Celastrales
Celastrales | |
---|---|
Euonymus europaea, family Celastraceae | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Eudicots |
Clade: | Rosids |
Clade: | Fabids
|
Order: | Celastrales Link[1] |
Families | |
The Celastrales are an
Description
The Celastrales are a diverse order that has no conspicuous
arrangement. This means that two sepals are inside, two are outside, and the remaining sepal is half inside and half outside.Relationships
Perhaps the most conspicuous and unusual trait of the Celastrales is the nectary disk, a feature that it shares with another rosid order, Sapindales. Since the orders are not closely related, the disk must have been an independent development in each of these lines.
The Celastrales are a member of the Celastrales,
Circumscription
The name Celastrales was first used by Thomas Baskerville in 1839.[7] In the time since Baskerville first defined the order, until the 21st century, great differences of opinion occurred about what should be included in the order and in its largest family, the Celastraceae. The family Celastraceae was the only group consistently placed in the order by all authors who accepted it. Because of the ambiguity and complexity of its definition, the Celastraceae became a dumping ground for genera of dubious affinity. Several genera were assigned to this family with considerable doubt about whether they really belonged there. Also, some genera that properly belong in the Celastraceae were placed elsewhere.
By the end of the 20th century,
After being placed elsewhere, Canotia, Brexia, and Plagiopteron were found to belong in the Celastraceae. The family Hippocrateaceae was found to be deeply nested within the Celastraceae and is no longer recognized as a separate family.
In 2000,
In 2001, in a
In 2006, Li-Bing Zhang and Mark Simmons produced a
Families
The Celastrales have been divided into families in various ways. In their
In the 2006 phylogeny, Nicobariodendron was not sampled, but those species that were sampled fell into two strongly supported clades. One was a small clade consisting only of the family Lepidobotryaceae. Its
In 2008, Simmons and others produced a phylogeny of the Celastrales that achieved better resolution than the 2006 study by sampling more species and more DNA. They found the same pentatomy of five strongly supported groups that the previous study had found, but only weak to moderate support for any relationships between the five groups.[15] In the APG III system, the family Celastraceae was expanded to consist of these five groups. No one has yet published an intrafamilial classification for the expanded Celastraceae.[1]
Phylogeny
The following phylogenetic tree was made by combining parts of three different trees.[12][13][15] Bootstrap support is 100% except where shown. Branches with less than 50% bootstrap support are collapsed. The clade numbers are from Simmons et al. (2008).[15]
Celastrales |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References
- ^ hdl:10654/18083.
- ISBN 978-3-540-06512-8(vol. VI).
- ^ a b Peter F. Stevens (2001 onwards). Celastrales At: Angiosperm Phylogeny at Missouri Botanical Garden
- .
- PMID 19223592.
- JSTOR 25065865.
- ^ Thomas Baskerville. Affinities of Plants: with some observations upon progressive development. page 104.. Taylor and Walton: Gower Street, London. (1839).
- ^ S2CID 23284896.
- .
- ^ Victoria Sosa. "Crossosomataceae" In: Klaus Kubitzki (ed.) The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants vol.IX. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Heidelberg (2007).
- S2CID 85372314.
- ^ PMID 11399146.
- ^ S2CID 86095495.
- .
- ^ PMID 18550389.
External links
- Media related to Celastrales at Wikimedia Commons