Loading…
Embryophytes have equivalent sexual phenotypes and breeding systems: why not a common terminology to describe them?
From our review of the literature it is clear that bryophytes, pteridophytes, and flowering plants, indeed most embryophytes, have equivalent sexual phenotypes and mating/breeding systems. We demonstrate that these phenotypes can be described with a common terminology, even though the reproductive s...
Saved in:
Published in: | American journal of botany 1995-06, Vol.82 (6), p.816-825 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | From our review of the literature it is clear that bryophytes, pteridophytes, and flowering plants, indeed most embryophytes, have equivalent sexual phenotypes and mating/breeding systems. We demonstrate that these phenotypes can be described with a common terminology, even though the reproductive structures of the groups are quite different. We consider morphological, functional, and temporal phenotypes and recommend the use of common terms such as unisexual, bisexual, male, female, and hermaphroditic in lieu of taxon-specific terms such as monoclinous, staminate, and perichaetial. We use self- and cross-fertilization and self- and cross-pollination to describe those processes. Likewise, inbreeding, mixed-breeding, and outbreeding can be used to describe breeding systems. Automixis, autogamy, facultative xenogamy, and xenogamy provide a more precise circumscription of mating/breeding systems. The use of well-known terms and a common terminology should improve communication among systematists, reproductive biologists, and/or evolutionary biologists, whether they work with bryophytes, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, or angiosperms, and with the broader biological community |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0002-9122 1537-2197 |
DOI: | 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1995.tb15694.x |