Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
14 March 2017 Growth form and wood evolution in the tribe Cacteae (Cactaceae)
Monserrat Vázquez-Sánchez, Teresa Terrazas, Dalia Grego-Valencia, Salvador Arias
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Using the phylogeny of the tribe Cacteae as a model, we describe and trace the structural traits of its 135 taxa with the goal of reconstructing the growth form and wood evolution within the tribe. The reconstruction of growth form, podaria arrangement, wood, dilated rays, hypodermis cells, cortex and pith was performed using the parsimony method implemented in Mesquite. Although there is a high level of homoplasy, we speculate that many of the anatomical modifications are related to stem biomechanics, while others are adaptations to environmental changes that occurred during the diversification of the tribe during the Miocene period. The different combinations of morphological (podaria) and anatomical characters (dimorphic wood and lignification of the fundamental tissue) favour the maintenance of the growth form by avoiding stem deformation during long drought periods.

Version of record first published online on 14 March 2017 ahead of inclusion in April 2017 issue.

Introduction

One of the most important outcomes of phylogenetic analyses is an evolutionary interpretation of structural characters (Harvey & Pagel 1991; Brooks & McLennan 2002). Phylogenetic thinking permeates all branches of biology and, as a result, a growing number of users are using phylogenetic information — particularly that generated from molecular data — as a basis for combining or mapping the evolution of structural features. A molecular phylogeny of the tribe Cacteae (Fig. 1) based on a wide sampling of the genera present in Mexico (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013) provides a robust basis for evaluating the evolution of growth form and wood.

The evolution of the growth forms, or “life forms”, of succulent plants has been studied by many researchers (Olson & Carlquist 2001; Olson 2003; Edwards & al. 2005; Hearn 2006, 2009; Ogburn & Edwards 2009; Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011; Hearn & al. 2013). However, these works combine several concepts such as architecture, life form, growth form, habit and even adaptations to aridity. What has been interpreted to be the evolution of growth forms in succulent plants is actually a number of survival strategies. One of the most important aspects of differentiation or characterization is an understanding of the different strategies used by plants to adapt to the environment, but an accurate conceptual framework is essential. For example, Hernández-Hernández & al. (2011) analysed the evolution of the growth form in the family Cactaceae in a phylogenetic context. This study defined growth forms in the family by mixing the concepts of habit, growth form and architecture as well as aspects of stem morphology (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2012), making it difficult to interpret the evolution of the growth form.

Fig. 1.

Molecular phylogeny of five chloroplast regions (matK, rbcL, psbA-trnH, rp116 and trnL-F) of Cacteae by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). We show the strict consensus tree with bootstrap (BS) and jackknife (JK) support values below the line and Bayesian values above the line.

f01_49.jpg

The wood of the family Cactaceae has been described as fibrous or non-fibrous (i.e. parenchymatous or wideband tracheids; Mauseth & Plemons 1995; Mauseth & Plemons-Rodriguez 1998; Terrazas & Arias 2002) and, according to its ontogeny, can be retained as monomorphic or dimorphic (Terrazas & Mauseth 2002). Although the subfamily Cactoideae and tribe Cacteae present an excellent opportunity to study the evolution of wood (Gibson 1973) due to the great diversity described for this tissue (Mauseth & Plemons 1995; Mauseth & Plemons-Rodriguez 1998; Mauseth 2006; Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011), no such study has been undertaken. The study of wood allows us to suggest hypotheses regarding its development and function as well as its relationship with the environment. In the particular case of Cacteae, approximately 50 species belonging to 16 genera have been studied, and their wood has been found to predominantly consist of wide-band tracheids (Mauseth & Plemons-Rodriguez 1998; Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011), but there is also a high percentage of species with dimorphic wood, which is apparently correlated with growth form (Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011). One of our hypotheses was that, if dimorphic wood evolved in those species with the larger growth forms within Cacteae, there should be other stem-anatomical traits that also occur when dimorphic wood is present.

Species of Cacteae are characterized by an abundance of primary tissue — pith and cortex — (Kaplan & Groff 1995) and limited accumulation of secondary vascular tissue (Altesor & al. 1994; Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011). In addition, four basic stem forms have been recognized: columnar, cylindric, globose and depressed-globose (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2012), under the basic principle that the final forms adopted by the stems are defined by their growth rates. We therefore asked whether these anatomical modifications determine plant growth form in this tribe and whether the presence of more than one type of wood in Cacteae is related to the changes associated with growth form. To understand the evolution of growth form and stem-anatomical characters we optimized those traits in the most recent phylogeny.

Material and methods

The 135 taxa of the tribe Cacteae plus the outgroup, representing 27 of the 28 or 29 (depending on the authority) previously analysed in a molecular phylogenetic study by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013), were studied in their morphology and stem anatomy (Appendix 1). With the exception of Coryphantha, Mammillaria and Sclerocactus, the genera were represented for more than 50 % of the species recognized for each genus. The same individuals used for molecular phylogeny were studied in their morphology and anatomy; however it is important to mention that additional samples (at least three samples per taxon) were studied to characterize the anatomy (a complete list is available upon request). The morphology, growth form and podaria arrangement of each species were defined based on personal observations in the field and were in some cases complemented with observations made in the living collection at the Botanical Garden of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México or in its herbarium (MEXU; herbarium code according to Thiers 2017+).

For the anatomical data, stems were dissected into two or three cylinders of variable width (< 10–15 cm) and, depending on the stem diameter, complete or half cylinders were obtained from the basal and medium part. All segments were fixed and processed by the conventional microtechnique of paraffin inclusion, sectioned to a thickness of 12–14 µm with a rotatory microtome, stained with safranin/Fast green and mounted with synthetic resin following the procedure in Loza-Cornejo & Terrazas (1996).

To evaluate character evolution, seven characters were mapped on a consensus tree obtained previously by parsimony and Bayesian methods. Ancestral character state reconstruction was performed using parsimony and maximum likelihood (not shown), as implemented in Mesquite v. 3.01. Because the aim of the present study was to evaluate the evolution of growth form and wood in Cacteae, branches corresponding to the outgroup were pruned. Blossfeldia liliputana was retained to root the tree, because this species is sister to all Cactoideae and the Cacteae are sister to the core Cactoideae (Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011; Bárcenas & al. 2011; Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013). Moreover, we used the ages of divergence calculated by Arakaki & al. (2011) and Hernández-Hernández & al. (2014) for the family Cactaceae to situate our hypothesis in a time (temporal) context. We are confident of those ages because both authors used a considerable number of species of Cactaceae to generate those ages. Moreover, in a more inclusive study for a member of this tribe (Astrophytum), Vázquez-Lobo & al. (2015) calculated similar ages. Mention of several important geological events that occurred in Mexico during the origin of this group of plants was also documented based on Ferrusquia-Villafranca (2007).

Results

A total of seven potentially informative structural characters (growth form, podaria arrangement, wood, dilated rays, hypodermis cells, cortex and pith) were described and codified along with their character states. The characters were traced onto the phylogenetic tree and their states are described in the following section.

Morphological characters

1. Growth form — (0) depressed-globose, (1) globose, (2) cylindric, (3) columnar (Fig. 2). Based on individual height and diameter, four growth forms are recognized for members of Cacteae (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2012). When plants are wider than they are tall, with a compressed vertical axis, the plant is characterized as a depressed-globose growth form, as in the cases of Aztekium ritteri and Lophophora williamsii. If the stem has approximately the same height as its width, as in the case of Thelocactus conothelos, the growth form is referred to as globose. When the stems are characterized by a height greater than but not exceeding twice the diameter, the growth form is considered cylindric, which is the most common form for the tribe. When the plant has a height exceeding twice its diameter, we refer to it as the columnar growth form, as in the case of Ferocactus peninsulae.

2. Podaria arrangement — (0) tubercles, (1) tubercled ribs, (2) ribs (Fig. 3). During seedling development in Cactoideae, the apical meristem forms podaria or tubercles (Buxbaum 1950; Bravo-Hollis 1978; Loza-Cornejo & Terrazas 2011). In seedling development, tubercles are organized in spiralled acropetal series, and this arrangement has been found to conform to the Fibonacci sequence (Gibson & Nobel 1986). Sometimes tubercles are arranged in longitudinal series, but they do not fuse together (Bravo-Hollis 1978; Gibson & Nobel 1986). In the tribe Cacteae, species of smaller size are characterized by the presence of tubercles, as in the cases of Mammillaria and Turbinicarpus. These tubercles can also be arranged in longitudinal series exhibiting almost complete fusion, forming a rib that is named a tubercled rib, as in the cases of Ferocactus gracilis and Thelocactus bicolor. When the podaria are perfectly fused and arranged in a vertical orthostatic series, ribs are generated; the fusion of the apical meristem's podaria is no longer evident in plants such as Echinocactus platyacanthus and Geohintonia mexicana.

Anatomical characters

3. Wood — (0) without fibres, (1) fibres rare, (2) fibres forming patches, (3) dimorphic (Fig. 4). Wood without fibres is composed exclusively of vessels and wide-band tracheids (WBT). A WBT is a specialized type of tracheid characterized by the presence of annular or helical thickenings in its secondary wall. They are short, wide and spindle-shaped, with a secondary wall band covering a small part of the primary wall (Mauseth & al. 1995). When the wood is retained with a WBT matrix near the vascular cambium, vessels are embedded in it, and each vessel element shows a similar pattern of secondary walls as the WBT. This wood without fibres is characteristic of small-sized plants in genera such as Ariocarpus, Cumarinia and Turbinicarpus. When fibres are present near the vascular cambium, they can be scarce, as in the cases of Ferocactus histrix and Thelocactus conothelos; they can form patches as seen in some species of Astrophytum and Ferocactus robustus or they can exhibit dimorphic wood (i.e. they produce one type of wood when young and a completely different type as adults, as in Geohintonia, Echinocactus platyacanthus, Echinomastus mariposensis and several Ferocactus species. Only in the dimorphic wood do fibres appear in all fascicles of the vascular cylinder and vessel elements show pseudoscalariform or alternate intervascular pitting.

4. Dilated rays — (0) absent, (1) present throughout, (2) present only in region close to pith (Fig. 5). Rays are parenchymal cells that extend radially (outwards) on both sides of the vascular cambium and favour radial communication from the pith to the cortex. Rays can vary in height and width, and their walls are commonly lignified (Carlquist 2001); they usually dilate in the bark due to an increase in mitotic divisions with an anticlinal or oblique orientation (Evert 2006). In Cacteae, they are rarely lignified and may not be dilated, as in Aztekium ritteri and most Ferocactus species; alternatively, they can be dilated throughout, as in Ariocarpus, Echinocactus and Epithelantha or dilated only in the region close to the pith as in some Astrophytum and Stenocactus.

5. Hypodermis cells — (0) thin-walled, (1) thick-walled (Fig. 6). The hypodermis is located under the epidermis. It usually consists of more than one layer of cells in succulent stems. Its cell walls can be thin or thick; when thick, the hypodermis is collenchymatous as in Leuchtenbergia and most Ferocactus species; in addition to being collenchymatous, the cells occur in several layers, providing rigidity to the stems (Terrazas & Mauseth 2002).

6. Cortex — (0) parenchymatous, (1) collenchymatous, (2) sclerified (Fig. 7). The cortex is commonly composed of parenchyma cells. This is the condition present in most species of Cacteae. A collenchymatous cortex is characteristic of Mammillaria candida and Neolloydia conoidea, which is differentiated from a parenchymatous cortex by a thick primary cell wall. A third state appears when the cortex has lignified cells (i.e. it has sclereids, as in species of Cochemiea, Stenocactus and Thelocactus, as well as Coryphantha cornifera).

7. Pith — (0) parenchymatous, (1) sclerified (Fig. 8). Pith consists of parenchyma with thin-walled isodiametric cells; however, in some Cochemia, Stenocactus and Thelocactus species, the pith has sclereids with lignified walls.

Fig. 2.

Parsimony reconstruction of growth form. Numbers after genus names indicate numbers of taxa studied; numbers above lines are Bayesian values. Photos show character states, colourcoordinated with states on tree. Depressed-globose: Lophophora williamsir, globose: Thelocactus conothelos; cylindric: Sclerocactus scheert; columnar: Ferocactus peninsulae.

f02_49.jpg

Fig. 3.

Parsimony reconstruction of podaria arrangement. Numbers after genus names indicate numbers of taxa studied; numbers above lines are Bayesian values. Photos show character states, colour-coordinated with states on tree. Tubercles: Turbinicarpus saueri subsp. knuthianus; tubercled ribs: Ferocactus gracilis; ribs: Echinocactus platyacanthus.

f03_49.jpg

Fig. 4.

Parsimony reconstruction of wood. Numbers after genus names indicate numbers of taxa studied; numbers above lines are Bayesian values. Photos show character states, colour-coordinated with states on tree. Without fibres: Ariocarpus agavoides; fibres rare (intermixed with vessels and parenchyma cells): Thelocactus conothelos; fibres forming patches: Astrophytum ornatum; dimorphic: Ferocatus pilosus. Scale bars = 100 µm, except dimorphic = 300 µm; r = ray; black or white arrows indicate fibres; bracket indicates change from wide-band tracheids to fibres.

f04_49.jpg

Fig. 5.

Parsimony reconstruction of dilated rays. Numbers after genus names indicate numbers of taxa studied; numbers above lines are Bayesian values. Photos show character states, colour-coordinated with states on tree. Absent: Aztekium ritteri; present throughout: Epithelantha micromeris; present only in region close to pith: Astrophytum capricorne. Scale bars = 100 µm, except absent = 300 µm; r = ray.

f05_49.jpg

Fig. 6.

Parsimony reconstruction of hypodermis cells. Numbers after genus names indicate numbers of taxa studied; numbers above lines are Bayesian values. Photos show character states, colour-coordinated with states on tree. Thin-walled: Cumarinia odorata; thick-walled: Leuchtenbergia principis. Scale bars = 100 µm; * = thin-walled cells of hypodermis.

f06_49.jpg

Fig. 7.

Parsimony reconstruction of cortex. Numbers after genus names indicate numbers of taxa studied; numbers above lines are Bayesian values. Photos show character states, colour-coordinated with states on tree. Parenchymatous: Geohintonia mexicana; collenchymatous: Neolloydia conoidea; sclerified: Stenocactus obvallatus. Scale bars = 300 µm.

f07_49.jpg

Fig. 8.

Parsimony reconstruction of pith. Numbers after genus names indicate numbers of taxa studied; numbers above lines are Bayesian values. Photos show character states, colourcoordinated with states on tree. Parenchymatous: Coryphantha erecta; sclerified: Stenocactus phyllacanthus. Scale bars = 300 µm.

f08_49.jpg

Character evolution

Character optimization for the seven selected characters is shown in Fig. 28. The ancestral growth form is globose. A shift towards cylindric and columnar was found in the genera Echinocactus and Astrophytum. The cylindric growth form is found in most members of Cacteae (Fig. 2). Another typical feature of Cacteae, the presence of tubercles, is the most common condition for Cacteae stems. Character reconstruction revealed that the presence of ribs is the most ancestral condition of the tribe and has evolved repeatedly in independent events (Fig. 3). Tubercled ribs predominate with different origins in the Ferocactus clade, where there are also shifts towards more sclerified tissues.

The presence of WBT in the wood has frequently been used as a diagnostic character for species in the tribe. However, the presence of these cells is not a synapomorphy of the tribe, although it is the most ancestral condition (Fig. 4). The presence of rare or scarce and patch-forming fibres has appeared repeatedly in independent events. Dimorphic wood appeared independently in more than eight events from non-fibrous wood. Non-dilated rays are the ancestral character state of the tribe (Fig. 5). In the Echinocactus—Astrophytum clade, rays are dilated along the whole course, and the same condition is independently present in other clades. Ray dilation close to the pith is an uncommon trait and originated in at least five independent events.

Collenchymatous hypodermis is the predominant character state in the tribe (Fig. 6). Non-collenchymatous hypodermis was independently acquired more than five times. Parenchymatous cortex is the ancestral character state of the tribe (Fig. 7); the presence of collenchymatous cortex is an uncommon condition that has appeared twice independently, whereas sclerified cortex has been acquired in several independent events. The unlignified pith is the ancestral character state of the tribe. Lignified pith has appeared in seven independent events in some species (Fig. 8).

Discussion

Growth form

In recent years, interest in the reconstruction of growth form evolution in succulent plants, especially in the family Cactaceae, has increased (Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011). However, it is evident that there is no general consensus regarding how to name the different growth forms that exist in the family ( Vázquez- Sánchez & al. 2012). In the case of Cacteae, where stem construction is relatively simple, it is necessary to perform detailed field observations to avoid mistakes. The growth form of Cacteae has been described mainly as globose and cylindric (Buxbaum 1950; Bravo-Hollis 1978; Anderson 2001). In this analysis, the earliest divergent clade is characterized by the globose growth form with ribs as the earliest diversified characters in the tribe. Butterworth & al. (2002) and Hernández-Hernández & al. (2011) also inferred that the ancestor of Cacteae was globose with ribs. The predominance of ribs in Geohintonia and in the Echinocactus-Astrophytum clade with cylindric and depressed-globose growth forms was the state prior to the significant radiation of Cactoideae, according to Arakaki & al. (2011). One anatomical trait of these early-derived species is the occurrence of a thick-walled epidermis and hypodermis that provides mechanical support. These species withstand marked aridity, which began in the mid-Miocene period.

Species with depressed-globose, globose and cylindric growth forms with tubercles subsequently predominated in Cacteae. These tubercled growth forms are distinguished by having more flexible tissues with thin cell walls, as in Coryphantha or Mammillaria species (Terrazas & al. 2016); they are very soft to the touch. When tubercles are arranged spirally and gaps between them are present, the vertical compression capacity may favour some biomechanical properties. Because tubercles are so flexible, they are unable to maintain an erect columnar stem (Mauseth 2006) and only appear in species of small size, unless the plant is pendent, as in some cliff-dwelling Mammillaria species. These morphological and anatomical differences were likely promoted by the development of more tropical temperature conditions, which were the result of the uprising of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt from the mid-Miocene to the Holocene (Ferrusquia-Villafranca 2007). Contrasting with the globose and depressed-globose growth forms that have reappeared recurrently in Cacteae, the columnar growth form in the tribe appears in species mainly from the Sonoran desert in the Baja California Peninsula. Because these shoots can develop as comparatively more fully integrated entities over time, they are often able to reach larger dimensions — in some cases, more than two metres in height. Only Echinocactus platyacanthus and Ferocactus pilosus from the Chihuahuan desert display this columnar growth form, in which the succulent tissue percentage can exceed 90 % (Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011). With no exceptions, columnar species show ribs or tubercled ribs, functioning as stem-supporting columns, as suggested by Reyes-Rivera & al. (2015). Another trait of these species with a columnar growth form that could contribute to the reinforcement of the mechanical support is the presence of a collenchymatous hypodermis, which provides rigidity (Esau 1976; Terrazas & Mauseth 2002).

Secondary xylem

Wood with WBT is the ancestral condition for the xylem type in the tribe. This is a character shared with Blossfeldia liliputana, which exclusively has WBT (Mauseth 2006). It has been argued that virtually all Cactaceae with globose or depressed-globose growth forms have tubercles and a non-fibrous wood, in which vessels are embedded in a matrix of WBT or parenchyma (Gibson 1973; Mauseth 2006; Mauseth & Plemons-Rodríguez 1998; Mauseth & al. 1998; Terrazas & Mauseth 2002). However, in Cacteae, there are exceptions, such as Geohintonia mexicana, which has a globose growth form with ribs and dimorphic wood, and Echinomastus mariposensis, which has a cylindric growth form with tubercles, both species of less than 10 cm tall. What makes vascular cambium in Cacteae shift from poorly lignified conductive and supporting cells to more lignified ones appears to be not only related to size.

According to Mauseth (2006), one of the advantages of having WBT in species with short, tubercled stems is that these allow the whole stem to shorten or enlarge in response to changes in water content. Additionally, the presence of tubercles is associated with the maintenance of WBT in the wood of adult individuals. The proportion of primary walls in the WBT and vessel elements, as well as the absence of other lignified cell types, such as fibres or rays, favours the vertical compression capacity of the vascular tissue during drought periods (Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011).

In Cacteae, dimorphic wood is associated with plants reaching a greater height, with the exception of Geohintonia and Echinomastus mariposensis, as mentioned above. The shift from WBT to fibres as the predominant wood cell type is necessary to provide taller stems with better mechanical support. Niklas (1992) mentioned that the rigidity and larger size of succulent stems may be due to the tension created by the epidermis and collenchymatous hypodermis across the circumference. Based on this assertion, Cornejo & Simpson (1997) used Ferocactus wislizeni as a model to conclude that, in this species, which reaches two metres in height, support is derived only from the rigidity of the fundamental tissue because the plant does not produce a woody skeleton. However, in F. wislizeni, as in other Ferocactus species, there is dimorphic wood, so support is derived from a combination of the degree of succulence, a thick hypodermis and the fibres present in the wood of adult individuals, as described in the present investigation. In species with dimorphic wood, the vertical compression capacity is reduced due to the lignification of secondary walls, not only in fibres but also in vessel elements. Vessel elements switch from helical thickenings to pseudoscalariform and alternate intervascular pits (Grego-Va-lencia & al. 2015; Terrazas & al. unpubl. data). In recent studies, Reyes-Rivera & al. (2015) found that the proportion of lignin also increases with stem height (26 cm = 9.7 %, 38 cm = 28.8 %, 150 cm = 51.8 %). Fibres and vessel elements arranged in fascicles generate rigid columns (Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011) and, together with ribs, allow the cortex to expand and contract in a radial direction without damaging the stem surface (Mauseth 2006). This is likely similar to a mechanism employed by arborescent cacti such as Myrtillocactus geometrizans or Pilosocereus pachycladus, in which the columnar Cacteae form tension wood in regions of hightension stresses (Schwager & al. 2013). As mentioned previously, the collenchymatous hypodermis and thick cortex in these species with taller stems seem to be important for mechanical support.

Wood with WBT in Glandulicactus and Thelocactus is commonly related to growth form (globose or depressed-globose) and wood with WBT is a correlated trait in species with a cylindric growth form. In the growth forms not exceeding 30 cm in height (i.e. depressed-globose, globose or cylindric), the occurrence of fibres is interpreted as reaction wood (Clair & al. 2001; Ruelle & al. 2007; Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011), as in Coryphantha erecta and Stenocactus phyllacanthus, because it is limited to certain fascicles, and vessel elements maintain the helical secondary wall patterning. This reaction wood allows the plant to retain a vertical stem position when growing between rocks or when branching (Vázquez-Sánchez & Terrazas 2011). In addition, in species exhibiting wood with WBT and scarce or patchforming fibres, secondary growth remains limited. It is therefore likely that the broad parenchymatous cortex itself takes on the role of mechanical support (Mauseth 2006; Schwager & al. 2013) or lignification in the cortex or pith, or both, as occurs in Stenocactus and Thelocactus species. What drives the shift in the timing of secondary wall expression in the vessel elements when fibres are present in the dimorphic wood is unknown, thus attention to understand secondary wall lignification gene expression is needed (Barros & al. 2015).

Other anatomical traits

The combination of collenchymatous hypodermis, lignified pith and dilated rays in the whole course or only close to the pith was observed for depressed-globose, globose and cylindric growth forms; these are attributes independently acquired. For example, in species of Stenocactus and Thelocactus, the hypodermis is non-collenchymatous, but the cortex and pith are lignified and the rays are dilated near the pith. When pith and cortex are unlignified (e.g. Ariocarpus, Astrophytum, Aztekium, Echinocactus, Rapicactus and Turbinicarpus s.str.), rays are dilated along the whole course and the collenchymatous condition of the hypodermis is retained, allowing the plant to have more parenchyma tissue in which to store water, starch grains or crystals. In addition to ray dilation, the collenchymatous hypodermis of these genera contributes to preventing the deformation of the plants by maintaining their growth form and keeping the plant erect in the absence of lignified cells. Moreover, the occurrence of lignified cortex and pith at the base of the stems in Stenocactus and Thelocactus may contribute to maintenance of the growth form even if the members of both genera do not have wood with fibres.

Conclusions

Character evolution analysis did not reveal unique synapomorphies for characters of growth form or wood in the tribe Cacteae. Different combinations of podaria (ribs, tuberculated ribs, tubercles) and anatomical traits (dimorphic wood, non-flbrous wood, thin-walled cells in epidermal and fundamental tissue) seem to favour the maintenance of growth form by preventing deformation due to water loss during drought periods, and the different combinations of these traits are labile and were acquired independently several times. Evolution of fibres in wood was not related in all cases with growth form, but, when fibres differentiate vessel elements, lignification increases in those species with dimorphic wood. Gene expression of secondary wall lignification in Cacteae needs to be understood to have a better explanation of wood evolution in this group of plants.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas, UNAM and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) for the PhD scholarship to MVS (41991). Funding was provided by the Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica, DGAPA, UNAM IN224307 and IN209012) to TT. The artwork by Diana Martínez is appreciated. The comments of Nigel Taylor (Singapore Botanic Gardens) and an anonymous reviewer on an earlier version of this paper are also appreciated.

References

1.

Altesor A., Silva C. & Ezcurra E. 1994: Allometric neoteny and the evolution of succulence in cacti. —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 114: 283–292. Google Scholar

2.

Anderson E. F. 2001: The cactus family. — Portland: Timber Press. Google Scholar

3.

Arakaki M., Christin P. A., Nyffeler R., Lendel A., Eggli U., Ogburn R. M., Spriggs E., Moore M. J. & Edwards E. J. 2011: Contemporaneous and recent radiations of the world's major succulent plants lineages. —  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108: 8379–8384. Google Scholar

4.

Bárcenas R. T., Yesson C. & Hawkins J. A. 2011: Molecular systematics of the Cactaceae. —  Cladistics 27: 470–489. Google Scholar

5.

Barros J., Serk H., Granlund I. & Pesquet E. 2015: The cell biology of lignification in higher plants. —  Ann. Bot. 115: 1053–1074. Google Scholar

6.

Bravo-Hollis H. 1978: Las cactáceas de México, ed. 2, 1. — México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Google Scholar

7.

Brooks D. R. & McLennan D. A. 2002: The nature of diversity: an evolutionary voyage of discovery. —  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

8.

Butterworth C. A., Cota-Sanchez J. H. & Wallace R. S. 2002: Molecular systematics of tribe Cacteae (Cactaceae: Cactoideaee): aphylogeny based on rpll6 intron sequence variation. — Syst. Bot. 27: 257–270. Google Scholar

9.

Buxbaum F. 1950: Morphology of cacti. Section I. Roots and stems. — Pasadena: Abbey Garden Press. Google Scholar

10.

Carlquist S. 2001: Comparative wood anatomy. Systematics, ecological and evolutionary aspects of dicotyledon wood, ed. 2. — Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar

11.

Clair B., Ruelle J., Beauchêne J., Prévost M. F. & Fournier M. 2006: Tension wood and opposite wood in 21 tropical rain forest species. 1. Occurrence and efficiency of the G-layer. — IAWA J. 27: 329–338. Google Scholar

12.

Cornejo D. O. & Simpson B. B. 1997: Analysis of form and function in North American columnar cacti (Cactaceae). —  Amer. J. Bot. 84: 1482–1501. Google Scholar

13.

Edwards E. J., Nyffeler R. & Donoghue M. J. 2005: Basal cactus phylogeny: implications of Pereskia (Cactaceae) paraphyly for the transition to the cactus life form. —  Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1177–1188. Google Scholar

14.

Esau K. 1976: Anatomía vegetal, ed. 4. — Barcelona: Editorial Omega. Google Scholar

15.

Evert R. F. 2006: Esau's Plant Anatomy: meristems, cells and tissues of the plant body: their structure, function, and development. —  New Jersey: Wiley Interscience. Google Scholar

16.

Ferrusquía-Villafranca I. 2007: Ensayo sobre la caracterización y significación biológica. — Pp. 7–24 in: Luna I., Morrone J. J. & Espinosa D. (ed.), Biodiversidad de la Faja Volcánica Transmexicana. — México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Google Scholar

17.

Gibson A. C. 1973: Comparative anatomy of secondary xylem in Cactoideae (Cactaceae). —  Biotropica 5: 29–65. Google Scholar

18.

Gibson A. C. & Nobel P. S. 1986: The cactus primer. — Cambridge:  Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

19.

Grego-Valencia D., Terrazas T., Lara-Martínez R. & Jiménez-García L. F. 2015: La membrana de la punteadura en dos especies de Cacteae, Cactaceae. —  Bot. Sci. 93: 209–219. Google Scholar

20.

Harvey P. H. & Pagel M. D. 1991: The comparative method in evolutionary biology. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

21.

Hearn D. J. 2006: Adenia (Passifloraceae) and its adaptative radiation: phylogeny and growth form diversification. —  Syst. Bot. 31: 805–821. Google Scholar

22.

Hearn D. J. 2009: Developmental patterns in anatomy are shared among separate evolutionary origins of stem succulent and storage root-bearing growth habits in Adenia (Passifloraceae). —  Amer. J. Bot. 96: 1941–1956. Google Scholar

23.

Hearn D. J., Poulsen T. & Spicer R. 2013: The evolution of growth forms with expanded root and shoot parenchymatous storage is correlated across eudicots. —  Int. J. PI. Sci. 174: 1049–1061. Google Scholar

24.

Hernández-Hemández T., Hernández H. M., De-Nova J. A., Puente R., Eguiarte L. E. & Magallón S. 2011: Phylogenetic relationship and evolution of growth form in Cactaceae (Caryophyllales, Eudicotyledoneae). —  Amer. J. Bot. 98: 44–61. Google Scholar

25.

Kaplan D. R. & Groff P. A. 1995: Developmental themes in vascular plants: functional and evolutionary significance. — Pp. 111–145 in: Hoch P. C. & Stephenson A. J. (ed.), Experimental and molecular approaches to plant biosystematics. — St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden. Google Scholar

26.

Loza-Cornejo S. & Terrazas T. 1996: Anatomía del tallo y de la raíz de dos especies de Wilcoxia Britton y Rose (Cactaceae) del noreste de México. — Bol. Soc. Bot. México 59: 13–23. Google Scholar

27.

Loza-Cornejo S. & Terrazas T. 2011: Morfo-anatomía de plántulas en especies de Pachycereeae: ¿Hasta cuándo son plántulas? —  Bol. Soc. Bot. México 88: 1–13. Google Scholar

28.

Mauseth J. D. 2006: Structure-function relationships in highly modified shoots of Cactaceae. —  Ann. Bot. 98: 901–926. Google Scholar

29.

Mauseth J. D. & Plemons B. J. 1995: Developmentally variable, polymorphic woods in cacti. —  Amer. J. Bot. 82: 1199–1205. Google Scholar

30.

Mauseth J. D. & Plemons-Rodriguez B. J. 1998: Evolution of extreme xeromorphic characters in wood: a study of nine evolutionary fines in Cactaceae. —  Amer. J. Bot. 85: 209–218. Google Scholar

31.

Mauseth J. D., Terrazas T. & Loza-Comejo S. 1998: Anatomy of relictual members of subfamily Cactoideae, IOS Group la (Cactaceae). — Bradleya 16: 31–43. Google Scholar

32.

Mauseth J. D., Uozmni Y., Plemons J. & Landrum J. V. 1995: Structural and systematic study of an unusual tracheid type in cacti. —  J. Pl. Res. 108: 517–526. Google Scholar

33.

Niklas K. J. 1992: Plant biomechanics: An engineering approach to form and function. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

34.

Ogburn M. R. & Edwards E. J. 2009: Anatomical variation in Cactaceae and relatives: trait lability and evolutionary innovation. —  Amer. J. Bot. 96: 391–408. Google Scholar

35.

Olson M. E. 2003: Stem and leaf anatomy of the arborescent Cucurbitaceae Dendrosicyos socotrana with comments on the evolution of pachycauls from lianas. —  Pl. Syst. Evol. 239: 199–214. Google Scholar

36.

Olson M. E. & Carlquist S. 2001: Stem and root anatomical correlations with life form diversity, ecology, and systematics in Moringa (Moringaceae). —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 135: 315–348. Google Scholar

37.

Reyes-Rivera J., Canché-Escamilla G., Soto-Hernández M. & Terrazas T. 2015: Wood chemical composition in species of Cactaceae: the relationship between lignification and stem morphology. —  PloS ONE 10: e0123919. Google Scholar

38.

Ruelle J., Yamamoto H. & Thibaut B. 2007: Growth stresses and cellulose structural parameters in tension and normal wood from three tropical rainforest angiosperms species. — Bioresources 2: 235–251. Google Scholar

39.

Terrazas T. & Arias S. 2002: Comparative stem anatomy in the subfamily Cactoideae. —  Bot. Rev. 68: 444–473. Google Scholar

40.

Terrazas T., Escamilla-Molina R. & Vázquez-Sánchez M. 2016: Variation in the tracheary elements in species of Coryphantha (Cacteae-Cactoideae) with contrasting morphology: the bottleneck model. —  Brazil. J. Bot. 39: 669–678. Google Scholar

41.

Terrazas T. & Mauseth J. D. 2002: Shoot anatomy and morphology. — Pp. 23–40 in: Nobel P. S. (ed.), Cacti: biology and uses. — Berkeley: California University Press. Google Scholar

42.

Thiers B. 2017+ [continuously updated] : Index Herbariorum. A global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden's Virtual Herbarium. — Published at  http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ science/ih/ [accessed 15 Feb 2017]. Google Scholar

43.

Vázquez-Sánchez M. & Terrazas T. 2011: Stem and wood allometric relationships in Cacteae (Cactaceae). —  Trees Struc. Func. 25: 755–767. Google Scholar

44.

Vázquez-Sánchez M., Terrazas T. & Arias S. 2012: El hábito y la forma de crecimiento en Cacteae (Cactaceae). —  Bot. Sci. 90: 97–108. Google Scholar

45.

Vázquez-Sánchez M., Terrazas T., Arias S. & Ochoterena H. 2013: Molecular phylogeny, origin, and taxonomic implications of tribe Cacteae (Cactaceae). —  Syst. Biodivers. 11: 103–116. Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix 1. Taxa sampled and voucher information

Most taxa collected in Mexico, except where otherwise indicated. Collector TCG = Turbinicarpus Group. All vouchers deposited at MEXU, except those marked IBUG or UCOB (herbarium codes according to Thiers 2017+). JB = living collection at Jardín Botánico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Additional individuals per taxon were studied for anatomy; a complete list is available upon request.

Acharagma aguirreana (Glass & R. A. Foster) Glass, Coahuila, S. Arias 1459. A. roseana (Boed.) E. F. Anderson, Coahuila, C. Glass 6443. Ario carpus agavoides (Castañeda) E. F. Anderson, Tamaulipas, H. Sánchez-Mejorada 3628. A.fissuratus (Engelm.) K. Schum., San Luis Potosí, S. Arias 1727. A. kotschoubeyanus (Lem.) K. Schum., Querétaro, S. Arias 1704. A. retusus Scheidw., San Luis Potosí, S. Arias 1720. A. retusus subsp. trigonus (F. A. C. Weber) E. F. Anderson & Fitz Maurice, Tamaulipas, S. Arias 1993. A. scaphirostris Boed., Nuevo León, H. Sánchez-Mejorada 3721. Astrophytum asterias (Zuce.) Lem., Tamaulipas, T. Terrazas 852. A. capricorne (A. Dietr.) Britton & Rose, Coahuila, T. Terrazas 892. A. caputmedusae D. R. Hunt, Nuevo León, S. Arias 1862. A. myriostigma Lem., San Luis Potosí, S. Arias 1730. A. ornatum (DC.) F. A. C. Weber ex Britton & Rose, Querétaro, S. Arias 1699. Aztekium hintonii Glass & Fitz Maurice, Nuevo León, J. Reyes 6212. A. ritteri (Boed.) Boed., Nuevo León, S. Arias 1868. Cochemiea halei (Brandegee) Walton, Baja California Sur, S. Arias 1287. C. pondii (Greene) Walton, Baja California Sur, S. Arias 1285. C. poselgeri (Hildm.) Britton & Rose, Baja California Sur, S. Arias 1824. Coryphantha clavata (Scheidw.) Backeb., San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 886. C. cornifera (DC.) Lem., Querétaro, S. Arias 1700. C. erecta (Lem.) Lem., Querétaro, S. Arias 1684. C. georgii Boed., San Luis Potosí, B. Vázquez 2535. C. macromeris (Engelm.) Lem., Chihuahua, S. Arias 1788. C. potosiana (Jacobi) Glass & R. A. Foster, San Luis Potosí, U. Guzmán 2771. Cumarinia odorata (Boed.) Buxb., San Luis Potosí, J. Reyes 5940. Echinocactus grusonii Hildm., Querétaro, J. Z. Ortega s.n. E. horizonthalonius Lem., Querétaro, S. Arias 1691. E. parryi Engelm., Chihuahua, S. Arias 1791. E. platy acanthus Link & Otto, Querétaro, S. Arias 1679. E. texensis Hopffer., Nuevo León, T. Terrazas 851. Echinomastus intertextus (Engelm.) Britton & Rose, Sonora, S. Arias 2032. E. mariposensis Hester., Coahuila, T. Terrazas 905. E. unguispinus (Engelm.) Britton & Rose, Durango, S. Arias 1902. E. warnockii (L. D. Benson) Glass & R. A. Foster, Chihuahua, S. Arias 2089. Epithelantha micromeris (Engelm.) F. A. C. Weber ex Britton & Rose, Coahuila, S. Arias 1507. Escobaria chihuahuensis Britton & Rose, Chihuahua, S. Arias 1908. E. dasyacantha (Engelm.) Britton & Rose, Coahuila, S. Arias 1955. E. laredoi (Glass & R. A. Foster) N. P. Taylor, Coahuila, S. Arias 1951. E. missouriensis (Sweet) D. R. Hunt, Nuevo León, S. Arias 1945. Ferocactus alamosanus (Britton & Rose) Britton & Rose, Sonora, S. Arias 1846. F. chrysacanthus subsp. grandiflorus (G. E. Linds.) N. P. Taylor, Baja California Sur, S. Arias 1816. F. cylindraceus (Engelm.) Orcutt, Baja California, S. Arias 1808. F. cylindraceus subsp. tortulispinus (H. E. Gates) N. P. Taylor, Baja California, S. Arias 1812. F. echidne (DC.) Britton & Rose, Querétaro, S. Arias 1682. F. emoryi (Engelm.) Orcutt, Sonora, S. Arias 2013. F. flavovirens (Scheidw.) Britton & Rose, Puebla (JB–12–6–21). F. fordii (Orcutt) Britton & Rose, Baja California, S. Arias 1809. F. glaucescens (DC.) Britton & Rose, Querétaro, S. Arias 1701. F. gracilis H. E. Gates, Baja California, S. Arias 1810. F. haematacanthus (Salm-Dyck) Bravo, Puebla, S. Arias 1796. F. hamatacanthus (Muehlenpf.) Britton & Rose, San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 828. F. herrerae J. G. Ortega, Sinaloa, S. Arias 1833. F. histrix (DC.) G. E. Linds., Hidalgo, S. Arias 1675. F. latispinus (Haw.) Britton & Rose, Querétaro, S. Arias 1673. F. macrodiscus (Mart.) Britton & Rose, Puebla, S. Arias 1798. F. peninsulae (Engelm. ex F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose, Baja California, S. Arias 1821. F. pilosus (Galeotti ex Salm-Dyck) Werderm., San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 890. F. rectispinus (Engelm. ex J. M. Coult.) Britton & Rose, Baja California Sur, S. Arias 1822. F. recurvus (Mill.) Y. Ito ex G. E. Linds., Puebla, S. Arias 1794. F. reppenhagenii G. Unger, Jalisco, H. J. Arreola 1179 (IBUG). F. robustus (Pfeiff.) Britton & Rose, Puebla, S. Arias 1795. F. townsendianus Britton & Rose, Baja California Sur, S. Arias 1825. F. viridescens (Nutt, ex Torr. & A. Gray) Britton & Rose, Baja California, S. Arias 1801. F. wislizeni (Engelm.) Britton & Rose, Chihuahua, S. Arias 1789. Geohintonia mexicana Glass & Fitz Maurice, Nuevo León, J. Reyes 621. Glandulicactus crassihamathus (F. A. C. Weber) Backeb., Querétaro, S. Arias 1688. G. uncinatus (Galeotti ex Pfeiff. & Otto) Backeb., Durango, S. Arias 1899. Leuchtenbergia principis Hook., San Luis Potosí, H. Sánchez-Mejorada 3826. Lophophora diffusa (Croizat) Bravo, Querétaro, S. Arias 35. L. williamsii (Lem. ex Salm-Dyck) J. M. Coult., San Luis Potosí, S. Arias 1849. Mammillaria albilanata subsp. tegelbergiana (H. E. Gates ex G. E. Linds.) D. R. Hunt, Chiapas, S. Arias 1641. M. candida (Scheidw.) Britton & Rose, San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 885. M. Columbiana Salm-Dyck, Venezuela, Mérida, T. Terrazas 957. M. elongata DC., Querétaro, S. Arias 1697. M. heyderi Muehlenpf., San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 829. M. lenta K. Brandegee, Coahuila, T. Terrazas 907. M. mammillaris H. Karst., Venezuela, Mérida, T. Terrazas 956 (UCOB). M. scrippsiana (Britton & Rose) Orcutt, Nayarit, S. Arias 1886. M. senilis G. Lodd. ex Salm-Dyck, Querétaro, S. Arias 1890. M. uncinata Zucc, ex Pfeiff., Guanajuato, S. Arias 1687. M. winterae Boed., Nuevo León, S. Arias 1870. M. zephyranthoides Scheidw., San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 887. Neolloydia conoidea (DC.) Britton & Rose, Nuevo León, T. Terrazas 843. N. matehualensis Backeb., San Luis Potosí, B. Vázquez 2551. Obregonia denegrii Frič, Tamaulipas, H. Sánchez-Mejorada 3670. Ortegocactus macdougallii Alexander, Oaxaca, S. Arias 483. Pelecyphora aselliformis C. Ehrenb., San Luis Potosí, H. Sánchez-Mejorada 3610. P. strobiliformis (Werderm.) Frič & Schelle., Nuevo León, H. Sánchez-Mejorada 3844. Rapicactus beguinii (N. P. Taylor) Mosco & Zanovello, Nuevo León, S. Arias 1854. R. booleanus G. S. Hinton, Nuevo León, J. Reyes 6226. R. mandragora (Frič ex A. Berger) A. D. Zimmerman, Coahuila, U. Guzmán 1445. R. subterraneus (Backeb.) A. D. Zimmerman, Nuevo León, TCG 47001. R. zaragozae (Glass & R. A. Foster) Glass & A. Hofer, Nuevo León, J. Reyes 4276. Sclerocactus scheeri (Salm-Dyck) N. P. Taylor, Coahuila, T. Terrazas 903. Stenocactus coptonogonus (Lem.) A. Berger ex A. W. Hill, Guanajuato, U. Guzmán 2770. S. crispatus (DC.) A. Berger ex A. W. Hill, Estado de México, T. Terrazas 930. S. dichroacanthus (Mart, ex Pfeiff.) A. Berger ex Backeb. & F. M. Knuth, Aguascalientes, S. Arias 1758. S. heteracanthus (Muehlenpf.) A. Berger ex A. W. Hill, Aguascalientes, S. Arias 1760. S. multicostatus (Hildm. ex K. Schum.) A. W. Hill, Zacatecas, S. Arias 1774. S. obvallatus (DC.) A. W. Hill, Estado de México, V. Fuentes s.n. S. pentacanthus (Lem.) A. Berger ex A. W. Hill, San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 817. S. phyllacanthus (Mart, ex A. Dietr. & Otto) A. Berger ex A. W. Hill, San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 835. Strombocactus corregidorae S. Arias & E. Sánchez, Querétaro, E. Sánchez 338. S. disciformis (DC.) Britton & Rose, Querétaro, S. Arias 1738. Thelocactus bicolor (Galeotti ex Pfeiff.) Britton & Rose, Coahuila, T. Terrazas 895. T. conothelos (Regel & Klein) Backeb. & F. M. Knuth, Nuevo León, T. Terrazas 844. T. hastifer (Werderm. & Boed.) F. M. Knuth, Querétaro, S. Arias 81. T. heterochromus (F. A. C. Weber) van Oosten, Durango, S. Arias 1898. T. hexaedrophorus (Lem.) Britton & Rose, San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 883. T. leucacanthus (Zucc. ex Pfeiff.) Britton & Rose, Querétaro, S. Arias 1678. T. macdowellii (Rebut ex Quehl) Glass, Coahuila, J. M. Chalet 243. T. rinconensis subsp. hintonii Lüthy, Nuevo León, S. Arias 1948. T. setispinus (Engelm.) E. F. Anderson, Nuevo León, S. Arias 1856. T. tulensis (Poselg.) Britton & Rose, Nuevo León, T. Terrazas 842. Turbinicarpus alonsoi Glass & S. Arias, Guanajuato, A. G. Luna 24. T. bonatzii Gerhart Frank, San Luis Potosí, J. Reyes 5899. T. gielsdorfianus (Werderm.) Vác. John & Ríha, San Luis Potosí, J. Reyes 6168. T. horripilus (Lem.) Vác. John & Riha, Hidalgo, J. M. Chalet 204. T. jauernigii Gerhart Frank, Tamaulipas, J. Reyes 5895. T. nieblae García-Mor. & al., Tamaulipas, L. G. Martinez 557. T. pseudomacrochele (Backeb.) Buxb. & Backeb., Querétaro, U. Guzmán 581. T. pseudomacrochele subsp. minimus (Gerhart Frank) Lüthy & A. Hofer, Hidalgo, TCG 9101. T. rioverdensis Gerhart Frank, San Luis Potosí, J. Reyes 6056. T. roseiflorus Backeb., San Luis Potosí, J. Reyes 5934. T. saueri (Boed.) Vác. John & Ríha, Tamaulipas, J. Reyes 4332. T. saueri subsp. knuthianus (Boed.) Lüthy, San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 882. T. saueri subsp. ysabelae (Schlange) Lüthy, Tamaulipas, S. Arias 1435. T. schmiedickeanus (Boed.) Buxb. & Backeb., Tamaulipas, TCG 1001. T. schmiedickeanus subsp. andersonii Mosco, San Luis Potosí, TCG 1101. T. schmiedickeanus subsp. flaviflorus (Gerhart Frank & A. B. Lau) Glass, San Luis Potosí, J. Reyes 5910. T. schmiedickeanus subsp. klinkerianus (Backeb. & H. Jacobsen) N. P. Taylor, San Luis Potosí, H. Sánchez-Mejorada 3621. T. schmiedickeanus subsp. schwarzii (Shurly) N. P. Taylor, San Luis Potosí, T. Terrazas 820. T. valdezianus (H. Moeller) Glass & R. A. Foster, Nuevo León, S. Arias 1853. T. viereckii (Werderm.) Vác. John & Ríha, Nuevo León, J. Reyes 5462. T. viereckii subsp. major (Glass & R. A. Foster) Glass, Nuevo León, J. Reyes 4263.

Outgroup: Blossfeldia liliputana Werderm., Argentina, Salta, T. Hernández 104.

Appendix 2. Matrix of characters and character states

1 = growth form [(0) depressed-globose, (1) globose, (2) cylindric, (3) columnar]; 2 = podaria arrangement [(0) tubercles, (1) tubercled ribs, (2) ribs]; 3 = wood [(0) without fibres, (1) fibres rare, (2) fibres forming patches, (3) dimorphic]; 4 = dilated rays [(0) absent, (1) present throughout, (2) present only in region close to pith]; 5 = hypodermis cells [(0) thin-walled, (1) thickwalled]; 6 = cortex [(0) parenchymatous, (1) collenchymatous, (2) sclerified]; 7 = pith [(0) parenchymatous, (1) sclerified].

tA02a_49.gif

Continued

tA02b_49.gif
© 2017 The Authors · This open-access article is distributed under the CC BY 4.0 licence
Monserrat Vázquez-Sánchez, Teresa Terrazas, Dalia Grego-Valencia, and Salvador Arias "Growth form and wood evolution in the tribe Cacteae (Cactaceae)," Willdenowia 47(1), 49-67, (14 March 2017). https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.47.47106
Received: 8 October 2016; Accepted: 1 February 2017; Published: 14 March 2017
KEYWORDS
Cactaceae
Cacteae
character evolution
dimorphic wood
diversification
Geohintonia
hypodermis
Back to Top