i.e. instead of, or in addition to, the
more usual basal one). 
#58. Leaflet pulvinate: having a swelling on the petiolule, of the kind
often associated with movement. Little information seems to be available on
this potentially interesting character. 
#59. Published taxonomic descriptions and illustrations are essentially
non-comparative and very inadequately informative over conspicuous aspects
of monocotyledonous leaf morphology, notably phyllotaxy and orientation of
blades relative to sheaths. Consequently, the data compiled here are
unreliable, and there is abundant scope for original observations. 
#62-63. Unsatisfactory character delimitation and inadequate character
state definitions in relation to leaf morphology reflect the fact that it
is easier to locate elegant glossologies than to obtain useable comparative
data. 
#64-65. Precisely defined terms abound, offering the choice of Greek or
Latin roots, but their practical implementation is impeded by absence of
comparative data. 
#67. Ligule: a collarlike or tonguelike projection near the junction of
sheath or petiole and blade. 
#68-71:73. Stipules: appendages of a leaf, borne one on each side of its
insertion on the stem (usually in association with a petiole).
\par{}Stipulate: having stipules, or structures recognizable as
modifications (spines, glands etc.), fusion products or vestiges of them.
\par{}Stipules have protective (sometimes including secretory) functions
during shoot and leaf development. They are commonly associated with
trilacunar nodes, deriving their vascular supply via branches from the
lateral leaf traces. In mature material, stipules even when adnate to the
petiole are frequently readily recognisable as such (and distinguishable
from mere winging of the petiole) through possessing separate vascular
supplies, different textures, or abscission zones distinct from those of
the associated leaves. However, small stipules often abscise early, so that
detecting their presence in mature material often depends on recogning
their scars. Furthermore, is sometimes hard to distinguish stipules from
leaflets or leaf sheaths, or even in some families (notably
\i{}Rubiaceae\i0{}) from leaves; and interpretive problems are posed by
other structures (e.g. glands) which may or may not be legitimately
considered stipular. Convincing solutions to questionable cases require
detailed comparative studies, and are inaccessible for routine
identifications. \par{}The present compilation no doubt contains errors
reflecting failure to distinguish absent from caducous. These can be
corrected as they come to light. Meanwhile, presence or absence of
stipules is a perfectly good character in the context of INTKEY
identifications, provided intelligent use is made of the TOLERANCE
facility. 
#72. Colleters. Glands secreting mucilage, which commonly occur on buds.
Their occurrence on stipules is supposed to have great diagnostic value
among families around Rubiaceae, but the data are unreliable. As usual,
there is a dearth of information on observed absence. 
#74. Stipules: appendages of a leaf, borne one on each side of its
insertion. \par{}Caducous: falling off early. 
#77. Revolute: curled, rolled or bent outwards, to enclose or partially
enclose (part of) the outer (abaxial) surface. \par{}Involute: curled,
rolled or bent inwards, to enclose or partially enclose (part of) the inner
(adaxial) surface. 
#81. Associated with persistent intercalary meristems involving stem
nodes and leaf bases. These have been much studied in herbaceous grasses,
where they are of universal occurrence, but there seems to be little hard
information on their occurrence elsewhere. Judging from external
appearances, however, their presence may represent an important ontogenetic
difference between typical Dicots and many Monocots, and perhaps among
Monocots. 
#83. Circinnate: coiled basipetally, with the apex near the centre of the
coil, as in fern fronds. 
#85-86. Domatia: structures occurring in the vein axils on the abaxial
(under) surface of leaves, frequently inhabited by mites or ants. Data from
Brouwer, Clifford and Gregory (1990: no explicit negatives). 
#87. Information mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950), Metcalfe (1979).
Data on this character are unreliable through lack of direct information on
families observed to exhibit negatives. When unmentioned in anatomical
family descriptions, it has been treated as implicitly exhibiting the
negative state. Families undescribed or poorly known anatomically have been
tagged as unknown. 
#89:94:114:116:120-122:133-134:145:147:166. Information mainly from
Metcalfe and Chalk (1950) and (1979). Data on this character are unreliable
through lack of direct information on families observed to exhibit
negatives. When unmentioned in anatomical family descriptions, it has
been treated as implicitly exhibiting the negative state. Families
undescribed or poorly known anatomically have been tagged as unknown. 
#92. Dorsiventral: more or less flattened , and anatomically different
adaxially and abaxially. Commonly manifested via conspicuously different
epidermes and/or adaxial palisade \i{}versus\i0{} abaxial spongy mesophyll.
\par{}Bifacial, isobilateral: capable of being divided into two similar
halves; i.e., more or less flattened (adaxially/abaxially, \i{}or\i0{}
laterally), without noticeable adaxial/abaxial or lateral tissue
distinction. \par{}Centric: with more or less radial anatomical
organization. \par{}The equitant leaves characteristic of many Monocots,
sometimes described as unifacial, here fall under isobilateral or
centric, according to the extent of flattening. \par{}Published taxonomic
descriptions and illustrations are essentially non-comparative and very
inadequately informative over conspicuous aspects of monocotyledonous leaf
morphology which are closely linked to anatomical layouts, notably
phyllotaxy and orientation of blades relative to sheaths. Consequently, the
data compiled here are unreliable, and there is abundant scope for original
observations. 
#93:107. Reliable comparative observations on presence/absence of secretory
hairs and epidermal glands, and identifications of substances secreted, do
not exist for most families, and the data compiled here are inevitably
unreliable. In particular, a study of microhairs in grasses (Amarasinge
and Watson, 1989) suggests that secretory hair types will often have gone
unrecognised as such. 
#95-96. Data mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950, 1979). 
#99-101:106:108-113. Data mainly extracted from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950,
1979). \par{}The data on hairs encoded for the present descriptions are
inevitably unreliable. While the diversity of hair forms affords infinite
scope for taxonomic classificatory applications, and has been extensively
exploited for identification (notably in pharmacology), across-the-board
comparative observations of the standard required in the present context do
not exist. 
#104. Data mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950, for Dicots); Dahlgren,
Clifford and Yeoh (1985, for Monocots). 
#117-118. Data mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950, 1979). 
#119. \i{}Cystoliths\i0{}: conspicuous calcium carbonate or calcium
carbonate+silica concretions more or less occluding the lumina of
specialised cells (lithocysts), found in ground parenchyma or representing
modified hairs. Seemingly characteristic of a few families, notably
\i{}Acanthaceae\i0{}, \i{}Cannabinaceae\i0{}, \i{}Moraceae\i0{},
\i{}Urticaceae\i0{}. \par{}Information mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk
(1950) and (1979). Data may be unreliable through lack of direct
information on families observed to exhibit negatives. When unmentioned
in anatomical family descriptions, it has been treated as implicitly
exhibiting the negative state. Families undescribed or poorly known
anatomically have been tagged as unknown. 
#123. Data mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950, for Dicots \emdash{}
incompletely encoded); Dahlgren, Clifford and Yeoh (1985, for Monocots).
References to crystal forms which fail to specify location (plants with
raphides, etc.) are commonly encountered in taxonomic and related
literature: they are useless for practical purposes, and have been ignored.
#124. Data mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950, for Dicots \emdash{}
incompletely encoded); Dahlgren, Clifford and Yeoh (1985, for Monocots).
References to crystal forms which fail to specify location (plants with
raphides, etc.) are commonly encountered in taxonomic and related
literature: they are useless for practical purposes, and have been ignored.
\par{}Raphides: slender, needle-shaped calcium oxalate crystals, arranged
parallel to each other in tight bundles, the bundles enclosed in raphide
sacs. Unorientated acicular crystals are excluded by this definition. 
#128-129. Data mainly from the comprehensive compilation of Wagner (1977),
and restricted to Monocots. No comparable data on Dicots have yet been
located. 
#130. Most of the data derive from observations by J.S. Pate and B.E.S.
Gunning, which were summarized taxonomically in their 1969 paper. The
detailed generic figures given here are taken from the unpublished original
data, provided by B.E.S. Gunning. 
#139. Several ostensibly unambiguous and potentially useful anatomical
characters associated with secondary thickening of stems, including this
one, are unsatisfactorily represented in this data compilation, owing to
the scarcity of precise, unambiguous published data. \par{}Data mainly from
Metcalfe and Chalk (1950 and 1979). 
#140. Several ostensibly unambiguous and potentially useful anatomical
characters associated with secondary thickening of stems, including this
one, are unsatisfactorily represented in this data compilation, owing to
the scarcity of precise, unambiguous published data. \par{}Data mainly from
Metcalfe and Chalk (1950 and 1979). 
#141. The number of gaps (leaf gaps) in the vascular cylinder of young
stems associated with (immediately distal to) the leaf traces entering
each leaf base. For the present purpose, treated as inapplicable to Dicot
herbs with mature vascular systems comprising isolated bundles with no
interfascicular cambium, as well as to Monocots. \par{}Subsequently to
Sinnott (1914), taxonomists have devoted more attention to evolutionary
speculation than to publishing comparative data. This is unfortunate,
because the requisite information is usually as easy to obtain via serial
hand sections as are the routinely sought details of ovary placentation and
ovule orientation, with the advantage of being available from vegetative
material. \par{}While there is usually only one trace per gap, there may be
two or more; e.g., a unilacunar node may exhibit two (two-trace
unilacunar), and the median leaf gap of a trilacunar node may exhibit
three. When the leaves are opposite or whorled, in the present context the
nodes are classified according to the number of gaps associated with each
leaf (unilacunar opposite, unilacunar whorled, etc,). Nodal vascular
anatomy \i{}distal\i0{} to the origins of the leaf traces is complicated by
the vascularization of stipules and axillary buds. Most stipules derive
their vascular supply as branches from the lateral traces of trilacunar
nodes, and the vascular supply to the axillary bud is usually derived via
two strands departing from the margins of the median (or only) leaf gap. 
#143. Re states 1 and 2: ostensibly unambiguous and potentially useful
anatomical characters associated with secondary thickening of stems (open
\i{}versus\i0{} closed vascular bundles, presence/absence of
interfascicular cambium) and characters depending on them are
unsatisfactorily represented in this data compilation, owing to the
scarcity of precise, unambiguous published data. 
#146. For a relevant, concise discussion of comparative morphological
interpretations of cortical bindles, see De Barry (1884). \par{}In the
inevitable absence of complete three-dimensional reconstructions of
vascular systems, acquisition of properly comparative data requires
precisely specifying the location at which transverse sections are to be
made; viz., at mid-internode, or immediately beneath a node. The data on
'cortical vascular bundles' accumulated here from compilations in standard
works on systematic plant anatomy (Metcalfe and Chalk (1950) and (1979),
cross referenced with Solereder, 1908) are of questionable value, because
they provide no information on samping in relation to vascular morphology.
No attention has been paid to the question of cortical bundles versus
leaf traces and leaf trace complexes, which they presumably sometimes (or
always?) represent; hence, no consideration is given to the extent to which
observed presence of cortical bundles reflects variations in angles at
which leaf traces depart nodes, and the distances they traverse
longitudinally through the internode(s) above. \par{}Data on this character
are further unreliable through lack of direct information on families
observed to exhibit negatives. When unmentioned in anatomical family
descriptions, it has been treated as implicitly exhibiting the negative
state. Families undescribed or poorly known anatomically have been tagged
as unknown. 
#148. Dicot forms with an interfascicular cambium producing little or no
woody tissue have been awarded state 1 (secondary thickening absent).
Available descriptions have not permitted more satisfactory character state
definitions with reference to presence/absence of interfascicular cambium. 
#150. Data mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1979). 
#151. Information mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950), Cheadle (1953),
Cronquist (1981), Wagner (1977). In Dicots, the data seem to refer mainly
(Cheadle 1953) to secondary xylem, in Monocots to late metaxylem. See
further comments under end-wall perforations and root vessels. 
#155. Information mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950), Cheadle (1953),
Cronquist (1981), Wagner (1977). In Dicots, the data refer mainly (e.g.
Cheadle 1953) to secondary xylem, in Monocots to late metaxylem. See
further comment under end-wall perforations (next character). 
#156. Information mainly from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950), Cheadle (1953),
Cronquist (1981) and (for Monocots) Wagner (1977). The latter compilation
and its source references certainly contain good, taxonomically valid data.
The information on Dicots, however, is problematic to say the least.
Oft-repeated phylogenetic assertions regarding xylem evolution in Dicots,
and especially those encompassing both Dicots and Monocots, derive from
inaccessible or unpublished primary data on the former: none of the papers
by Bailey, Frost and Cheadle listed here (see References) contain any
primary data \emdash{} just references to impressive slide collections,
etc., observations summarized by taxonomic Orders, and phylogenetic
conclusions (Bailey and Tupper 1918 yet to be seen). Valid taxonomic
comparisons between Monocots and Dicots require data on Dicot primary
xylem, which may not exist. Bailey (1944) examined primary and adjacent
first-formed secondary xylem of more than 350 representatives of 89
families, and amplified and verified these data by studies of many
additional species, genera and families, but presents no primary data.
Cheadle, speculating on Independent origin of vessels in Monocots and
Dicots, used data derived (and reorganized) from Metcalfe and Chalk
(1950), Solereder (1908), Engler and Prantl (1887-1915, 1925-), and
numerous papers listed by these authors. Watson has not consulted the
numerous papers listed. However, Metcalfe and Chalk conscientiously
organised their compiled family descriptions of axis anatomy under the
headings Young stem and Wood, and generally do not distinguish primary
from secondary vessels in the former category. It comes as no surprise,
therefore, to find Cheadle (1953) stating of Dicots that the information
for woody plants is chiefly concerned with the secondary xylem of the stem;
that for most of the herbs probably includes both secondary and primary
xylem of stems. It seems to be generally accepted that in Dicots, vessels
evolved first in secondary xylem, and that their further evolution and
phylogenetic specialization proceeded centripetally: i.e. the primary xylem
often differs from the secondary xylem in the same stem. The common
knowledge data on Dicot vessels quoted by (for example) Cronquist, and
incorporated in this database, evidently derive from extensively
non-comparative observations, and are of very dubious taxonomic value. The
best that can be said of them is that most of the records compiled under
Dicot families probably represent what is supposed to be the most
advanced stem xylem components; and if the supposed centripetal
progression of evolutionary advancement is real, stem vessels absent
mostly implies absence from the whole stem. Likewise, stem vessel end-wall
perforations scalariform mostly implies that simple perforations are
totally absent from the stem. It is intended soon to reorganize the data
given here, so as to distinguish in the character list between the elements
of primary and secondary stem xylem. The Dicot data will then probably be
reorganized with reference to Metcalfe and Chalk, assigning any vessel
information on forms without secondary thickening to primary xylem. 
#159:163. In Dicots, refers to secondary xylem (including wood). Refers to
true tracheids, cf. Carlquist (1988); excluding vascular tracheids and
vasicentric tracheids. For the present purpose, in utilising the lists
given by Carlquist (1988: the principal source of data), families listed
under any of the four characters concerning tracheids, fibre tracheids,
libriform fibres and tile cells have been treated as implicitly
exhibiting the negative state of those for which they go unmentioned.
Families unmentioned by Carlquist for any of these wood characters have
generally been recorded as unknown for all of them, along with all
families that are unknown regarding presence/absence of secondary
thickening. Families without secondary xylem (e.g. most monocots) have been
treated as inapplicable for secondary xylem characters. 
#161. See comments under tracheids. 
#162. See comments under tracheids. 
#165. Distribution of wood parenchyma as viewed in transverse sections,
especially with reference to association with vessels. Data mainly from
Metcalfe and Chalk (1950). 
#167. Included (= interxylary) phloem is here used \i{}sensu lato\i0{}.
For the \i{}sensu stricto\i0{} version (included phloem derived from a
single cambial ring, cf. Carlquist 1988), apply the single/concentric
cambia character to lists derived via this one. \par{}Information mainly
from Metcalfe and Chalk (1950), Carlquist (1988). Data on this character
are unreliable through lack of direct information on families observed to
exhibit negatives. When unmentioned in anatomical family descriptions, it
has been treated as implicitly exhibiting the negative state. Families
undescribed or poorly known anatomically have been tagged as unknown. 
#168. Tile cells: seemingly empty, upright or square ray cells of about
the same height as the procumbent members, occurring in indeterminate
horizontal series which are usually interspersed among the procumbent
cells. \par{}See comments under tracheids. 
#169. Data extensively from Carlquist (1988); the assignments to Type given
as text comment are exclusively from that source. See comments under
tracheids. 
#173. Data mainly from the comprehensive compilation of Wagner (1977), and
restricted to Monocots. No comparable body of data on Dicots has yet been
located \emdash{} do vessel-less Dicots really lack them throughout the
plant? 
#174. Data mainly from the comprehensive compilation of Wagner (1977), and
restricted to Monocots. No comparable body of data on Dicots has yet been
located, though Bailey (1944) implies that they do not exhibit the
phylogenetic lag from roots to vessels that seems to have characterised
xylem evolution in Monocots. 
#175. Compiled from species sexuality data, for easier and more reliable
use in identificatory connections. 
#176. Compiled from species sexuality data, for easier and more reliable
use in identificatory connections. 
#177. Assignments to the precise monoecious and dioecious states are
impracticable or unreliable from single specimens, and the details are
probably extensively unreliable in any case. For INTKEY identifications,
cautiously entering the possibilities 1/6/7 or (when something other than
state 1 evidently obtains) 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 will often prove useful.
\par{}However, the preceding characters (sexuality of individual flowers,
presence on specimens of unisexual flowers) have been compiled from this
one, for easier and more reliable use in identificatory connections. 
#179:338:340:345. Gynoecium: a collective term for the total female
component of the flower, including all recognisable derivatives of this.
#181. 'Heterostyly' is indicative of a breeding system which involves 
individuals of the same species having relatively short styles enclosed 
by the anthers, or relatively long ones exceeding them.
#182. Fairly comprehensive data have been entered for Monocots, mainly from
Dahlgren and Clifford (1982); Dahlgren, Clifford and Yeoh (1985). Few
entries have been made for Dicots. 
#183. Fairly comprehensive data have been entered for Monocots, mainly from
Dahlgren and Clifford (1982); Dahlgren, Clifford and Yeoh (1985). Few
entries have been made for Dicots. \par{}Disk: an elevated or
appendicular, usually more or less fleshy and nectariferous development on
the receptacle internal to the perianth or stamens, which may be
receptacular or staminodial (or ambiguous) in origin. \par{}Gynoecium: a
collective term for the total female component of the flower, including all
recognisable derivatives of this. \par{}Androecium: the total male
component of the flower, including all recognisable derivatives of this.
Androecial members thus include the stamens (q.v.), plus any staminodial
structures (q.v.). 
#184. Many families which are obviously at least sometimes entomophilous
have been left uncoded, owing to uncertainty regarding the occurrence of
other conditions. 
#186. This character affords an opportunity to enter descriptive
information of general interest, but the states are obviously imprecise and
the data are of little use for identification or classification. 
#188. Axillary implies from a leaf axil, rather than from a bract axil. 
#189. Unsatisfactory character delimitation, inadequate character state
definitions and unreliable data on inflorescence features are an
inevitable evolutionary consequence of continuing precocious maturation
(neoteny), and it is easier to locate erudite morphological discussions and
elegant terminologies than to obtain taxonomically satisfactory comparative data.
\par{}This
unsatisfactory character will eventually be subsumed into the nearby text
character (infloresences \emdash{} type). The terms in everyday use
employed here have adequate definitions for practical application and for
resolution into a hierarchy of multistate characters, but their haphazard
application in published descriptions (in which, for example, different
levels of aggregation are seldom mentioned) precludes effectively using
them in that fashion without organizing the data \i{}de novo\i0{}.
\par{}See the text character for definitions of terms 
#191. Spikelet = a secondary spike (ultimate inflorescence unit),
consisting of one or more reduced flowers and subtending bracts, as in
grasses. A morphologically loose but very useful descriptive term,
unambiguously applicable in relation to most flowering plants. 
#192. . Unsatisfactory character delimitation, inadequate character state
definitions and unreliable data on inflorescence features are an
inevitable evolutionary consequence of continuing precocious maturation
(neoteny), and it is easier to locate erudite morphological discussions and
elegant terminologies than to obtain taxonomically satisfactory comparative data.
#194. Axillary implies from a leaf axil, rather than from a bract axil.
\par{}\par{}Intercalary (of inflorescences): where the flower-bearing
axes are not terminal but continue to grow, reverting to the vegetative
state after giving rise to the aggregates of flowers.
\par{}\par{}Cauliflorous (of trees and shrubs): flowering from old wood,
i.e. from trunk or branches. 
#195. Unsatisfactory character delimitation, inadequate character state
definitions and unreliable data on inflorescence features are an
inevitable evolutionary consequence of continuing precocious maturation
(neoteny), and it is easier to locate erudite morphological discussions and
elegant terminologies than to obtain taxonomically satisfactory comparative data.
\par{}The
following terms have been employed here. They have adequate definitions for
practical application and for resolution into a hierarchy of multistate
characters, but their haphazard application in published descriptions (in
which, for example, different levels of aggregation are seldom mentioned)
precludes effectively using them in that fashion without organizing the
data \i{}de novo\i0{}. \par{}Catkin (ament): a scaly-bracted, deciduous,
often pendulous or flexuous raceme or (more usually) raceme of cymules,
with reduced (anemophilous), apetalous, usually unisexual flowers.
\par{}Corymb: a relatively broad and short-internoded, flat-topped or
convex, open, indeterminate (centripetal) inflorescence, whose outer
flowers open first. \par{}Cyme: a determinate flower cluster, with
central flowers opening first. \par{}Fascicle: a loose term for a
condensed or close cluster, of whatever detailed construction
(unresolved/unresolvable into racemose/cymose). \par{}Glomerule: a
cluster of dense or compact, short-pedicelled or short-peduncled clusters
or heads, with a common involucre. \par{}Panicle: an indeterminate
(racemose, corymbose), compound inflorescence (the primary branches
racemose, the nature of lower order branching unspecified). \par{}Raceme:
a simple, elongate-internoded, indeterminate (centripetal) inflorescence
with pedicelled flowers which open acropetally. \par{}Thyrse: a mixed
(compound) inflorescence, in the form of a contracted or ovate panicle, the
primary branching racemose (indeterminate) but the ultimate branching
cymose (determinate). \par{}Umbel: A relatively broad, often flat-topped,
indeterminate (centripetal) inflorescence, whose pedicels or peduncles
arise from a common point and whose outer flowers open first.
\par{}Verticil: a whorl of flowers about an axis (of whatever detailed
organization). 
#196. Involucre: one or more whorls of modified leaves or bracts
subtending a cluster of flowers (or florets) or a cluster of inflorescence
branches. 
#197. Pseudanthium: an aggregation of flowers superficially resembling
(and perhaps fuctionally, biologically equivalent to) a single flower
Spectacularly exemplifying the evolutionary process of precocious maturation 
('neoteny').
#198:273. Accrescent: increasing in size after flowering. 
#199. Spathe: a conspicuous bract or specialized leaf, enclosing an
inflorescence. 
#200. Bract: a modified foliar structure, subtending an infloresence,
inflorescence branch or pedicel. Available descriptions frequently fail to
distinguish adequately between (or are confused or ambiguous about) bracts
and bracteoles (q.v.), so the compiled data are unreliable. 
#201:250:264. Calyptrate: forming a hood or lid over the inner parts of
the flower. 
#202. Bracteoles: ultimate bracts (q.v.), borne singly, in pairs or in
series directly on the pedicel. Frequently interpretable as inflorescence
prophylls. Available descriptions frequently fail to distinguish adequately
between (or are confused or ambiguous about) bracts and bracteoles, so the
compiled data are unreliable. 
#211. Papilionaceous: exhibiting a C5, imbricate-descending corolla as in
typical Leguminosae-Papilionoideae, the butterfly shape deriving from an
outer, adaxial (posterior) standard petal (the vexillum), two lateral
wings, and a keel constituted by the anterior (lowermost, abaxial)
pair; the latter enclosing the declinate androecium and gynoecium.
\par{}Pseudo-papilionaceous: denotes a floral structure exhibiting some
but not all of the features of, or superficially resembling, that typical
of Leguminosae-Papilionoideae (q.v.). 
#216. As used here, androphore means elongation of the receptacle above
the perianth and beneath the stamens, or associated with a column of
stamens. A gynophore is an elongation immediately beneath the gynoecium,
and implies a stipitate pistil. A combination of androphore and gynophore
(encoded 1&2) represents an androgynophore. The term gonophore (= an
elongation of the floral axis, bearing stamens and carpels) seems to be
ambiguous. 
#218. Hypanthium: usually ostensibly (and once generally thought
morphologically interpretable as) a tubular enlargement or development of
the receptacle, supporting the perianth and stamens. Nowadays supposed
usually to represent congenital fusion of Dicot perianth and androecium,
but arguably at least sometimes (e.g. in \i{}Calycanthaceae\i0{},
\i{}Juglandaceae\i0{}, \i{}Santalaceae\i0{}) partially receptacular. A
hypanthium is often implied in older literature by corolla (and/or
stamens) inserted on the calyx tube. In encoding the present descriptions,
however, it has been assumed that neither corolla nor stamens can be
attached to a true calyx; and any tubular structure bearing calyx lobes
plus corolla and/or stamens is regarded as hypanthium, not calyx tube. In
the presence of a perianth tube interpreted (or interpretable) as
hypanthium, however, there is sometimes no obvious means (textural change,
etc.) of deciding precisely where hypanthium ends and true calyx begins,
hence the distinction between polysepaly and gamosepaly (q.v.) becomes
ambiguous. An effort has been made in the descriptions to allow for
alternative interpretations, but further adjustments will no doubt be
required. For practical purposes, it is fortunate that some families posing
severe interpretive difficulties in this context (e.g. \i{}Proteaceae\i0{})
are so variable for all the structural aspects involved that the validity
of family descriptions does not depend on satisfactory morphological
resolutions for all the forms they cover. \par{}Note that the floral tube
(hypanthium) of Dicots is generally thought not to be homologous with the
perigone tube of Monocots, which is usually more obviously perianthial in
appearance and texture. 
#219. See comments under hypanthium. 
#220-222. Disk = an elevated or appendicular, usually more or less fleshy
and nectariferous development on the receptacle internal to the perianth or
stamens, which may be receptacular or staminodial (or ambiguous) in origin.
#223. Calyx: the outer component of the floral envelope, represented by
sepals or equivalent structure(s). \par{}Corolla: the inner component of
the floral envelope, represented by petals or equivalent structures.
\par{}Perianth: floral envelope(s), inclusive of calyx, corolla, tepals
and all morphologically equivalent structures. \par{}Tepal: a segment or
unit of a whorled perianth which is not resolvable into calyx and corolla.
\par{}In general, an effort has been made to encode this character
straightforwardly, according to appearance when conscientiously examined by
a trained botanist using a dissecting microscope. However, alternative
interpretations of it (and of its dependents) have been encoded in the
descriptions where this seemed appropriate. If in doubt about its use in
identification with INTKEY, entering all the reasonable possibilities will
usually still afford useful discrimination. \par{}An attempt has been made
on principle to encode family morphological descriptions so as to allow for
likely alternative interpretations or misinterpretations. The same device
has been used in families where the true state of affairs seems sometimes
to be deducible only from comparative morphology. Its implementation has
necessarily been somewhat selective, however, in view of the complications
arising from character dependencies. 
#224. Perianth: floral envelope(s), inclusive of calyx, corolla, tepals
and all morphologically equivalent structures. \par{}The DELTA system
currently has no device for encoding/interpreting the loose botanical
convention many (= too many to bother counting), application of which
varies from character to character and from person to person. In compiling
the descriptions, many has been interpreted so as to encompass the number
specified in the character list. The actual ranges entered usually
represent guesswork, and are not reliable. 
#225:227-234. Perianth: floral envelope(s), inclusive of calyx, corolla,
tepals and all morphologically equivalent structures. 
#226. Perianth: floral envelope(s), inclusive of calyx, corolla, tepals
and all morphologically equivalent structures. \par{}The reliability of the
Monocot data is very uncertain: 3+3 in published descriptions has been
assumed to imply two tangible whorls, rather than extrapolation from
phylogenetic assumptions. 
#236. This character conveys the K numbers of floral formulae, and is
usually unambiguously determinable. However, values recorded here sometimes
involve morphological interpretation (relying on recognition of joined
members, etc.), and inexperienced botanists are advised to avoid using it
for identifications in connection with gamosepalous, zygomorphic calyces.
\par{}The DELTA system currently has no device for encoding/interpreting
the loose botanical convention many (= too many to bother counting),
application of which varies from character to character and from person to
person. In compiling the descriptions, many has been interpreted so as to
encompass the number specified in the character list. The actual ranges
entered usually represent guesswork, and are not reliable. 
#239. Polysepalous: consisting of free sepals. \par{}Partially
gamosepalous: two or more calyx members joined (palpably, or readily
interpreted as such with reference to lobes, venation and considerations of
floral symmetry), the other(s) free. \par{}Gamosepalous (monosepalous):
reasonably interpretable as representing joining of all the calyx members
into a single structure (as evidenced by free lobes, venation and
considerations of floral symmetry). Nearly always associated with
possession of a long or short calyx tube. \par{}In the present
descriptions, any tubular structure bearing corolla and/or stamens in
addition to calyx lobes is regarded as hypanthium (q.v.), not calyx tube.
Calyx lobes inserted on such a hypanthium at or below the level of
insertion of the (uppermost cycle of) stamens are treated as free sepals,
and the calyx is fairly unambiguously polysepalous. Likewise, calyx
lobes inserted directly on an inferior ovary (i.e. with no free tube)
also represent polysepaly. Ambiguities arise when a free perianth tube is
continued without textural change (etc.) above the level of insertion of
stamens, so that it is hard to decide where hypanthium ends and calyx
begins: an effort has been made in the descriptions to allow for
alternative interpretations. 
#251. States 1 and 2 (together equivalent to sepals or calyx lobes
overlapping one another) should be lumped for routine identificatory work.
The available data imply that the contorted state is much rarer than the
corresponding state for the corolla. It is generally more easily observed
in the corolla, however, and may be under-recorded for the calyx.
\par{}Imbricate: where the edges of the sepals or calyx lobes overlap in
the flower bud, with one or more members wholly external, one or more
wholly internal and the other(s) with one side overlapped and the other
overlapping. \par{}Contorted (convolute, twisted): where the edges of the
sepals or calyx lobes overlap in the flower bud in regular sequence, with
each member having one edge overlapped and the other overlapping.
\par{}Valvate: where the edges of the sepals or calyx lobes are
contiguous in the flower bud without overlapping.
\par{}Induplicate-valvate: where the edges of the sepals or calyx lobes
in the flower bud are bent inwards along their length, and applied
valvately to those of their neighbours. \par{}Open: where the edges of
the sepals or calyx lobes are neither overlapping nor contiguous with one
another in the flower bud. \par{}Plicate: where the sepals or calyx lobes
are folded, fanlike, in the flower bud. (It remains to be established
whether this condition is exclusive, or represents a qualification of one
of the others.) \par{}Precisely defined variants of imbricate
(quincuncial, cochlear), and left versus right handed orientation of these
and of contorted, are potentially taxonomically informative, but are
largely undocumented. 
#252:262:357. Anterior: abaxial, = on the side away from the axis on
which the flower (and its pedicel) are borne. \par{}Posterior: adaxial, =
on the side against the axis on which the flower is borne. \par{}Use with
caution, since the morphological orientation (encoded here) is sometimes
different from the apparent orientation because of twisting (resupination)
of the pedicel, e.g. in many orchids. 
#253. Epicalyx: an accessory calyx, more or less concrescent with or
borne upon the calyx, more or less obviously or only theoretically
interpretable as representing bracts, bracteoles or stipules. 
#254. This character conveys the C numbers of floral formulae, and is
usually unambiguously determinable. However, values recorded here sometimes
involve morphological interpretation (relying on recognition of joined
members, etc.), and inexperienced botanists are advised to avoid using it
for identifications in connection with gamopetalous, zygomorphic corollas.
\par{}The DELTA system currently has no device for encoding/interpreting
the loose botanical convention many (= too many to bother counting),
application of which varies from character to character and from person to
person. In compiling the descriptions, many has been interpreted so as to
encompass the number specified in the character list. The actual ranges
entered usually represent guesswork, and are not reliable. 
#258. Polypetalous: of free petals, inserted directly on the receptacle
or hypanthium. \par{}Partially gamopetalous: two or more corolla members
joined (palpably, or readily interpreted as such with reference to lobes,
venation and considerations of floral symmetry), the other(s) free.
\par{}Gamopetalous (monopetalous): reasonably interpretable as
representing joining of all the corolla members into a single structure (as
evidenced by free lobes, venation and considerations of floral symmetry).
Nearly always associated with possession of a long or short corolla tube. 
#265. Imbricate: where the edges of the petals or corolla lobes overlap
in the flower bud, with one or more members wholly external, one or more
wholly internal and the other(s) with one side overlapped and the other
overlapping. \par{}Contorted (convolute, twisted): where the edges of the
petals or corolla lobes overlap in the flower bud in regular sequence, with
each member having one edge overlapped and the other overlapping.
\par{}Valvate: where the edges of the petals or corolla lobes are
contiguous in the flower bud without overlapping.
\par{}Induplicate-valvate: where the edges of the petals or corolla lobes
in the flower bud are bent inwards along their length, and applied
valvately to those of their neighbours. \par{}Open: where the edges of
the petals or corolla lobes are neither overlapping nor contiguous with one
another in the flower bud. \par{}Plicate: where the petals or corolla
lobes are folded, fanlike, in the flower bud. \par{}Precisely defined
variants of imbricate (quincuncial, cochlear), and left versus right
handed orientation of these and of contorted, are potentially
taxonomically informative (e.g. Scotland \i{}et al.\i0{} 1994 for
\i{}Acanthaceae\i0{} and relatives) but are undocumented for most families.
\par{}It remains to be established whether plicate and crumpled
represent exclusive states, or qualifications of the others (as seems
likely). 
#268. This exemplifies a common situation, where a superficially attractive
character has low reliability mainly through lack (or inaccessibility) of
comprehensive data on large families. Many families remain uncoded, and
some of the descriptions no doubt underestimate the extent of variability. 
#276:279-280:282-286. Androecium: the total male component of the flower,
including all recognisable derivatives of this. Androecial members thus
include the stamens (q.v.), plus any staminodial structures (q.v.). 
#278. Androecium: the total male component of the flower, including all
recognisable derivatives of this. Androecial members thus include the
stamens (q.v.), plus any staminodial structures (q.v.). \par{}The DELTA
system currently has no device for encoding/interpreting the loose
botanical convention many (= too many to bother counting), application
of which varies from character to character and from person to person. In
compiling the descriptions, many has been interpreted so as to encompass
the number specified in the character list. The actual ranges entered
usually represent guesswork, and are not reliable. 
#281. Note the lack of reliable data on this supposedly important
character. Satisfactory representation would involve implementing several
characters, distinguishing between maturation and initiation and between
whole androecia and cycles of stamens and clusters. Separate states would
also be required for simultaneous. \par{}Androecium: the total male
component of the flower, including all recognisable derivatives of this.
Androecial members thus include the stamens (q.v.), plus any staminodial
structures (q.v.). 
#287. Refers to insertion only; thus, most legumes have only one whorl,
although the inner and outer whorls may be detectable morphologically
via differences in size, anther shape, etc. \par{}The reliability of the
data is very uncertain, especially for Monocots: e.g., 3+3 in published
descriptions has been assumed to mean two detectable whorls, rather than
extrapolation from phylogenetic theory. \par{}Androecium: the total male
component of the flower, including all recognisable derivatives of this.
Androecial members thus include the stamens (q.v.), plus any staminodial
structures (q.v.). 
#289. Androecium: the total male component of the flower, including all
recognisable derivatives of this. Androecial members thus include the
stamens (q.v.), plus any staminodial structures (q.v.). \par{}Staminode:
a sterile stamen, or a modified structure identifiable as such, borne in
the androecial region of the flower. May be merely imperfect, vestigial,
or specialized (e.g. petaloid or nectariferous). 
#290. Staminode: a sterile stamen, or a modified structure identifiable
as such, borne in the androecial region of the flower. May be merely
imperfect, vestigial, or specialized (e.g. petaloid or nectariferous).
\par{}The DELTA system currently has no device for encoding/interpreting
the loose botanical convention many (= too many to bother counting),
application of which varies from character to character and from person to
person. In compiling the descriptions, many has been interpreted so as to
encompass the number specified in the character list. The actual ranges
entered usually represent guesswork, and are not reliable. 
#291. This character often demands recognition of morphological whorls,
with reference to the rest of the floral formula. In particular, stamens
inserted at different levels on a corolla tube may nevertheless be of the
same morphological series. \par{}Staminode: a sterile stamen, or a
modified structure identifiable as such, borne in the androecial region of
the flower. May be merely imperfect, vestigial, or specialized (e.g.
petaloid or nectariferous). 
#293. Staminode: a sterile stamen, or a modified structure identifiable
as such, borne in the androecial region of the flower. May be merely
imperfect, vestigial, or specialized (e.g. petaloid or nectariferous).
\par{}Didynamous: stamens paired, with two long and two short (as in most
\i{}Labiatae\i0{}). \par{}Tetradynamous: stamens four long and two short,
as in \i{}Cruciferae\i0{}. 
#295. The DELTA system currently has no device for encoding/interpreting
the loose botanical convention many (= too many to bother counting),
application of which varies from character to character and from person to
person. In compiling the descriptions, many has been interpreted so as to
encompass the number specified in the character list. The actual ranges
entered usually represent guesswork, and are not reliable. 
#309:414. Valve: a flap (as opposed to a slit). 
#312:315:317-323. Data on anther development mainly from Davis 1966, with
additions from more recent publications (see References). 
#331. Operculum: a clearly defined thickening on the pollen aperture
membrane, forming a (sometimes detatchable) lid. \par{}Forms theoretically
exhibiting vestigial opercula (in the form of coarse granules, exine
fragments) have been encoded as inoperculate, with qualifying comment. The
correct treatment would employ three ordered states (operculate/with
vestigial operculum/inoperculate, without vestiges), but observations
permitting reliable assignment may be unavailable for most of the 25 or so
ulcerate families. 
#335. Scrobiculate: exhibiting scrobiculi \emdash{} small, open, more or
less circular lumina, separated by sexinous areas or streaks several times
as wide as the average diameter of a single scrobiculus (Erdtman 1969).
\par{}Recorded here only for families supposedly closest to Gramineae (see
Linder and Ferguson 1985, Kellogg and Campbell 1987). 
#336. Columellate (baculate): exhibiting more or less perpendicular
(radial) rods (branched or unbranched, attached at both ends or free
internally). \par{}Recorded here only for families supposedly closest to
Gramineae (see Linder and Ferguson 1985, Kellogg and Campbell 1987). A list
of families with at least one representative exhibiting columellae
(bacules) could be drawn up from the usual compilations (notably from
Erdtman 1966), but it would be useless in the absence of data on
alternative intertitial types. 
#339. Gynoecium: a collective term for the total female component of the
flower, comprising ovary(ies), style(s) and stigma(s), and including all
recognisable derivatives of these. \par{}Carpel: the ovule-bearing unit
of the gynoecium (including any associated style and stigma), representing
a hypothetical ancestral megasporophyll (a fertile, three-veined leaf
with ovules near its edges associated with the lateral veins). Easily
recognisable in practice when the gynoecium is monomerous or apocarpous
(i.e. when the carpels are solitary, or multiple but separate), but
becoming increasingly theoretical with increasing degrees of (hypothetical)
congenital fusion in syncarpous (compound) gynoecia. Thus, where the
ovary is unilocular the number of carpels represents phylogenetic
speculation based on the lobing of the ovary, vestigial features, the
number of styles or stigmas, the placentation pattern, the vasculature, the
symmetry of the flower, etc. \par{}The DELTA system currently has no device
for encoding/interpreting the loose botanical convention many (= too
many to bother counting), application of which varies from character to
character and from person to person. In compiling the descriptions, many
has been interpreted so as to encompass the number specified in the
character list. The actual ranges entered usually represent guesswork, and
are not reliable. \par{}An attempt has been made on principle to encode
family morphological descriptions so as to allow for likely alternative
interpretations or misinterpretations. The same device has been used in
families where the true state of affairs seems sometimes to be deducible
only from comparative morphology. Its implementation has necessarily been
somewhat selective, however, in view of the complications arising from
character dependencies. 
#341:346-348:350. Carpel: the ovule-bearing unit of the gynoecium
(including any associated style and stigma), representing a hypothetical
ancestral megasporophyll (a fertile, three-veined leaf with ovules near
its edges associated with the lateral veins). Easily recognisable in
practice when the gynoecium is monomerous or apocarpous (i.e. when the
carpels are solitary, or multiple but separate), but becoming increasingly
theoretical with increasing degrees of (hypothetical) congenital fusion in
syncarpous (compound) gynoecia. Thus, where the ovary is unilocular the
number of carpels represents phylogenetic speculation based on the lobing
of the ovary, vestigial features, the number of styles or stigmas, the
placentation pattern, the vasculature, the symmetry of the flower, etc. 
#342. Locellate: of ovaries having secondary compartments (locelli)
derived via false septa, the latter representing ingrowths from the ovary
walls, or complete (fused) intrusions or extrusions of the placentas. In
mature ovaries, locelli may be hard to distinguish from primary locules
without examining the vascularization of the ovary wall and noting the
number and location of styles (i.e. without establishing the number of
carpels involved). 
#343-344. Gynoecium: a collective term for the total female component of
the flower, including all recognisable derivatives of this. \par{}Carpel:
the ovule-bearing unit of the gynoecium (including any associated style and
stigma), representing a hypothetical ancestral megasporophyll (a fertile,
three-veined leaf with ovules near its edges associated with the lateral
veins). Easily recognisable in practice when the gynoecium is monomerous
or apocarpous (i.e. when the carpels are solitary, or multiple but
separate), but becoming increasingly theoretical with increasing degrees of
(hypothetical) congenital fusion in syncarpous (compound) gynoecia. Thus,
where the ovary is unilocular the number of carpels represents
phylogenetic speculation based on the lobing of the ovary, vestigial
features, the number of styles or stigmas, the placentation pattern, the
vasculature, the symmetry of the flower, etc. \par{}With few exceptions
(e.g. \i{}Hernandiaceae\i0{}), inferior unilocular ovaries seem reasonably
interpretable as pseudomonomerous and syncarpous (q.v.), and have been
treated as such in the descriptions. \par{}Apocarpous: of a gynoecium
composed of two or more separate carpels. \par{}Monomerous: of a
gynoecium consisting of a solitary carpel. \par{}Semicarpous: of a
gynoecium of two or more carpels, whose ovaries are only partially
(basally) joined. \par{}Syncarpous: of a gynoecium composed of two or
more (theoretically) congenitally united carpels. \par{}Pseudomonomerous
(a term often appearing as data comment in the present descriptions): of an
ostensibly monomerous gynoecium, which is supposed on comparative
morphological grounds (etc.) to represent a reduced syncarpous one. An
effort has been made to encode the monomeric alternative and its dependent
characters, at least as an alternative, for all families exhibiting
pseudomonomery deducible only from comparative morphology. All inferior
unilocular ovaries seem reasonably interpretable as pseudomonomerous and
syncarpous (q.v.), and have been treated as such in the descriptions. (See
carpel for further information.) \par{}An attempt has been made on
principle to encode family morphological descriptions so as to allow for
likely alternative interpretations or misinterpretations. The same device
has been used in families where the true state of affairs seems sometimes
to be deducible only from comparative morphology. Its implementation has
necessarily been somewhat selective, however, in view of the complications
arising from character dependencies. 
#352:358. Ovary: the ovule-bearing part of a syncarpous, semicarpous or
pseudomonomeric gynoecium, as distinct from its style and stigma. 
#353. Ovary: the ovule-bearing part of a syncarpous, semicarpous or
pseudomonomeric gynoecium, as distinct from its style and stigma. \par{}The
DELTA system currently has no device for encoding/interpreting the loose
botanical convention many (= too many to bother counting), application
of which varies from character to character and from person to person. In
compiling the descriptions, many has been interpreted so as to encompass
the number specified in the character list. The actual ranges entered
usually represent guesswork, and are not reliable. 
#354. False septa: secondary septa, representing ingrowths from the ovary
walls or complete (fused) extrusions or intrusions from the placentas,
which subdivide the primary locules into locelli (q.v.), and result in cell
counts in excess of (often double) the number of carpels. Rarely, they
occur as horizontal partitions, detectable only via vertical sections of
the ovary. As distinct from the true septa, which divide the ovary into
primary locules each supposedly representing one carpel (q.v.). 
#356. Anterior: abaxial, = on the side away from the axis on which the
flower (and its pedicel) are borne. \par{}Posterior: adaxial, = on the
side against the axis on which the flower is borne. 
#375-376. An attempt has been made on principle to encode family
morphological descriptions so as to allow for likely alternative
interpretations or misinterpretations. The same device has been used in
families where the true state of affairs seems sometimes to be deducible
only from comparative morphology. Its implementation has necessarily been
somewhat selective, however, in view of the complications arising from
character dependencies. 
#378-379. An attempt has been made on principle to encode family
morphological descriptions so as to allow for likely alternative
interpretations or misinterpretations. The same device has been used in
families where the true state of affairs seems sometimes to be deducible
only from comparative morphology. Its implementation has necessarily been
somewhat selective, however, in view of the complications arising from
character dependencies. \par{}The DELTA system currently has no device for
encoding/interpreting the loose botanical convention many (= too many to
bother counting), application of which varies from character to character
and from person to person. In compiling the descriptions, many has been
interpreted so as to encompass the number specified in the character list.
The actual ranges entered usually represent guesswork, and are not
reliable. 
#381. Orientation with regard to the relative positions of the top of the
ovule (i.e. its distal end, regardless of the position of the micropyle),
its point of attachment to the placenta, and the proximal/distal axis of
the ovary. Not to be confused with morphological orientation.
\par{}Pendulous (descending): (ovule) fixed to an axile, free central,
apical or parietal placenta, with the its top hanging or turned towards the
base of the ovary. \par{}Horizontal: (ovule) fixed to an axile, free
central or parietal placenta, with its axis more or less at right angles to
that of the ovary. \par{}Ascending: (ovule) fixed to a basal, axile, free
central or parietal placenta, with its top facing or turned towards the
distal end of the ovary. \par{}See Geesink \i{}et al.\i0{} (1981) for
diagrams. 
#382. Apotropous: of ovules with the raphe ventral when the ovule is
ascending, dorsal when it is descending. \par{}Epitropous: the raphe
dorsal when the ovule is ascending, ventral when it is descending. The
latter case is equivalent to micropyle upwards and outwards in older
literature; but micropyle superior does not distinguish apotropous from
epitropous. (See Geesink \i{}et al\i0{}. (1981) for excellent diagrams.)
\par{}This nineteenth century character is largely ignored in modern
accounts. It implies the existence of a taxonomically important distinction
among non-orthotropous ovules, between those seeming to represent a
phylogenetic rotation and adhesion to its funicle of the ancestral
orthotropous ovule upwards and inwards, i.e. with the micropylar end
rotating towards the distal end of the ovary (ovule involute; epitropous),
and those where it appears to have rotated and adhered downwards and
inwards, i.e towards the base of the ovary (ovule revolute; apotropous).
The taxonomic/phylogenetic significance of the distinction was recognised
in the Engler and Prantl classification, where it was emphasized as the
major difference between the important orders Geraniales and Sapindales,
together involving some 50 families. For the present purpose, the available
data seem applicable only to pendulous and ascending ovules, and then only
in the context of axile placentation, as expressed by the character states
defined above. Where not stated explicitly in published family
descriptions, the condition has been tentatively deduced by combining
compiled (sparse) information on ovule and raphe orientation. However, the
principle seems independent of whether ovules ascend or descend, and ought
sometimes also to be applicable where the placentation is apical, basal or
parietal, provided there are more than two ovules on the placenta. It is
difficult or impossible to glean much reliable data on this interesting
aspect from existing taxonomic descriptions, and there is evidently a fine
opportunity for making original observations. \par{}Raphe: of (more or
less) anatropous ovules (q.v.), being a cord or ridge of fibrovascular
tissue connecting the base of the nucellus with the placenta which
morphologically represents the adherent funicle. It is ventral if located
on the side of the ovule against the axis, dorsal if away from it, or
lateral if somewhere intermediate. \par{}Orthotropous: (ovule)
straight, with the micropyle at one end and the basal funicular attachment
at the other. Embryo straight. 
#383. Raphe: of (more or less) anatropous ovules (q.v.), being a cord or
ridge of fibrovascular tissue connecting the base of the nucellus with the
placenta, morphologically representing the adherent part of the funicle. It
is ventral if located on the side of the ovule against the placenta,
dorsal if away from it, or lateral if somewhere intermediate. 
#385-391:393-403. Data on ovule development and embryology mainly from
Davis 1966, with more recent additions (see References). 
#392. Data from Davis (1966). The ambiguous fusing in association with a
male gamete and fusing at fertilization have been encoded 2/3<?>. 
#405-407. Aggregate fruit: one representing aggregation (clustering or
coherence) of the discrete units (carpels) from a single synstylous,
semicarpous or apocarpous gynoecium (e.g. blackberry, buttercup). Not to be
confused with multiple fruits (q.v.) derived from more than one flower. 
#408. Legume: a fruit derived from a single carpel, which dehisces both
dorsally (along the placenta) and ventrally (the commonest type in
\i{}Leguminosae\i0{}). \par{}Loment: a fruit derived from a single
carpel, which at maturity breaks transversely into (usually one-seeded)
segments. \par{}Follicle: a fruit derived from a single carpel, which
dehisces only along the ventral suture. \par{}Achene: a fruit derived
from a single carpel which is small, hard, dry, one-seeded, and with a
tight, thin pericarp. \par{}Samaroid: a winged fruit derived from a
single carpel. \par{}Nucular: a fruit which is nutlike, but derived from
a single carpel. \par{}Drupaceous: a fruit which is drupelike, but
derived from a single carpel. \par{}Baccate: a fruit which is berrylike,
but derived from a single carpel (a berrylet). \par{}Aggregate fruit:
one representing aggregation (clustering or coherence) of the discrete
units (carpels) from a single synstylous, semicarpous or apocarpous
gynoecium (e.g. blackberry, buttercup). Not to be confused with multiple
fruits (q.v.) derived from more than one flower. 
#409. Dehiscent: a fruit opening in anatomically organized, predetermined
fashion to release the seeds. \par{}Indehiscent: a fruit with no precise,
anatomical mechanism for opening to release the seeds (rotting, irregularly
rupturing, ruptured by seedling germination, opened by external agencies,
etc.). \par{}Schizocarp: a syncarpous fruit which splits longitudinally
into non- or tardily dehiscent, fruitlike parts (mericarps, these generally
corresponding with locules or locelli). Useage restricting the term to dry,
bipartite fruits (\i{}Umbelliferae\i0{}, \i{}Aceraceae\i0{}, e.g. Lawrence
1951) is idiosyncratic and inconvenient. \par{}Lomentaceous: a syncarpous
fruit which breaks transversely into segments, resembling a loment (q.v.). 
#410. Mericarps: the separate, fruitlike derivatives of a schizocarp
(q.v.), regardless of their form and texture (cf. Jackson 1928 etc.).
Useage restricting the term to dry, bipartite fruits (e.g. Lawrence 1951)
is idiosyncratic and inconvenient. 
#411. Achene: a fruit derived from a single carpel which is small, hard,
dry, one-seeded, and with a tight, thin pericarp. \par{}Berrylet: a
berrylike mericarp. \par{}Follicle: a fruit derived from a single carpel,
which dehisces only along the ventral suture. \par{}Nutlet: a nutlike
mericarp. \par{}Samaroid: winged. \par{}Legume: a fruit derived from a
single carpel, which dehisces both dorsally (along the placenta) and
ventrally: the commonest type in \i{}Leguminosae\i0{}. \par{}Drupelet: a
drupelike mericarp. 
#412. Capsule: a dry, dehiscent fruit, from two or more carpels (but
exclusive of silicula and siliqua, see below).
\par{}Capsular-indehiscent: cf. capsule \emdash{} relatively thin
walled and containing free seeds, but indehiscent. \par{}Achene-like:
small, hard, dry, one-seeded, the pericarp tight and thin \emdash{} cf. an
achene (q.v.), but from a syncarpous gynoecium. \par{}Silicula: dry,
bilocular, of two carpels, longitudinally two-valved (q.v. valved),
length less than three times breadth. \par{}Siliqua: dry, bilocular, of
two carpels, longitudinally two-valved (q.v. valved), length at least
three times breadth. \par{}Berry: a fleshy syncarp, without a stony
layer, usually several to many seeded. \par{}Drupe: a fleshy syncarp,
with the one or more seeds surrounded by a stony layer. \par{}Nut: an
indehiscent, one-seeded syncarp, with a hard, dry, woody pericarp from
which the seed is free. \par{}Cypsella: an achene from two carpels,
invested by the adnate calyx. \par{}Samara: an indehiscent syncarp,
winged by extension of the fruit wall. \par{}Caryopsis: syncarpous but
one celled, one seeded, superior, and with the thin pericarp united to the
seed (the grain typical of grasses. \par{}Syncarp: a fruit representing
two or more fused carpels. \par{}Valved: opening by a flap (as opposed to
a slit). 
#417-418. Multiple fruit: one derived from the gynoecia of more than one
flower (e.g. mulberry, pineapple), or representing an inflorescence. Not to
be confused with aggregate fruit, q.v. 
#419. This character was included for its potential biological interest.
However, the current states fruit and flower are inadequate, for
example to deal with the various combinations of inferior ovaries and
persistent perianth parts. Consequently, few families have been encoded. 
#442. Data mainly from Dahlgren \i{}et al\i0{}. (1985), supplemented from
Stevenson and Loconte (1995). 
#447. Data mainly communicated by H.T. Clifford (1987). \par{}This
character is widely inapplicable to Monocots, where the single cotyledon is
commonly partly below ground and partly raised above it, and where
structures of obscure homologies may be involved (e.g. a coleoptile, q.v.).
#448. Data mainly for Monocots, from Tillich (1995). 
#449. Mesocotyl: a structure representing congenital fusion of the
epicotyl (q.v.) with the basal part of the coleoptile (q.v.), which may be
conspicuously elongated (e.g. in many grass seedlings). \par{}Data from
Tillich (1995). 
#450. Collar: the transitional region between the hypocotyl and the
primary root of a seedling, or the lowest part of the hypocotyl when the
latter is present. Usually detectable as a narrow line, but sometimes
appendaged or otherwise conspicuously developed (conspicuous). \par{}Data
for Monocots only, from Tillich (1995). 
#451. Data for Monocots only, from Tillich (1995). 
#452. Data for Monocots only, from Tillich (1995). 
#453. Data for Monocots only, from Tillich (1995). \par{}Unfortunately,
circular in t.s. and dorsiventrally flattened are not reliably
indicative of anatomically unifacial versus bifacial. 
#454. Coleoptile: a tubular elongation of the (single), closed cotyledon
sheath, peculiar to a few families of Monocotyledons. \par{}Data from
Tillich (1995). 
#455. Data from Tillich (1995). 
#456. Data mainly for Monocots, from Tillich (1995). 
#457. Data for Monocots only, from Tillich (1995). 
#458. Typically persistent and robust in Dicots, and treated here as
unreliably implicit for most of them. Data for Monocots from Tillich
(1995). 
#461. The data represent an attempt at comprehensive compilation from
reliable photosynthetic pathway-related data, except that no large scale,
organized attempt has been made to pursue the leaf anatomical literature
for illustrations adequate for anatomical predictions. \par{}For sources of
data, see references tagged |PP in the References. Re problems in recording
CAM/C\sub{}3\nosupersub{}, see Martin \i{}et al.\i0{} 1982/ 
#462. For sources of data, see references tagged |PP. 
#463. For sources of data, see references tagged |PP. 
#464. For sources of data, see references tagged |PP. The records
originally entered here have been updated with reference to the list of CAM
positive genera provided by Smith and Winter (1996). Unfortunately, as with
so many features of potential taxonomic and phylogenetic interest, the
necessity for recording hard data on negatives continues to be overlooked. 
#465. For sources of data, see references tagged |PP. 
#466. No organized, large scale attempt has been made here to pursue the
literature of plant leaf anatomy for illustrations of transverse sections
adequate for reliable C\sub{}3\nosupersub{}/C\sub{}4\nosupersub{}
assignment. \par{}\par{}For an exposition on applying the 'cells-distant'
criterion to predicting photosynthetic pathways, see Hattersly and Watson
(1975 and 1976). For further information, including pursuit of
'unconventional' C\sub{}3\nosupersub{}/C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} anatomical
configurations via immunofluorscent labelling of Rubisco in the PCR cells,
see Hattersley, Watson and Osmond (1977). 
#467. Comparative data consist of tables from Yeoh, Badger and Watson
(1980, 1981), and can be displayed as illustrations of this character. 
#469. Data mainly from Zimmermann and Ziegler (1975). The difficulty of
interpreting quantitative chromatographic data has rendered the encoding
fairly subjective. For example, tr (trace) records have been ignored. Any
taxonomic patterns emerging from Intkey interrogations of the descriptions
as encoded here should certainly not be accepted as meaningful without
first comparing them in detail with the original publications. 
#470. Data mainly from Gibbs (1974). 
#471. See especially Kjaer (1973). 
#472. Gibbs (1974) provides extensive data on cyanogenesis, including
negative records, derived via consistent application of his published
method. Not mentioned in the present data cannot be interpreted as
indicating the negative state. \par{}Some published compilations and
taxonomists generalizations (e.g. Cronquist 1981) are probably bedevilled
by spurious positives. 
#478. Comparative data consist of tables from Yeoh, Wee and Watson (1986),
and can be displayed as illustrations of this character. 
#479. Data mainly from Jensen, 1992 and pers. comm. As he points out,
negative results are usually not reported, so it is inappropriate to treat
absent as the implicit state (cf. comments under iridoids). 
#480. Data mainly from Jensen, 1992 and pers. comm. 
#481. Data mainly from Jensen, 1992 and pers. comm. As he points out,
negative results are usually not reported, so it is inappropriate to treat
absent as the implicit state (cf. comments under iridoids). 
#482. Data mainly from Jensen, 1992 and pers. comm. 
#483. Data from Gibbs (1974). 
#484. Data mainly from S.R. Jensen and collaborators 1975-1996, including
compilations, original observations and unpublished records; and Gibbs 1974
(see the accompanying References). \par{}Encoding has been organized here
on the assumption that the most generally useful expression for taxonomic
purposes will be iridoids sought and found in at least one representative
of the family, contrasted with iridoids sought in the family, but not
found. \par{}Though of much taxonomic interest, as with most data on
esoteric features, these require careful interpretation for use in
taxonomic analyses. There is often variation re presence and constitution
of iridoids within families, but for most relatively few representatives
have been screened. Most of the information in the source references seems
to represent analyses of leaf material, but a positive record for
\i{}Menyanthes\i0{} (used in published cladistic studies) represents
loganin reported for the rhizome, the leaves having been found
Ehrlich-negative. \par{}Explicit information on absence is scarce (in the
present data, much of it derives from the negative Ehrlich tests recorded
by Gibbs). In employing the present compilation, therefore, iridoids
absent cannot be routinely regarded as implicit. 
#485. Data mainly from Jensen 1991, 1992 and pers. comm.: see References. 
#488. Data from Bate-Smith (1962, 1968). 
#489. Data from Bate-Smith (1962, 1968). 
#490. Data from Bate-Smith (1962, 1968). 
#491. Data from Bate-Smith (1962, 1968). 
#492. Judging from Bate-Smiths (1962, 1968) data, the mono- and di-hydroxy
compounds \i{}p\i0{}-coumaric acid and caffeic acid, along with sinapic and
ferulic acid, seemed unlikely to justify taxonomically the effort of
encoding them. But see verbascosides. 
#494. Data from Gibbs (1974). 
#495. As indicated by the leaves becoming conspicuously yellow-green on
drying. Encoding here of aluminium accumulation not found implies the
existence of at least one explicit negative record for the family. Data
mainly from Chenery (1948), Webb (1954), Gibbs (1974), Chenery and Sporne
(1976). 
#497. Occurrence of S-type plastids lacking starch is indicated by text
comment in the descriptions. 
#504-519. Intended to reflect natural distributions, insofar as these are
determinable. The phytogeographical Kingdoms, Subkingdoms, Regions and
Subregions are those of Takhtajan (1969). Data for Liliiflorae provided by
J.G. Conran (pers. comm., 1993); for the rest, the data are very
incomplete. 
#521. This text character has been comprehensively recorded, and
incorporates colloquial summaries of natural distribution, cf. Williss
Dictionary. 
#522. Comprehensively encoded, but intended only for use in identification
and for generating useful geographic subsets of the data. Assignments to
these pragmatically defined world regions are intended to reflect
likelihood of the family being encountered in the field, regardless of
floristic status (i.e., including introduced weeds). Requires continuing
updating ...... 
#527-577. This package incorporates the complete classifications to ordinal
and supra-ordinal levels of Dahlgren (1980, for Dicots) and of Dahlgren,
Clifford and Yeo (1985, for monocots), that of Cronquist (1981) for Dicots
only, and the formal and informal suprafamilial groupings of the APG (APG
III and IV, 2009 and 2016). The later of these aims to account for the
plethora of recent cladistic and (more significantly) molecular-cladistic
molecular phylogenetic studies. It replaces the earlier version of their
treatment, and relatively few families remain unassigned at various levels.
Note that the lists of family synonyms provided in APG papers (many of which
are represented by separate descriptions in the present package) do not
indicate which of them have been sampled in DNA sequencing studies: some
have, but many probably have not. Rather than presenting them all as
unclassified under the APG scheme, they are referred here to the
(presumably) appropriate groups with the comment  . . . as a synonym of . .
.  against the ordinal assignment. While the Ordinal assignments here are
intended to be consistent with theirs in terms of generic content,
numerous APG re-alignments at \i{}family\i0{} level, some of which are no
doubt justified, simply cannot be implemented here in the absence of fully
reorganized, detailed descriptions. The latter would have to be laboriously
extacted from a mountain of publications which mostly purvey
non-comparative and often hopelessly incomplete data. \par{}\par{}It has
long been apparent (cf. Young and Watson 1970) that Cronquists largest
Subclasses of the Dicotyledons, Rosidae and Dilleniidae, had little or no
taxonomic merit, and that his Asteridae constituted a less informative
grouping than the Gamopetalae or Sympetalae of Nineteenth Century systems.
Dahlgrens scheme (viewed in conjunction with his diagrammatic
representation) was obviously better, but his classification could be much
improved, especially in connection with experimentalists requirements, by
superimposing our Crassinucelli/Tenuinucelli subdivision on his 24
Superorders. For the present purpose, Crassinucelli/Tenuinucelli status
has been assigned on correlated attributes, the nucellus being the best
predictor (though not absolutely reliable) when data are available.
Classification of Dicots into meaningful Orders is easier, and the Dahlgren
and Cronquist schemes extensively coincided. Comparisons between the
contents of their orders, of theirs with the APG classification, and
assessments of the character state distributions they all supposedly
reflect, are easily conducted by applying INTKEY. \par{}\par{}Various
details of the Dahlgren scheme for Dicots were adjusted in the course of
compiling these descriptions, mainly to account for new information (e.g.
families more recently described, referal of glucosinolate families to
Capparales, and re-assignments in relation to the Araliiflorae/Corniflorae
conundrum). For Monocots, the Dahlgren \i{}et al\i0{} (1985) classification
alone was incorporated, being obviously better than Cronquists, although
it was evidently far from the last word. Earlier schemes (including
Cronquists) are rendered extensively useless by gross \i{}sensu lato\i0{}
treatment of the family \i{}Liliaceae\i0{}. \par{}\par{}The exciting
classificatory ideas now emerging from comparative nucleic acid studies
exeplified by Chase \i{}et al\i0{}. (1993 et seq.) will result in
completely revised system within the next few years; but will demand
congruent results from DNA comparisons (nuclear, as well as chloroplast)
which can reasonably be expected to represent whole genomes, as well as
thorough coverage of genera and species. Definitive phylogenetic
conclusions will not be achieved by comparing one or two genes, and
phylogenies based entirely on plasid DNA in particular do not inspire
confidence unless the results are consistent with other comparative data.
Furthermore, it seems that no attention has yet been paid to likely past
occurrences of lateral transfer of genetic information at high hierarchical
levels, for example through the agency of parasitic bacteria, fungi and
viruses. A commonsense approach to assessing the phylogenetic credentials
of purported phylogenies and revised classifications will require properly
organised scrutiny of conventional character state distributions at all
levels, as will preparation of comparative group descriptions:
\i{}operations which are rendered relatively easy by the present package,
and which were specifically evisaged in its design\i0{} (Watson and
Dallwitz, 1992). 
#580. The generic lists were originally intended merely to exemplify family
contents, with particular reference to the circumscriptions employed in
compiling the descriptions. However, in terms of authoritatively accepted
generic names in current use, i.e. excluding synonyms, they are now virtually
complete, and the present Intkey package permits most Angiosperm generic names
likely to be encountered by Intkey users to be referred to a taxonomically
defensible family. In this connection, we extensively consulted Gunn \i{}et
al\i0{}. (1992 \i{}et seq\i0{}.: \i{}Families and Genera of Spermatophytes
recognized by the Agricultural Research Service\i0{}), subsequently \i{}The Kew
Plant List\i0{} (http://www.theplantlist.org/), and more recently \i{}The World
Flora Online (WFO)\i0{} (http://www.worldfloraonline.org); but with numerous
adjustments necessitated by our preference for \i{}sensu stricto\i0{} family
circumscriptions as explained in our \i{}Introduction\i0{}. These mostly
correspond with the treatments of Airy Shaw (1973), who also provided
near-comprehensive cross referencing of family and generic synonyms. We list the
genera of the traditional, hopelessly inadequate \i{}sensu lato\i0{} Liliaceae
under the segregate families circumscribed by Dahlgren \i{}et al\i0{} (1985).
The latter represent a marked improvement, but family limits in this vicinity
are evidently far from settled.
#582. There is much scope for extending the
data, which are at present largely restricted to general-interest
remarks of the kind purveyed by Airy Shaw (1973) and Lawrence (1951).
However, many supermarket exotic fruits will be referable to families by
searching for their English commercial names.
#583. From Shakespeare unless otherwise indicated. Many of the delightful
and botanically astute quotations labelled Ann Pratt 1857, unattributed
no doubt derive from John Clare (1793\endash{}1864), especially from The
Shepherds Calender, which has not yet been directly consulted in the
present context. \par{}Tropical and southern hemisphere families are poorly
represented \emdash{} contributions for these are especially welcome! 
#584. Descriptions were originally encoded and maintained by Watson between
1988 and 2008, and little of the subsequent, continuing editing of the data
is recorded here. 
#585. The line drawings for the earliest editions of this package were
taken from Le Maout and Decaisne (1873: by L. Steinheil and A. Riocreux,
who used Decaisnes collection of analytical drawings); Lindley (1853:
specially prepared for that work, or from other sources specified on the
legends); and Thonner (1915). Working with high resolution scans, the
layouts were changed as necessary, to account for family realignments,
effort was required to remove foxing and fingerprints. The original
legends, which carry many superseded generic names, were generally retained
save for removal of inappropriate family names. Subsequently, with resort
to Internet offerings (mostly located via the Biodiversity Heritage
Library, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/, and referenced in the Intkey
'Illustrations' windows) nearly all the family descriptions are now
accompanied by 'technical taxonomic' images. The original legends where
available have been pasted on to all the images, which have been scaled as
appropriate for screen display. \par{}No information is recorded against
this character; it is a placeholder for links to the illustrations in
HTML descriptions. 
 
