五加科分族新纲要

The present paper deals with the following three aspects:      1. It attempts to discuss the problems on primitive forms of the family Araliaceae. The genus Tupidanthus Hook. f. & Thoms. was considered by H. Harms (1894) and H. L. Li (1942) as primitive, whilst another genus Plerandra A. Gray was regarded as primitive by R. H. Eyde & C. C. Tseng in 1971. Having made a detailed comparison of the taxonomical characters of these two genera, the present authors believe that both genera are not the most primitive in the Araliaceae. Their affinit yis not close enough and they possibly evolved in parallel lines from a common ancestor which is so far un- known yet.      2. By studying the systems of the past, the present authors believe that none of them is entirely satisfactory. Bentham (1867) recognized five ‘series’ (in fact, equival- ent to ‘tribe’ with the ending-eae of names) based on the petaline arrangement in the bud, the numbers of stamen and the types of endospem. This is a plausible funda- mental treatment for the Araliaceae, but choosing the endosperm as a criteria in dividing tribe is artifical. As we know today, both ruminate and uniform endosperm are usually presente in the same genus.  Seemann’s system (1868) divided the Hederaceae (excl. Trib. Aralieae) into five tribes, in addition to the locules of ovary.  The criteria are essentially the same as Bentham’s. The system of Hams (1894) divided the family into three tribes. Two tribes, Aralieae and Mackinlayeae, of  Bentham are  retained,  but other groups were combined in the Trib. Schefflereae.  However, Harms did not retain one of those three oldest legitimate names which had named by Bentham, that is con- trary to the law of priority in the International Code of Botanical Nomenelature. Hut- chinson (1967) adopted seven tribes for the family. The criteria essentially follow those of Bentham, but the inflorescence is overstressed. The inflorescence is an artifical taxono- mical character in dividing tribes, because of some dioecious plants, such as Meryta sin- clairii (Hook. f.) Seem., have two types of inflorescence in male and female plants. Ac- cording to Hutchinson’s arrangement, the male and female plants would be put in se- parate tribes.     3.   The present authors are of the opinion that in the study of a natural classi- fication of plant groups emphasis should be laid not only on the characters of the repro- ductive organs, but on those of vegetative organs as well.  The present revised system is based principally upon the characters of both flowers and leaves of the five tribes as follows:       Trib. 1. Plerandreae Benth. emend. Hoo & Tseng      Trib. 2. Tetraplasandreae Hoo & Tseng       Trib. 3. Mackinlayeae Benth.      Trib. 4. Aralieae Benth.       Trib. 5. Panaceae Benth. emend. Hoo & Tseng

A new classification scheme for the family Araliaceae

The present paper deals with the following three aspects:      1. It attempts to discuss the problems on primitive forms of the family Araliaceae. The genus Tupidanthus Hook. f. &; Thoms. was considered by H. Harms (1894) and H. L. Li (1942) as primitive, whilst another genus Plerandra A. Gray was regarded as primitive by R. H. Eyde &; C. C. Tseng in 1971. Having made a detailed comparison of the taxonomical characters of these two genera, the present authors believe that both genera are not the most primitive in the Araliaceae. Their affinit yis not close enough and they possibly evolved in parallel lines from a common ancestor which is so far un- known yet.      2. By studying the systems of the past, the present authors believe that none of them is entirely satisfactory. Bentham (1867) recognized five ‘series’ (in fact, equival- ent to ‘tribe’ with the ending-eae of names) based on the petaline arrangement in the bud, the numbers of stamen and the types of endospem. This is a plausible funda- mental treatment for the Araliaceae, but choosing the endosperm as a criteria in dividing tribe is artifical. As we know today, both ruminate and uniform endosperm are usually presente in the same genus.  Seemann’s system (1868) divided the Hederaceae (excl. Trib. Aralieae) into five tribes, in addition to the locules of ovary.  The criteria are essentially the same as Bentham’s. The system of Hams (1894) divided the family into three tribes. Two tribes, Aralieae and Mackinlayeae, of  Bentham are  retained,  but other groups were combined in the Trib. Schefflereae.  However, Harms did not retain one of those three oldest legitimate names which had named by Bentham, that is con- trary to the law of priority in the International Code of Botanical Nomenelature. Hut- chinson (1967) adopted seven tribes for the family. The criteria essentially follow those of Bentham, but the inflorescence is overstressed. The inflorescence is an artifical taxono- mical character in dividing tribes, because of some dioecious plants, such as Meryta sin- clairii (Hook. f.) Seem., have two types of inflorescence in male and female plants. Ac- cording to Hutchinson’s arrangement, the male and female plants would be put in se- parate tribes.     3.   The present authors are of the opinion that in the study of a natural classi- fication of plant groups emphasis should be laid not only on the characters of the repro- ductive organs, but on those of vegetative organs as well.  The present revised system is based principally upon the characters of both flowers and leaves of the five tribes as follows:       Trib. 1. Plerandreae Benth. emend. Hoo &; Tseng      Trib. 2. Tetraplasandreae Hoo &; Tseng       Trib. 3. Mackinlayeae Benth.      Trib. 4. Aralieae Benth.       Trib. 5. Panaceae Benth. emend. Hoo &; Tseng