全 文 ：植 物 分 类 学 报 45 (2): 167–190(2007) doi:10.1360/aps06137
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica http://www.plantsystematics.com
———————————
Received: 31 August 2006 Accepted: 15 January 2007
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 30270100, special fund of Biology Sciences and
Technique of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Grant No. STZ-01-35.
* Author for correspondence. E-mail: .
Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae (Magnoliaceae)
from China and its taxonomic significance
1, 2ZHANG Xin-Hua 1XIA Nian-He*
1(Institute of Economic Botany, South China Botanical Garden, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China)
2(Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)
Abstract Leaf architectural and morphological characters of 28 taxa from Michelia,
Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron (Magnoliaceae sensu stricto, subtribe Micheliinae) were
examined to gain a better understanding of the intergeneric relationships and the systematic
positions of some species within Michelia. The taxa examined, all of which have simple leaves
with entire margins and camptodromous pinnate venation, varied in their secondary venation,
which was brochidodromous or brochidodromous to eucamptodromous, the mixture of simple
and composite intersecondary veins, percurrent to reticulate tertiary veins. Dendroid veinlets
were recorded for the first time in Michelia species. Phenetic analyses of leaf architectural
characters and morphological characters suggested that Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron
are grouped together and merged in the Michelia, and these characters provide useful
taxonomic information for division of sections in Michelia. In addition, systematic positions of
some species in Michelia are discussed.
Key words Magnoliaceae, Michelia, Paramichelia, Tsoongiodendron, veinlet, taxonomy.
The family Magnoliaceae is one of the most primitive groups of angiosperms (Takhtajan,
1980; Cronquist, 1981; Endress, 1990), comprising deciduous or evergreen trees or shrubs,
characterized by annular stipular scars around the nodes, and floral parts spirally arranged on
an elongated receptacle. It comprises sixteen genera and over 300 species widely distributed
throughout E and SE Asia, SE North America, Central America and South America.
Approximately 11 genera and more than 160 species of Magnoliaceae are found in China
(Liu, 2004).
It is generally accepted that Magnoliaceae consists of two subfamilies, Magnolioideae
and Liriodendroideae (Law, 1984, 1996; Liu, 2000, 2004; Nooteboom, 1985; Chen &
Nooteboom, 1993; Gong et al., 2003; Figlar & Nooteboom, 2004; Sun & Zhou, 2004). There
has been persistent debate on the classification of Magnolioideae. Law (1984) recognized two
tribes, Michelieae with axillary flowers and Magnolieae with terminal flowers, and fourteen
genera. The tribe Michelieae consisted of two subtribes, Elmerrilliinae and Micheliinae. The
former contained only the genus Elmerrillia, which is easily distinguished by its sessile
gynoecium and introrsely dehiscent anthers. Micheliinae, in contrast, with a stipitate
gynoecium and laterally dehiscent anthers, consisted of Michelia L., Paramichelia Hu, and
Tsoongiodendron Chun. Gong et al. (2003) recognized only two genera: Magnolia L. and
Michelia L., and placed Magnolia subgenus Yulania (Spach) Reichenb. into Michelia. Sun &
Zhou (2004) recognized two tribes and two genera. Figlar and Nooteboom (2004) lumped all
the genera of Magnolioideae into a single genus Magnolia.
Michelia is the second largest genus in Magnoliaceae (Law, 1984) and consists of
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 168
approximately 80 species mainly distributed in tropical and subtropical Asia. Approximately
70 species are found in China, mainly in SW to E China. Paramichelia has three species,
distributed in tropical and subtropical SE Asia, with one species in SW China.
Tsoongiodendron is monotypic, Tsoongiodendron odorum Chun growing in S China and N
Vietnam. The systematic positions of Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron have always been
uncertain. They were treated as independent genera by Hu (1940), Chun (1963), Dandy
(1974) and Law (1984, 1996; Liu, 2004) because of their distinctive, large syncarpous fruits,
and were placed into the Michelieae because of their stipitate gynoecia. However, Nooteboom
(1985) and Chen & Nooteboom (1993) considered their axillary flower to make them
congeneric with Michelia. Dandy (1974) established the infrageneric classification of
Michelia and recognized four sections: Michelia, Micheliopsis (Baill.) Dandy, Dichlamys
Dandy, Anisochlamys Dandy. Chen and Nooteboom (1993) reduced both Paramichelia and
Tsoongiodendron into synonymy of Michelia where they were treated as distinct sections.
Law (1996) followed Dandy’s classification, and established two subgenera: subgenus
Michelia with stipular scars and subgenus Metamichelia Law & Y. F. Wu without stipular
scars. However Law’s section Anisochlamys is totally different from that of Dandy, or that of
Chen and Nooteboom. Chen and Nooteboom (1993) recognized one species of Chinese
Michelia in section Anisochlamys, M. hypolampra Dandy. In addition to M. hedyosperma
Law, a synonym of M. hypolampra, Law (1996) included many species in section
Anisochlamys that had been included in section Michelia by Chen and Nooteboom (1993).
Leaf venation can be considered as a two-dimensional ramifying structure. After the
fundamental findings on venation pattern and their phylogenetic and histogenetic
development established (Ettinghausen, 1861; Gluck, 1919; Troll, 1939; Wylie, 1939, 1943,
1946, 1950; Foster, 1952), attention is paid largely to leaf architecture of fossil and living
plants owing to its importance for systematic classification (Dilcher, 1974; Hickey & Wolfe,
1975; Li & Hickey, 1988; Sun et al., 1991; Wang et al., 2001; Luo & Zhou, 2002). In
Magnoliaceae, Pray (1954) studied the leaf venation of Liriodendron L. in detail and
described its venation as mixed-craspedodromous venation pattern. Similar work has been
done by other researchers. Hickey and Wolfe (1975) described briefly leaf venation of
Magnoliales. Yu and Chen (1991) described leaf architecture of nine genera and twenty
species in the family. Liao et al. (2000) described leaf venation of thirty-seven species
representing fourteen genera of the family. However, no intensive studies on leaf architecture
of Michelia have been conducted, so its value in resolving taxonomic problems needs to be
explored. The purpose of the present study is to survey leaf architectural characters of
Michelieae for a better understanding of the close relationships of Michelia and its related
genera and infrageneric classification and the systematic position of some species within
Michelia.
1 Material and methods
Leaves of twenty-seven species and one variety of the three genera Michelia,
Paramichelia, and Tsoongiodendron were studied using low magnification and stereoscopic
microscopy. Leaves were obtained from herbarium specimens in South China Botanical
Garden, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (IBSC). The vouchers are listed in Table 1.
The method making leaf venation followed that of Yu and Chen (1986). Leaves were
boiled in water for 10–20 min, and then placed in 10%–20% NaOH at 80–90 ℃ for 20–30
min. Because leaf texture differs slightly between species, thicker leaves were prepared with
higher NaOH concentration. The epidermis and mesophyll were removed with a painting
brush, rinsed in water, and bleached in 10% H2O2 for 6–8 h. Cleared and bleached leaves
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 169
Table 1 Vouchers of specimens examined
Taxon Locality Voucher
Michelia alba DC. Xiamen (厦门), Fujian (福建) G. D. Ye (叶国栋) 532
M. balansae Dandy South China Botanical Garden H. G. Ye (叶华谷) 726
M. cavaleriei Finet & Gagnep. Yuanyang (元阳), Yunnan (云南) S. C. He (何树春) 85170
M. champaca L. Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) H. Q. Zhou (周汉泉) 11189
M. chapensis Dandy Nanxiong (南雄), Guangdong (广东) Nanzhidi Exped. (南植地队)
48
M. crassipes Law Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) R. Z. Zhou (周仁章) 0006
Without precise locality, Yunnan (云南) T. T. Yu (俞德浚) 18055 M. doltsopa Buch.-Ham. ex DC.
Without precise locality, Yunnan (云南) T. T. Yu (俞德浚) 18055
Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) Y. Q. Chen (陈有卿) 110 M. elegans Law & Y. F. Wu
Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) Y. Q. Chen (陈有卿) 115
M. figo (Lour.) Spreng. Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) B. H. Chen (陈炳辉) 312
Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) H. G. Ye (叶华谷) 653
M. floribunda Finet & Gagnep. Jingdong (景东), Yunnan (云南) M. K. Li (李鸣冈) 1729
M. foveolata Merr. ex Dandy South China Botanical Garden Y. Q. Chen (陈有卿) 59
Without precise locality, Fujian (福建) C. D. Liu (刘初钿) 83-102 M. foveolata var. cinerascens Law & Y.
F. Wu Without precise locality, Zhejiang (浙江) M. X. Wu (吴鸣翔) 7720
M. hypolampra Dandy Without precise locality, Guangxi (广西) L. Z. Jia & X. L. Feng (贾良
智, 冯学林) 6054
M. longistamina Law Ruyuan (乳源), Guangdong (广东) S. P. Ko (高锡朋) 53762
M. macclurei Dandy Lianshan (连山), Guangdong (广东) B. H. Chen (陈炳辉) 255
M. maudiae Dunn Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) S. H. Chun (陈少卿) 69
M. mediocris Dandy Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) Y. Q. Chen (陈有卿) 64
M. microcarpa B. L. Chen & S. C. Yang Maguan (马关), Yunnan R. Z. Zhou (周仁章) 9314
M. microtricha Hand.-Mazz. Simao (思茅), Yunnan (云南) Sino-Soviet Yunnan Exped.
(中苏云南队) 9187
Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) H. G. Ye (叶华谷) 694 M. platypetala Hand.-Mazz.
Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) H. G. Ye (叶华谷) 673
Lechang (乐昌), Guangdong (广东) Y. Tsiang (蒋英) 1332 M. skinneriana Dunn
Longmen (龙门), Guangdong (广东) B. H. Chen (陈炳辉) 19
M. sphaerantha C. Y. Wu ex Law & Y. F.
Wu
Without precise locality, Yunnan (云南) M. K. Li (李鸣冈) 0003
Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) H. G. Ye (叶华谷) 711 M. szechuanica Dandy
Guangzhou (广州), Guangdong (广东) H. G. Ye (叶华谷) 685
M. velutina DC. Without precise locality, Xizang (西藏) W. L. Chen (陈伟烈) 14538
M. wilsonii Finet & Gagnep. Emei (峨眉), Sichuan (四川) W. P. Fang (方文培) 15969
M. yunnanensis Franch. ex Finet &
Gagnep.
Without precise locality, Yunnan (云南) T. N. Liou (刘慎谔) 23100
Paramichelia baillonii (Pierre) Hu Without precise locality, Yunnan (云南) J. S. Xin (辛景三) 382
Tsoongiodendron odorum Chun Dinghushan (鼎湖山), Guangdong (广东) K. C. Ting & G. L. Shi (丁广
奇, 石国良) 81

were then rinsed in running water thoroughly, dried, stained in 5% methyl green for 30
min and photographed and evaluated by different powers of stereoscopic microscopy for
different orders of vein branching.
The terminology follows that of Hickey (1973, 1979) and conforms to the codification of
the Leaf Architecture Working Group (Ash et al., 1999).
Forty-six characters of leaf architecture and morphology (Table 2) were used for
phenetic analysis in order to better understand the infrageneric classification of Michelia and
the relationships between Michelia and closely related genera. Thirty-three operational
taxonomic units (OTUs) consisted of all taxa surveyed, four species in Magnolia (M. coco
(Lour.) DC., M. albosericea Chun & C. H. Tsoong, M. sprengeri Pamp., and M. liliiflora
Desr.), and Liriodendron chinense. Twenty-nine characters were scored as binary and
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 170
Table 2 Leaf architectural characters and related morphological characters used in the phenetic analyses
1 Laminar shape: elliptic (0), including narrowly elliptic, oblanceolate-elliptic, and rhombic-elliptic; obovate or
narrowly obovate (1); oblong, narrowly oblong, obovate-oblong, or narrowly oblanceolate-oblong (2);
oblong-elliptic or elliptic-ovate (3); special (4).
2 Apex: acute, acuminate, or cuspidate (0); obtusely acuminate (1); caudate-acuminate (2); truncate (3).
3 Base: cuneate or narrowly cuneate (0); broadly cuneate or obtuse (1); rounded or nearly cordate (2).
4 Lobation: unlobed (0); 2–10 lobed (1).
5 Blade class: microphyll (0); notophyll (1); mesophyll (2).
6 Lamina L:W (length:width) ratio: 03 (2).
7 Petiole length: ≤0.5 cm (0); >0.5 cm (1).
8 Venation type: camptodromous pinnate (0); mixed-craspedodromous pinnate (1).
9 Number of secondary veins (pairs): <10 pairs (0); ≥10 pairs (1).
10 Variations in angle of divergence: consistent (0); inconsistent (1).
11 The existence of inter-2° veins: common (0); few (1).
12 Inter-2° veins: simple, occasionally composite (0); composite (1); obscure (2).
13 Tertiary pattern: reticulate (0); alternate and opposite percurrent (1); regular polygonal reticulate (2).
14 Quaternary course: reticulate (0); alternate and opposite percurrent (1).
15 Quintenary course: reticulate (0); alternate and opposite percurrent (1).
16 Areolation: imperfect (0); well developed (1).
17 Areola shape: quadrangular (0); irregular (1); polygonal (2).
18 Areola size (As): 1 µm1 mm (2).
19 Number of veinlets in each areola: 1 (0); >1 (1).
20 Veinlets: simple (0); 1–2 times branched (the majority one time branched, few twice branched (1); 2–4 times
branched (2); dendroid (3).
21 Marginal veins: incomplete (0); looped (1); fimbriate (2).
22 Higher order veins: 5th (0); 6th (1).
23 Leaf texture: chartaceous (0); coriaceous (1).
24 Stomata: anomocytic (0); anomocytic and paracytic (1).
25 Stipular scars on petioles: present (0); absent (1).
26 Length of stipular scars: less than half of petiole length (0); nearly to half of petioles (1); longer than half of
petiole length (2); nearly to petiole length (3); no stipular scars (4).
27 Leaf arrangement: evenly arranged at the twigs (0); crowded into false whorls at the ends of the twigs (1).
28 Habit: evergreen (0); deciduous (1).
29 Young leaf orientation in vegetative bud: erect (0); pendant (1).
30 Branching morphology: sylleptic (0); proleptic (1).
31 Laminar indumentum: glabrous (0); only lower surface appressed indumentum (1); both upper and lower surfaces
appressed indumentum (2).
32 Phyllotaxis: spiral (0); distichous (1).
33 Gynophore: absent (0); present (1).
34 Flower position: terminal (0); axillary (1).
35 Number of tepals: nine or more (0); six (1) .
36 Outer and inner tepals: subequal (0); outer tepals less than inner ones (1); outer tepals longer than inner ones (2).
37 Outer 3 tepals: membranaceous and narrower (0); not membranaceous and narrower (1).
38 Outer 3 tepals: calyx-like (1); not calyx-like (1).
39 Flowering time: flowers not precocious (0); flowers appearing at the same time or slightly after leaves (1); flowers
precocious (2).
40 Anther dehiscence: introrse (0); latrorse (1); extrorse (2).
41 Gynoecium exposure: not covered by the androecium (0); androecium covering the gynoecium (1).
42 Pre-dehiscence fruiting carpel fusion: separate (0); concrescent (1).
43 Number of ovules in each carpel: 2 (0); > 2 (1).
44 Carpel rib upon carpel dehiscence: dehiscent (0); persistent (1).
45 Fruit type: follicle (0); samaroid (1).
46 Fruit dehiscence: apical parts persistent, carpels splitting mostly via the dorsal/ventral suture (0); apical parts
mostly breaking / falling away circumscissile, singly or irregular masses, while also more or less parting along the
dorsal / ventral suture (1); indehiscent (2).

seventeen as multi-state. The characters were scored as missing when unavailable. The data
matrix is listed in Table 3. All characters were unordered and equally weighted. Phenetic
analysis was performed with PAUP* 4.0 b10 (Swofford, 2002) using the Unweighted Pair
Group Averages Method (UPGMA).
2 Results
2.1 Leaf architectural characters
2.1.1 Leaf Michelia, Paramichelia, and Tsoongiodendron produce simple, symmetrical,
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 171
Table 3 Data matrix of characters used in the phenetic analyses*
Taxon Character states
1111111111222222222233333333334444444
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
Magnolia coco 0000121011111000010120100200000000011100010000
Ma. albosericea 0000221011001001010111100200001000021100010000
Ma. sprengeri 1000101001101000010110100011012100001121010000
Ma. liliiflora 1000111001101000010220100101012100011011010000
Michelia alba 0200211010101001210110100100011111001101001000
Mi. balansae 0010211011101000121210101400011111121101001000
Mi. cavaleriei 2000111011102011221300101400012111021101001000
Mi. champaca 0200211011101001210110100200011111001101001000
Mi. chapensis 1000111011101000121200101400010111121101001000
Mi. crassipes 0000010001100000121200100300011111101101101000
Mi. doltsopa 0010111011101001200010100000011111001101001000
Mi. elegans 2010111011101001010100101400011111001101001000
Mi. figo 0000010001120001011110100300011111101101001000
Mi. floribunda 0010111010101001210320100200011111001101001000
Mi. foveolata 3020211011101111010020101400011111021101001000
Mi. foveolata var. cinerascens 3020211011101111010000101400011111021101001000
Mi. hypolampra 1000111010101111011310101400010111010101001000
Mi. longistamina 0000111011101001220000101400010111121101001000
Mi. macclurei 1000111010101001210000101400012111021101001000
Mi. maudiae 0110111011101001010000101400010111021101001000
Mi. mediocris 0000111011101001210000101400011111001101001000
Mi. microcarpa 20001110101010010111001014000101111?11???01000
Mi. microtricha 0000111010101001200320100200012111021101001000
Mi. platypetala 2110111011101001020000101400011111021100001000
Mi. skinneriana 0200010001101000121200100300011111101101001000
Mi. sphaerantha 2010201011101001210000101400011111001101001000
Mi. szechuanica 1000111011101001220000101400012111001101001000
Mi. velutina 0110111011101001200000100200012111021101001000
Mi. wilsonii 1000111010101001210100100000011111021100001000
Mi. yunnanensis 1100010001101001011100100300011111121101001000
Paramichelia baillonii 0000111011101001210100100200012111021101011101
Tsoongiodendron odorum 0100211011101011011100100200011111021101111001
Liriodendron chinense 4321101101101001010110111401100000001002010012
* ? = missing.

entire leaves ranging in size from 4×1.7 cm (length×width) in M. yunnanensis to 27×9.5
cm in M. alba. Laminar shape is quite variable, being elliptic, narrowly elliptic, narrowly
obovate, obovate-elliptic or lanceolate-ovate (Figs. 1–16), with a length to width (l/w) ratio of
from 1.8 to 3.2 (mean: 2.49). According to area of leaf in mm2, three types, microphyll
(225–2025), notophyll (2025–4500), and mesophyll (4500–18225) are recognized. The leaf
apex is acute, acuminate, obtuse or caudate-acuminate. The leaf base is cuneate, broadly
cuneate (Fig. 4), obtuse or rounded (Fig. 13). Leaves are petiolate and petioles are longer than
5 mm with the exception of species in section Micheliopsis in which they are less than 5 mm.
2.1.2 Venation pattern The major veins in the taxa examined are camptodromous
pinnate. Two basic types of secondary venation pattern can be recognized, brochidodromous
and eucamptodromous. Most species possess both brochidodromous and eucamptodromous
venation patterns, the latter occurring in two or four pairs of weakly eucamptodromous veins
at both ends. Some species only have a brochidodromous venation pattern, e.g., species in
section Micheliopsis (Figs. 1–3, 5, 6). Occasionally, secondary veins are forked near the
margin (Fig. 13).
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 172


Figs. 1–8. Cleared leaves of species examined. 1. Michelia figo, arrow showing prominent arch of secondary vein
joining to the superadjacent secondary vein. 2. M. yunnanensis. 3. M. crassipes. 4. M. elegans. P1, showing alternately
reticulate tertiary vein; P2, showing oppositely percurrent tertiary vein; P3, showing composite intersecondary vein. 5, 6. M.
skinneriana, showing the same leaf architectural characters of the species. 7. M. alba. P1, showing oppositely percurrent
tertiary vein; P2, showing obscure arch; P3, showing weakly eucamptodromous vein at the base of lamina. 8. M. wilsonii.
Scale bar=1 cm.
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 173



Figs. 9–16. Cleared leaves of species examined. 9. Michelia balansae. P1, showing oppositely percurrent tertiary vein;
P2, showing composite intersecondary vein; P3, showing 2° divergent angle more obtuse than that at upper part of lamina.
10. M. hypolampra. P1, showing composite intersecondary vein; P2, showing simple intersecondary vein. 11. M. macclurei.
12. M. platypetala, showing large areolas in taxa examined in the present study. 13. M. foveolata. The arrow shows
secondary vein forked near the end. 14. M. velutina. 15. M. floribunda. 16. Tsoongiodendron odorum, showing primary
vein slightly curve at base.
Scale bar=1 cm.

Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 174
2.1.3 Divergence angle of secondary veins from midveins The divergence angle of
secondary veins from midveins of the taxa examined can be grouped into two types,
consistent and variable. For the consistent type, the divergence angle of secondary veins from
midveins is relatively consistent at about 50˚ (Figs. 7, 8, 10–12, 15). For the variable type, the
divergence angle in the distal portion of leaves is more acute than the angle in the proximal
portion, progressing from c. 30˚–85˚ from apex to base (Figs. 1–6, 9, 13, 14, 16).
2.1.4 Intersecondary veins and higher order veins Intersecondary veins are usually few
and mainly mixed with simple and composite ones (Figs. 4, 9, 10). Tertiary veins are alternate
percurrent (Figs. 4, 7), opposite percurrent (Figs. 4, 7, 9), random reticulate (Fig. 3), or
regular polygonal reticulate (Fig. 37). Higher order veins are present up to the 5th order, but
4th order veins generally anastomose with 5th order veins to form areolas.
2.1.5 Veinlets The veinlets within the ultimate areolas are usually simple (Figs. 22, 34–36,
38, 39, 41–43), branched 1–3 times (Figs. 27, 28, 29, 33), dendroid (Figs. 19, 20, 37, 40), or
occasionally absent altogether (Figs. 24, 39).
2.1.6 Areolas Areolas are well developed or imperfectly closed meshes. They are
triangular, quadrangular or irregular in shape. Their sizes vary widely from 1 to 2000 µm. The
largest areolas, of 1.5 to 2 mm, were found in M. platypetala (Fig. 12). Most species have
medium-sized areolas of 2.5 µm to 1 mm (Figs. 17–19, 21, 25, 30–32, 38, 41–48). A few
species have small areolas 1 to 2 µm, e.g. M. microtricha (Fig. 20), and M. velutina (Fig. 24).
2.1.7 Marginal ultimate veins Three types of marginal ultimate veins were observed: (1)
fimbriate (Figs. 55, 56, 76), (2) looped (Figs. 49, 50, 57, 60, 69, 72), and (3) incomplete (Figs.
51–54, 58, 61–68, 70, 71, 73–75, 77, 78).
2.2 General description of subtribe Micheliinae
Leaves simple with entire margins, from 4×1.5 cm to 21×7.5 cm. Lamina and its apex
highly variable in shape, base usually cuneate or broadly cuneate, obtuse or rounded.
Venation camptodromous pinnate. Primary veins moderate to stout, straight, occasionally
slightly curved at base. Secondary veins brochidodromous, or proximally brochidodromous to
apically eucamptodromous, enclosed by tertiary and quaternary vein arches, alternate or rarely
opposite, 7–24 per side, arising at 30º to 85º. Intersecondary veins few, mainly mixed simple
and composite. Tertiary veins percurrent to reticulate; quaternary veins arising from tertiary
veins at about 90º. Tertiary and quaternary vein areas usually regularly quadrangular in shape.
Higher order veins up to 5th order. Areolas well-developed or imperfect, usually quadrangular
or irregular in shape. Veinlets absent, simple, branched 1–3 times, or dendroid. Marginal,
ultimate veins incomplete, looped, or fimbriate.
The leaf architectural characters of Michelia, Paramichelia, and Tsoongiodendron are
shown in Table 4.
2.3 Phenetic analysis
The UPGMA dendrogram (Fig. 79) separated Liriodendron chinense from all members
of subfamily Magnolioideae. Michelia, Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron formed a
Michelia branch and were well separated from Magnolia. Paramichelia baillonii and
Tsoongiodendron odorum are nested together and then nested with Michelia species. The
species of different sections were nested together on separate branches. Section Michelia and
species (M. alba, M. champaca, M. doltsopa et al.) with stipular scars on petioles are nested
together, while other species (M. cavaleriei, M. maudiae, M. macclurei et al.) without stipular
scars on petioles were also grouped together.



No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 175

Figs. 17–24. Details of leaf architecture of Michelia species. 17. M. alba. 18. M. champaca. 19. M. floribunda. 20. M.
microtricha. 21. M. wilsonii. 22, 23. M. szechuanica. 24. M. velutina.
Scale bar: 17, 18, 20, 21, 24=1 µm; 19, 23=1 mm; 22=0.5 mm.
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 176

Figs. 25–32. Details of leaf architecture of Michelia species. 25, 26. M. figo. 27, 28. M. skinneriana. 29. M. crassipes.
30. M. yunnanensis. 31. M. elegans. 32. M. microcarpa.
Scale bar: 25, 26, 29=1 mm; 27, 28, 31, 32=1 µm; 30=500 µm.
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 177

Figs. 33–40. Details of leaf architecture of Michelia species. 33. M. balansae. 34. M. longistamina. 35, 36. M.
platypetala. 37. M. cavaleriei. 38. M. maudiae. 39. M. doltsopa. 40. M. hypolampra.
Scale bar: 33–36, 39=1 mm; 36, 37, 40=1 µm.
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 178
Figs. 41–48. Details of leaf architecture of taxa examined. 41. Michelia foveolata. 42, 43. M. foveolata var.
cinerascens. 44. M. elegans. 45. M. mediocris. 46. M. macclurei. 47. Tsoongiodendron odorum. 48. Paramichelia baillonii.
Scale bar=1 µm.
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 179

Figs. 49–64. Marginal ultimate veins in Michelia. 49. M. alba. 50. M. champaca. 51. M. velutina. 52. M. elegans. 53.
M. wilsonii. 54. M. szechuanica. 55. M. microtricha. 56. M. floribunda. 57. M. doltsopa. 58. M. macclurei. 59, 60. M. figo.
61, 62. M. skinneriana. 63. M. maudiae. 64. M. cavaleriei.
Scale bar: 55=500 µm; others=1 mm.
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 180


Figs. 65–78. Marginal ultimate veins of taxa examined in subtribe Micheliinae. 65. Michelia sphaerantha. 66. M.
yunnanensis 67. M. mediocris. 68, 75. M. platypetala. 69. M. balansae. 70. M. foveolata var. cinerascens. 71. M. crassipes.
72. M. hypolampra. 73. M. microcarpa. 74. Tsoongiodendron odorum. 76. M. foveolata. 77. M. chapensis. 78.
Paramichelia baillonii.
Scale bar=1 mm.
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 181
Table 4 Intergeneric comparisons of Magnoliaceae based on leaf architectural characters and morphological characters*
Genus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Manglietia Bl. E,
D
E C U A, AC C,
D,
NC
C 10–16 I S, D L, F 4 º P A CF S T A I S ≥4 E F
Manglietiastrum
Law
E E FC U BA C, D C 13–18 I S, B I, L 5 º P F EA S T P I C 3–5 E F
Magnolia L. E,
D
E C U AC, E BC,
C
C 10–20 I,
W
B L, F 6 º P A, F CF,
EA
S, P T A I, L S 2 E, CO F
Talauma Juss. E E C U A C C 14–20 I S, B L 4 º P A EA S T A I S NF E F
Parakmeria Hu &
Cheng
E E FC U A C C 10–16 I S, B L 4 º P F EA S T P I C 2 E F
Kmeria Dandy E E C U O, E BC C 7–16 I B I 5 º P A EA S T A I C 2 E F
Alcimandra
Dandy
E E C U A, CA R,
BC
C 12–15 W S I 5 º P F EA S T P I S 2–5 CO F
Michelia L. E E C U A, AC,
CA,
OA
C,
BC,
R
C 7–24 I,
W
S, B,
D
I, L,
F
5 º P A, F EA P A P L S >2 CO F
Paramichelia Hu E E C U AC C C 14–20 W B I 5 º P A EA P A P L C 2–6 E F
Tsoongiodendron
Chun
E E C U A C C 15–20 W B I 5 º P A EA P A P L C 12–16 CO F
Liriodendron L. D P C L T, E R,
CO
MC 6–9 W B L 5 º A,
P
F EA S T A E S 2 E A
* 1. Habit: E, evergreen; D, deciduous. 2. Young leaf orientation in vegetative bud: E, erect; P, pendant. 3. Prefoliation: C,
conduplicate; FC, flat or curved. 4. Lobation: U, unlobed; L, lobed. 5. Leaf apex: A, acute; AC, acuminate; CA,
caudate-acuminate; OA, obtusely acuminate; BA, bluntly acute to rounded; O, obtuse; T, truncate; E, emarginate. 6. Leaf
base: C, cuneate; NC, narrowly cuneate; BC, broadly cuneate; D, decurrent; R, rounded; CO, cordate. 7. Venation pattern:
C, camptodromous pinnate; MC, mixed-craspedodromous pinnate. 8. Number of secondary veins (paris). 9. Areolas
development: I, imperfect; W, well developed. 10. Veinlets: S, simple; B, branched; D, dendroid. 11. Marginal ultimate
veins: I, incomplete; L, looped; F, fimbriate. 12. Higher order veins. 13. Stomata type: P, paracytic; A, anomocytic. 14.
Stipule attachment: A, stipule adnate to the petiole; F, stipule free from the petiole. 15. Leaf arrangement: EA, evenly
arranged at the twigs; CF, crowded into falsewhorls at the ends of the twigs. 16. Branching morphology: S, sylleptic; P,
proleptic. 17. Flower position: T, terminal; A, axillary. 18. Gynophore: A, absent; P, present. 19. Anther dehiscence: I,
introrse; L, latrorse; E, extrorse. 20. Pre-dehiscence fruiting carpel fusion: S, separate; C, concrescent. 21. Number of
ovules in each carpel: NF, numerous or few. 22. Fruit shape: E, ellipsoid, not usually distorted; CO, cylindrical or oblong,
usually more or less distorted. 23. Testa and endocarp: F, testa from the endocarp; A, testa adherent to the endocarp. *The
classifications of genera follow Law (1996).
3 Discussion
3.1 Leaf architectural characters of subfamily Magnolioideae
Leaf shape of the members of Magnolioideae is highly variable. Leaves of tribe
Michelieae are generally smaller in size than those of tribe Magnolieae. The leaf apex is also
considerably variable, being acuminate, short-acuminate, acute, short-acute, obtuse or
emarginate. Some leaf venation characters of all species examined in subfamily
Magnolioideae are similar. Primary veins are all straight or slightly curved. Secondary veins
moderate or fine thick, brochidodromous or transforming from brochidodromous to
eucamptodromous. Intersecondary veins few or numerous and mainly mixed simple and
composite. Tertiary veins in most species surveyed are percurrent to reticulate. Higher orders
of veins generally present up to 5th order. But, the others such as areolas, veinlets, marginal
ultimate veins provide taxonomic information for specific distinction.
Dendroid veinlets were only observed in Manglietia species, Manglietia glauca and
Manglietia moto (Yu & Chen, 1991). They were observed in Michelia species, e.g. M.
floribunda (Fig. 19), M. microtricha (Fig. 20), M. cavaleriei (Fig. 37), and M. hypolampra
(Fig. 40) for the first time.
3.2 Systematic implications
3.2.1 Taxonomic value at subfamily level Liriodendron comprises two intercontinentally
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 182

Fig. 79. UPGMA dendrogram of Michelia and its related genera based on leaf architectural characters and morphological
characters. , Liriodendron; ▲, subgen. Magnolia; ▼, subgen. Yulania; ★, sect. Michelia; ●, sect. Anisochlamys;
■, sect. Dichlamys; ◆, sect. Micheliopsis; , Paramichelia; , Tsoongiodendron.

disjunct species distributed in E Asia and E North America. It is distinguished from other
genera by easily recognizable characters (Table 4), such as extrorsely dehiscent anthers,
winged, deciduous and indehiscent samaroid fruits, and testa adherent to the end of the
endocarp. Molecular phylogenetic analyses based on chloroplast DNA (cpDNA)(Azuma et
al., 2000; Shi et al., 2000; Ueda et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2001, Wang et al., 2003, 2006) and
morphological cladistic analysis (Li, 1997b; Xu et al., 2000; Li & Conran, 2003) strongly
support the separation of the genus Liriodendron. The leaf architectural characters of
Liriodendron also are distinct from other members of the family. For example, leaves are
2–10 lobed, the apex is truncate or widely emarginate, and there has a mixed-
craspedodromous venation pattern. In addition, young leaf orientation in vegetative bud is
pendant (Sima et al., 2001) and lower epidermis has anomocytic and paracytic stomates (Lin
& Yu, 2004). The phenetic analysis indicated that Liriodendron was completely separated
from other genera of the Magnoliaceae. Therefore, the division of Magnoliaceae into two
subfamilies, Magnolioideae and Liriodendroideae was strongly supported by leaf architectural
evidence.
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 183
3.2.2 The relationship of Michelia and Magnolia subgenus Yulania The close affinity
between Michelia and subgenus Yulania has been demonstrated by proleptic growth, their
cross compatibility, laterally dehiscent anthers, partly undeveloped carpels and cylindrical or
oblong, usually more or less distorted fruit (Table 4). In addition, the sequences of several
chloroplast DNA regions: matK and trnK 3′ intron, trnL intron, trnT-trnL IGS and trnL-trnF
IGS (Ueda et al., 2000), psbA-trnK and atpB-rbcL intergenic spacer regions (Azuma et al.,
2000) and a morphological cladistic analysis (Li & Conran, 2003) also demonstrated a close
relationship between the subgenus Yulania and Michelia. In the present study, Magnolia
subgenus Yulania is easily distinguished from Michelia by leaf shape, leaves crowded into
false whorls at the ends of the twigs, deciduous trees or shrubs, as well as gynophore absent,
oil cells at the radial verge present and polyploidy (Table 4). In the phenetic analysis
subgenus Yulania and subgenus Magnolia were clustered together and separated from
Michelia (Fig. 79). The main characters separating subgenus Yulania from subgenus
Magnolia are latrorsely dehiscent anthers and precocious flowers. Subgenus Magnolia usually
has more primitive characters than those of subgenus Yulania, for example, pollen size of
subgenus Magnolia is larger than that of subgenus Yulania (Praglowski, 1974; Xu et al.,
2004). The flowers of tribe Michelieae have been perceived to be axillary (Dandy, 1978; Law,
1984, 1996; Liu, 2004). In contrast, they were interpreted as terminal by Nooteboom (1985,
2000), Figlar (2000), Kim et al. (2001), Xu (2003) and Wang et al. (2006). In fact, they are
actually produced terminally on axillary short shoots (Fu, 2001) and different from the real
terminal flowers of tribe Magnolieae. Therefore it would appear that Magnolia subgenus
Yulania is much closer to Michelia than Magnolia.
3.2.3 Systematic positions of Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron The three genera
Paramichelia, Tsoongiodendron, and Michelia are distinguished from each other by fruit. In
Michelia, the torus elongates after fertilization and the fruiting-carpels are free and
longitudinally dehiscent. In Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron the carpels are concrescent
and form a syncarp, the syncarp of Paramichelia being indehiscent or only tardily and
irregularly dehiscent, while those of Tsoongiodendron are woody and 2-valved dehiscent. The
three genera have also been studied thoroughly on pollen morphology (Praglowski, 1974; Xu
& Wu, 1995, Xu et al., 1999), leaf epidermis morphology (Baranova, 1972), wood anatomy
(Chen, 1958; Zhang, 1974, 1984), karyotype analysis (Chen et al., 1985; Li et al., 1998a, b),
chemical constitution (Hao et al., 1999; Hong et al., 1998a, b; Wang et al., 2000; Xiong et al.,
2001), morphological cladistic analysis (Li, 1997b; Xu et al., 2000; Li & Conran, 2003), and
molecular phylogenetic analysis (Shi et al., 2000; Zeng et al., 2000; Ueda et al., 2000; Kim et
al., 2001; Wang et al., 2006). All the results have demonstrated a close relationship among
Michelia, Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron. Therefore we agree that Paramichelia and
Tsoongiodendron should be reduced to synonyms of Michelia.
3.2.4 Infrageneric classification and systematic positions of some species of Michelia
The phenetic analysis demonstrated that leaf architectural characters and morphological
characters can provide useful taxonomic information for infrageneric classification within
Michelia. The four sections established by Dandy (Praglowski, 1974) were well supported,
while two subgenera established by Law (1984) were not supported for the two sections of
subgenus Michelia, i.e., sect. Michelia and sect. Micheliopsis, which were widely separated in
the dendrogram. Law (1996) put many species that were placed in sect. Michelia by Chen &
Nooteboom (1993) into sect. Anisochlamys, such as M. foveolata, M. cavaleriei etc., in
addition to M. hedyosperma (a synonym of M. hypolampra). The outer tepals of M.
hypolampra are membranous and narrow, while those of the other species put in sect.
Anisochlamys by Law are more or less fleshy and usually similar to the inner tepals.
Therefore, Law’s treatment of sect. Anisochlamys should not be followed.
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 184
In leaf architecture and systematics of the Hamamelidaceae (s.l.), Li and Hickey (1988)
thought that the development of marginal ultimate veins progressed from incomplete through
looped to fimbriate. In this study, we observed that most species had incomplete or looped
marginal ultimate venation, and a few of species possessed fimbriate marginal ultimate
venation. On the other hand, we found most species had well developed areolas. General
evolutionary trends were represented by increasing regularity in low and high order venation,
as suggested by the leaves of fossil angiosperms found so far (Hickey & Wolfe, 1975; Hickey,
1977; Hickey & Doyle, 1977; Doyle, 1978). Using the criterion of increase in regularity, we
suggest the possible evolutionary trend for leaf architectural characters of Michelia is as
follows: (1) areolas imperfect→well developed; (2) veinlets dendroid→veinlets branched→
veinlets simple or absent; (3) marginal ultimate veins incomplete→looped→fimbriate.
Like other morphological or palynological characters, leaf architectural characters can be
a source of information for the systematic position of species. In the present study, two or
three samples of the same species were examined. The results show that leaf architectural
characters are relatively constant within one species, e.g. M. figo (Figs. 25, 26, 59, 60), M.
skinneriana (Figs. 5, 6, 27, 28, 61, 62), M. platypetala (Figs. 35, 36, 68, 75), and M. elegans
(Figs. 31, 44). In particular, areolas, veinlets, and marginal ultimate veins do provide valuable
information for clarifying the interspecific relationships within Michelia. A key for the
identification of taxa examined is presented.
3.2.4.1 M. floribunda and M. microtricha M. microtricha was recognized by Chen &
Nooteboom (1993), distinguished from M. floribunda by indumentum with minute hairs and
longer brachyblasts. Li (1997a) reduced it to a synonym of M. floribunda on account of leaf
shape, indumentum and length of brachyblast being continuously variable, and unstable
characters. No significant differences in leaf architectural characters were found between
them in this study (Table 5) and they were nested together in the phenetic UPGMA analysis
(Fig. 79). Therefore it would seem reasonable to treat M. microtricha as conspecific with M.
floribunda .
3.2.4.2 M. chapensis and M. microcarpa M. chapensis was described by Dandy in 1929
from material collected in Chapa, Vietnam. It is a widespread species in China. M.
microcarpa was described by Chen & Yang (1988) from material collected in Maguan,
Yunnan in China. Chen & Nooteboom (1993) reduced the latter to a synonym of M.
chapensis. However, on the basis of its glabrous gynoecia and leaves with dense and
conspicuously elevated reticulate veins on both surfaces when dry, Sima (2001) concluded
that M. microcarpa could be easily distinguished from M. chapensis. Leaf architectural
characters were found to differ substantially in this study (Table 5; Figs. 32, 73, 77),
supporting the conclusion that M. chapensis and M. microcarpa are completely different.
Therefore it appears more reasonable to recognize M. microcarpa as a distinct species than to
treat it as a synonym of M. chapensis.
3.2.4.3 M. platypetala, M. cavaleriei, and M. maudiae Chen & Nooteboom (1993)
reduced M. platypetala to a synonym of M. cavaleriei. Law (1996) treated all three as distinct
species in Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae. Sima (2001) lowered M. platypetala to a
variety of M. maudiae. Our observations of leaf architectural characters and morphological
characters suggest that the three species are substantially different (Figs. 35, 37, 38, 63, 64,
75; Table 5). M. platypetala should be recognized as an independent species.
3.2.4.4 M. szechuanica and M. wilsonii M. szechuanica was described by Dandy (1928)
from a collection by Wilson from Kai Xian, Sichuan. It was widely recognized in China
(Law, 1983, 1996; Figlar, 2000), but was reduced to a synonym of M. wilsonii by Chen and
Nooteboom (1993), and Li (1997a) and Sima (2001) treated it as a subspecies of M. wilsonii.
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 185
Table 5 Differences of leaf architectural characters, morphological characters and geographical distributions of some taxa
in Michelia*
Leaf architectural characters
Lamina Areolas Veinlets MUV
Distribution Taxon Morphological
characters
Shape Size (cm) Apex Base Size NV
M. maudiae buds, young twigs,
stipules outside,
leaves beneath,
petiole, brachyblasts,
bracts outside, and
gynoecium pale green
to glaucous when dry;
tepals 9
E 7-15×
3.5-6
OS O 2-3
µm
1 S L S Zhejiang, Fujian,
Hunan, Jiangxi,
Guangdong,
Hongkong, Guangxi
and Guizhou
M. platypetala buds, young twigs,
and young leaves
rufous sericeous;
tepals 9
E 17-23×
6-11
OS C 1-2
mm
1 S, I W Hubei, SW Hunan,
E Guangdong, NE
Guangxi, and E
Guizhou
M. cavaleriei buds, young twigs,
stipules, petioles,
brachyblasts, and
bracts outside densely
appressed-pubescent
with fine, short to
long, straight, clear to
brown, glossy hairs；
tepals 12
E 20-22×
8-11
AC C 1-2
mm
3–4 D I SE Sichuan, NE & S
Guizhou, NW
Guangxi, and SE
Yunnan
M. chapensis appressed puberulent
gynoecia and leaves
with sparse and
inconspicuous
reticulate veins when
dry
NO 6.5–15×
3.5–6
A C 1–1.
5
mm
2–3 TB I S Jiangxi, W Hunan,
N Guangdong, NE &
SE Guangxi and
Vietnam
M. microcarpa glabrous gynoecia and
dense and
conspicuous elevated
reticulate veins on
both surfaces of
leaves when dry
E 6–8.5×
3.5–5
A C 0.1–
0.25
mm
2–3 OB I Maguan,Yunnan
M. floribunda the indument with
minute hairs and the
longer brachyblasts
NE 7–14×
2–4
AC C

2–4
µm
1 D F Yunnan, Sichuan, W
Hubei, and Myanmar
M. microtricha Appressed-tomentello
us with minute,
straight, brown to
gray hairs, glabrescent
and the short
brachyblasts
E 6.5–12×
3–4.5
A C

1–2
µm
1 D F Yunnan
M. wilsonii possessing spreading
hairs; stipular scars
2–4 mm long
NE 10–15×
3.5–7
A C 3–6
µm
1 OB I C & W Sichuan
M. szechuanica possessing appressed
hairs without stipular
scars
NE 9–15×
3–6
SC C 1–2
mm
1 S I W Hubei, S & SE
Sichuan, N Guizhou
and NE Yunnan
*Shape: E, elliptic; NE, narrowly elliptic; NO, narrowly obovoid. Apex: A, acute; AC, acuminate; OS, obtusely
short-acute; SC, sharply caudate-acuminate. Base: C, cuneate; O, obtuse. Veinlets: S, simple; OB, 1–2 times branched; TB,
2–3 times branched; D, dendroid. MUV: Marginal ultimate veins; I, incomplete; L, looped; F, fimbriate. NV: Number of
veinlets per areola.

The main morphological difference between them is that M. szechuanica does not have
stipule scars on its petioles, while M. wilsonii does. Leaf architectural characters were also
different in the branching of veinlets (Figs. 21–23) and presence of prominent arches on
adaxial surfaces of leaves, and they are also well separated in the dendrogram (Fig. 79). This
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 186
would suggest that M. szechuanica should be recognized as a distinct species rather than a
subspecies of M. wilsonii.
4 Conclusions
Leaf architectural characters provide useful taxonomic information in Michelia. The four
sections of Michelia established by Dandy (Praglowski, 1974), i.e., sect. Michelia,
Micheliopsis, Dichlamys and Anisochlamys, are well supported by the phenetic analysis of
leaf architecture combined with other morphological characters, but the two subgeneric
subdivision of Michelia established by Law (1996) seem to be unacceptable. Paramichelia
and Tsoongiodendron are not separable from Michelia in characters of leaf architecture and
floral morphology except in their concrescent fruits, and on this basis it seems more
reasonable to reduce them to synonyms of Michelia.
Key to the Michelia taxa examined with reference to the leaf architectural characters
1. Stipular scars on petioles present.
2. Petioles less than 5 mm.
3. Areolation well developed.
4. Lamina elliptic or narrowly elliptic………………..…………………...…....….…….…....1. M. figo
4. Lamina obovate or narrowly obovate……………………………….....................2. M. yunnanensis
3. Areolation imperfect.
5. Veinlets 2–4 times branched………………..………………..….………..…......3. M. skinneriana
5. Veinlets 2–3 times branched, rarely one time branched…………..…….…….….…..4. M. crassipes
2. Petioles longer than 5 mm.
6. Marginal veins fimbriate.
7. Areolas median, 1 µm 7. Areolas small, 2 µm6. Marginal veins looped or incomplete.
8. Marginal veins looped.
9. Areolas small, 1 µm 9. Areolas median, 2 µm 10. Stipular scars nearly to half of petiole length………………....…………...……...…8. M. alba
10. Stipular scars longer than half of petiole length………….……......................9. M. champaca
8. Marginal veins incomplete.
11. Veinlets simple.
12. Areolas small, 1 µm12. Areolas median, 2 µm 11. Veinlets 1–2 times branched.
13. Quintenary veins reticulate………..............................................12. Paramichelia baillonii
13. Quintenary veins alternate and opposite percurrent..………..13. Tsoongiodendron odorum
1. Stipular scars on petioles absent.
14. Veinlets dendroid.
15. Marginal veins looped………………………………………….……..….….......14. M. hypolampra
15. Marginal veins incomplete……………………………………….…...……..……...15. M. cavaleriei
14. Veinlets simple or 1–3 times branched.
16. Areolation imperfect.
17. Marginal veins looped..………….…………………………………….….…..…16. M. balansae
17. Marginal veins incomplete…....………………………………...…….…….......17. M. chapensis
16. Areolation well developed.
18. Quaternary veins alternate and opposite percurrent.
19. Marginal veins fimbriate…………………………………...….….…........... 18. M. foveolata
19. Marginal veins incomplete……………………….……….19. M. foveolata var. cinerascens
18. Quaternary veins reticulate.
20. Veinlets 2–3 in each areola…………………………………….…....….20. M. microcarpa
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 187
20. Veinlets one, rarely 2 in each areola.
21. Areolas quadrangular.
22. Veinlets one time branched……………..………………..…….…..….21. M. elegans
22. Veinlets simple.
23. Areolas median, 2 µm23. Areolas large, >1 mm…………………………..……...….…..23. M. platypetala
21. Areolas polygonal.
24. Mesophyll; lamina obovate-oblong or oblong.........................….24. M. sphaerantha
24. Notophyll; lamina elliptic or obovate.
25. Areolas median, 2 µm26. Lamina obovate or elliptic-obovate………….…….………25. M. macclurei
26. Lamina rhombic-elliptic..……………………..………..…..26. M. mediocris
25. Areolas large, >1 mm.
27. Lamina appressed indumentum on both surfaces…..…....27. M. szechuanica
27. Lamina glabrous…………………………...…………....28. M. longistamina
Acknowledgements We wish to express gratitudes to Prof. LIAO Jing-Ping, South China
Botanical Garden, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, for providing laboratory facilities and
Dr. Chris Stapleton for reading the manuscript.
References
Ash A W, Ellis B, Hickey L J, Johnson K, Wilf P, Wing S L. 1999. Manual of Leaf Architecture:
Morphological Description and Categorization of Dicotyledonous and Net-Veined Monocotyledonous
Angiosperms. Washington DC.: Smithsonian Institution.
Azuma H, Thien L B, Kawano S. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of Magnolia based on chloroplast DNA
sequence data (trnK intron, psbA-trnH and atpB-rbcL intergenic space regions) and floral scent
chemistry. In: Liu Y-H, Fan H-M, Chen Z-Y, Wu Q-G, Zeng Q-W eds. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on the Family Magnoliaceae. Beijing: Science Press. 219–227.
Baranova M. 1972. Systematic anatomy of the epidermis in the Magnoliaceae and some related families.
Taxon 21: 447–467.
Chen B-L (陈宝梁), Nooteboom H P. 1993. Notes on Magnoliaceae III: the Magnoliaceae of China. Annals of
the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 999–1104.
Chen B-L (陈宝梁), Yang S-C (杨绍诚). 1988. New taxa of Magnoliaceae from Yunnan, China. Acta
Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni (中山大学学报) (3): 96–97.
Chen J-Q (陈俊卿). 1958. Tropical and Subtropical wood of China. Beijing: Science Press. 162–163.
Chen R-Y (陈瑞阳), Chen Z-G (陈祖耕), Li X-L (李秀兰), Song W-Q (宋文芹). 1985. Chromosome numbers
of some species in the family Magnoliaceae in China. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica (植物分类学报) 23:
103–105.
Chun W-Y (陈焕镛). 1963. Genus speciesque novae Magnoliacearum sinensium. Acta Phytotaxonomica
Sinica (植物分类学报) 8: 281–286.
Cronquist A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Dandy J E. 1928. New or noteworthy Chinese Magnoliaceae. Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden
Edinburgh 16: 123–132.
Dandy J E. 1929. Three new Michelias from Indo-China. Journal of Botany, British and Foreign (London) 67:
222–224.
Dandy J E. 1974. Magnoliaceae. In: Praglowski J ed. World Pollen Spore Flora. Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell. 3: 5.
Dandy J E. 1978. Revised survey of the genus Magnolia together with Manglietia and Michelia. In: Treseder
N G ed. Magnolias. London: Faber & Faber. 29–37.
Dilcher D L. 1974. Approaches to the identification of angiosperm leaf remains. The Botanical Review 40:
1–157.
Doyle J A. 1978. Origin of angiosperms. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 365–392.
Endress P K. 1990. Evolution of reproductive structures and functions in primitive angiosperms
(Magnoliidae). Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden 55: 5–34.
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 188
Ettinghausen C. 1861. Die Blatt-Skelete der Dicotyledonen mit besonderer Ruchsicht auf die Untersuchung
und Bestimmung der fossilen Pflanzenreste. Wien.
Figlar R B. 2000. Proleptic branch initiation in Michelia and Magnolia subgenus Yulania provides basis for
combinations in subfamily Magnolioideae. In: Liu Y-H, Fan H-M, Chen Z-Y, Wu Q-G, Zeng Q-W eds.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Family Magnoliaceae. Beijing: Science Press. 14–25.
Figlar R B, Nooteboom H P. 2004. Notes on Magnoliaceae IV. Blumea 49: 87–100.
Foster A S. 1952. Foliar venation in angiosperms from an ontogenetic standpoint. American Journal of Botany
39: 752–766.
Fu D-L (傅大立). 2001. Notes on Yulania Spach. Journal of Wuhan Botanical Research 19: 191–198.
Gluck H. 1919. Blatt-und blutenmorphologische Studien. Jena: G. Fischer.
Gong X (龚洵), Shi S-H (施苏华), Pan Y-Z (潘跃芝), Huang Y-L (黄椰林), Yin Q (尹擎). 2003. An
observation on the main taxonomic characters of subfamily Magnolioideae in China. Acta Botanica
Yunnanica (云南植物研究) 25: 447–456.
Hao X-Y (郝小燕), Hong X (洪鑫), Yu Z (余珍), Yi Y-F (易元芬). 1999. Studies on the chemical constitution
of the essential oil of Tsoongiodendron odorum and Michelia yunnanensis. Guizhou Science (贵州科学)
17: 287–290.
Hickey L J. 1973. Classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves. American Journal of Botany 60:
17-33.
Hickey L J. 1977. Stratigraphy and paleobotany of the Golden Valley Formation (Early Tertiary) of western
North Dakota. Memoirs of the Geological Society of America 150: 1–183.
Hickey L J. 1979. A revised classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves. In: Metcalf C K, Chalk
L eds. Anatomy of the Dicotyledons. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 25–39.
Hickey L J, Doyle J A. 1977. Early Cretaceous fossil evidence for angiosperm evolution. The Botanical
Review 43: 3–104.
Hickey L J, Wolfe J A. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: vegetative morphology. Annals of the
Missouri Botanical Garden 62: 538–589.
Hong X (洪鑫), Wang B-G (王斌贵), Zhou J (周俊). 1998a. A new sesquiterpene alcohol from Michelia
yunnanensis. Chinese Chemical Letters 9: 939–940.
Hong X (洪鑫), Wang B-G (王斌贵), Zhou J (周俊), Hao X-J (郝小江). 1998b. New sesquiterpene from
Michelia yunnanensis. Acta Botanica Yunnanica (云南植物研究) 20: 464–468.
Hu X-S (胡先骕). 1940. Paramichelia, a new genus of Magnoliaceae. Sunyatsenia 4: 142–145.
Kim S, Park C W, Kim Y D, Suh Y. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships in family Magnoliaceae inferred from
ndhF sequences. American Journal of Botany 88: 717–728.
Law Y-W (Liu Y-H, 刘玉壶). 1983. Magnoliaceae. In: W-C Cheng (郑万钧) ed. Sylva Sinica (中国树木志).
Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House. 1: 485–486.
Law Y-W (Liu Y-H, 刘玉壶). 1984. A preliminary study on the taxonomy of the family Magnoliaceae. Acta
Phytotaxonomica Sinica (植物分类学报) 22: 89–109.
Law Y-W (Liu Y-H, 刘玉壶). 1996. Magnoliaceae. In: Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae (中国植物志).
Beijing: Science Press. 30 (1): 151–194.
Lin X-C (林新春), Yu Z-X (俞志雄). 2004. Characters of leaf epidermis of Magnoliaceae and its taxonomic
significance. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College (浙江林业大学学报) 21: 33–39.
Liu Y-H (刘玉壶). 2000. Studies on the phylogeny of Magnoliaceae. In: Liu Y-H, Fan H-M, Chen Z-Y, Wu
Q-G, Zeng Q-W eds. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Family Magnoliaceae. Beijing:
Science Press. 3–13.
Liu Y-H (刘玉壶). 2004. Magnolias of China (中国木兰). Beijing: Science & Technology Press.
Li J (李捷). 1997a. Some notes on Magnoliaceae from China. Acta Botanica Yunnanica (云南植物研究) 19:
131–138.
Li J (李捷). 1997b. A cladistic analysis of Magnoliaceae. Acta Botanica Yunnanica (云南植物研究) 19:
342–356.
Li J (李捷), Conran J G. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships in Magnoliaceae subfamily Magnolioideae: a
morphological cladistic analysis. Plant Systematics and Evolution 242: 33–47.
Li H-M (李浩敏), Hickey L J. 1988. Leaf architecture and systematics of the Hamamelidaceae sensu lato.
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica (植物分类学报) 26: 96–110.
Li X-L (李秀兰), Song W-Q (宋文芹), An Z-P (安祝平), Chen R-Y (陈瑞阳). 1998a. The karyotype analysis
No. 2 ZHANG & XIA: Leaf architecture of subtribe Micheliinae from China 189
of Michelia (Magnoliaceae) in China. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica (植物分类学报) 36: 145–149.
Li X-L (李秀兰), Song W-Q (宋文芹), An Z-P (安祝平), Chen R-Y (陈瑞阳). 1998b. Karyotype comparison
between genera in Magnoliaceae. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica (植物分类学报) 36: 232–237.
Liao J-P, Yang Q-F, Cai X-Z, Chen Z-L, Wu Q-G. 2000. Preliminary study on leaf venation of family
Magnoliaceae. In: Liu Y-H, Fan H-M, Chen Z-Y, Wu Q-G, Zeng Q-W eds. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Family Magnoliaceae. Beijing: Science Press. 153–167.
Luo Y, Zhou Z-K. 2002. Leaf architecture in Quercus subgenus Cyclobalanopsis (Fagaceae) from China.
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 140: 283–295.
Nooteboom H P. 1985. Notes on Magnoliaceae. Blumea 31: 65–121.
Nooteboom H P. 2000. Different looks at the classification of the Magnoliaceae. In: Liu Y-H, Fan H-M, Chen
Z-Y, Wu Q-G, Zeng Q-W eds. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Family Magnoliaceae.
Beijing: Science Press. 26–37.
Praglowski J. 1974. World Pollen and Spore Flora. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 3: 1–44.
Pray T R. 1954. Foliar venation of angiosperm I. Mature venation of Liriodendron. American Journal of
Botany 41: 663–670.
Shi S-H, Jin H, Huang Y-I, Pan H-C, Zhang Q, Chen T, Chang H-T. 2000. Preliminary study on the phylogeny
relationships of Magnoliaceae inferred from sequences of the matK gene of chloroplast DNA. In: Liu
Y-H, Fan H-M, Chen Z-L, Wu Q-G, Zeng Q-Q eds. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Family Magnoliaceae. Beijing: Science Press. 215–218.
Sima Y-K (司马永康). 2001. Some notes on Magnolia subgenus Michelia from China. Yunnan Forestry
Science and Technology (云南林业科技) 2: 29–35.
Sima Y-K (司马永康), Wang J (王炯), Cao L-M (曹丽敏), Wang B-Y (王兵益), Wang Y-H (王跃华). 2001.
Prefoliation features of the Magnoliaceae and their systematic significance. Journal of Yunnan University
Natural Sciences (云南大学学报自然科学版) 23: 71–78.
Sun H (孙航), Chen J (陈介), Zhou Z-K (周浙昆), Fei Y (费勇). 1991. The leaf architecture and its taxonomic
significance in the genera Albizia and Cylindrokelupha from China. Acta Botanica Yunnanica (云南植物
研究) 13: 241–253.
Sun W-B (孙卫邦), Zhou J (周俊). 2004. A new proposal on generic division of the Chinese Magnoliaceae.
Acta Botanica Yunnanica (云南植物研究) 26: 139–147.
Swofford D L. 2002. PAUP* 4.0: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*, and other methods). Beta
version 4.0 b10. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
Takhtajan A. 1980. Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). The Botanical Review
46: 225–359.
Troll W. 1939. Vergleichende Morpgologie der hoheren Pflanzen. Vol. 1: Vegetationsorgane. Part 2. Berlin:
Gebr. Borntraeger. Authorized reprint in Koenigstein-Taunus, Koeltz Verl.
Ueda K, Yamashita J, Tamura M N. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the Magnoliaceae. In: Liu Y-H, Fan H-M,
Chen Z-Y, Wu Q-G, Zeng Q-W eds. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Family
Magnoliaceae. Beijing: Science Press. 205–209.
Wang B-G (王斌贵), Hong-X (洪鑫), Zhou-J (周俊), Hao X-J (郝小江). 2000. Chemical constituents of two
Chinese Magnoliaceae plants, Tsoongiodendron odorum and Manglietiastrum sinicum, and their
inhibition of platelet aggregation. Planta Medica 66: 511–516.
Wang Y F, Ferguson D K, Zetter R, Denk T, Garfi G. 2001. Leaf architecture and epidermal characters in
Zelkova, Ulmaceae. The Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 136: 255–265.
Wang Y-L (王亚玲), Li Y (李勇), Zhang S-Z (张寿洲). 2003. The utility of trnL intron and trnL-trnF IGS in
phylogenetic analysis of Magnoliaceae. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报) 23:
247–252.
Wang Y-L (王亚玲), Li Y (李勇), Zhang S-Z (张寿洲), Yu X-S (余兴生). 2006. The utility of matK gene in
the phylogenetic analysis of the genus Magnolia. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica (植物分类学报) 44:
135–147.
Wylie R B. 1939. Relations between tissue organization and vein distribution in dicotyledon leaves. American
Journal of Botany 26: 219–225.
Wylie R B. 1943. The leaf organization of Thedera helix. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 50:
199–207.
Wylie R B. 1946. Relations between tissue organization and vascularization in leaves of certain tropical and
subtropical dicotyledons. American Journal of Botany 33: 721–726.
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica Vol. 45 190
Wylie R B. 1950. Foliar organization and vascularization of Tolmiea menziesii. Proceedings of the Iowa
Academy of Sciences 57: 149–155.
Xiong-J (熊江), Dai H-F (戴好富), Yi Y-F (易元芬), Yu Z (余珍), Zhou J (周俊). 2001. Voltile components of
the leaves of Michelia floribunda. Natural Products Researches and Developments (天然产物与开发)
13: 13–14.
Xu F-X (徐凤霞). 2003. The systematic relationship of the tribe Magnolieae and Michelieae—based on matK
sequence analysis. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报) 23: 1169–1172.
Xu F-X (徐凤霞), Chen Z-Y (陈忠毅), Zhang D-X (张奠湘). 2000. A cladistic analysis of Magnoliaceae.
Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany (热带亚热带植物学报) 8: 207–214.
Xu F-X (徐凤霞), Hu X-Y (胡晓颖), Xu X-L (徐信兰). 1999. Pollen morphology of several species from
Michelia (Magnoliaceae). Journal of Wuhan Botanical Research (武汉植物研究) 174: 303–306.
Xu F-X (徐凤霞), Hu X-Y (胡晓颖), Xu X-L (徐信兰). 2004. Pollen morphology of five species from
Magnolia. Acta Botanica Yunnanica (云南植物研究) 26: 83–88.
Xu F-X (徐凤霞), Wu Q-G (吴七根). 1995. Pollen morphology of Paramichelia and Tsoongiodendron from
China. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报) 15: 47–49.
Yu C-H (喻诚鸿), Chen Z-L (陈泽濂). 1986. Leaf architecture of the woody dicotyledons from South China I.
Terminology and methods. Acta Botanica Austro Sinica (中国科学院华南植物研究所集刊) 2: 83–97.
Yu C-H (喻诚鸿), Chen Z-L (陈泽濂). 1991. Leaf Architecture of the Woody Dicotyledons from Tropical and
Subtropical China. Beijing: International Academic Publishers & Pergamon Press. 3–9.
Zeng Q-W (曾庆文), Wang T (王艇), Zhu J-M (朱建明), Su Y-J (苏应娟), Liu Y-H (刘玉壶). 2000. RAPD
analysis on phylogeny of subtribe Micheliinae. In: Liu Y-H, Fan H-M, Chen Z-Y, Wu Q-G, Zeng Q-W
eds. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Family Magnoliaceae. Beijing: Science Press.
228–234.
Zhang C-T (张哲僧). 1974. Anatomy of wood of Tsoongiodendron odorum. Acta Botanica Sinica (植物学报)
16: 156–157.
Zhang C-T (张哲僧). 1984. A preliminary study on the wood anatomy of Manglietia aromatica Dandy
(Paramanglietia aromatica (Dandy) Hu & Chen) and Paramichelia baillonii (Pierre) Hu of
Magnoliaceae from China. Acta Botanica Sinica (植物学报) 26: 479–483.
国产木兰科含笑亚族植物的叶结构及其分类学意义
1, 2张新华 1夏念和*
1(中国科学院华南植物园经济植物所 广州 510650)
2(中国科学院研究生院 北京 100049)
摘要 为了探讨含笑亚族Micheliinae植物属间关系以及含笑属Michelia属下等级的划分和一些种的分
类学地位, 利用放大镜和体视镜对国产含笑亚族植物3属共28个分类群的叶结构特征进行了观察与研
究。结果表明: 含笑属、合果木属Paramichelia和观光木属Tsoongiodendron植物的脉序类型、一级脉、
二级脉及其间脉和三级脉等特征表现出较高的一致性, 三属间无明显的划分界限; 但是, 盲脉及其分
支、网眼的发育和大小、叶缘末级脉等叶结构特征存在种间差异。在含笑属中, 树状盲脉首次被观察
到。用UPGMA对所研究28个分类群、木兰属Magnolia两个亚属各2种和鹅掌楸Liriodendron chinense的
叶结构特征和形态学特征共46个性状进行聚类分析。分析结果表明: (1)合果木P. baillonii和观光木T.
odorum与含笑属的种聚为一支, 因此, 支持将合果木属和观光木属归并入含笑属; (2)这些特征为含笑
属内组的划分提供了分类学意义; (3)基于叶结构特征、形态学特征、地理分布、聚类分析, 对含笑属内
一些种类的分类地位进行了讨论。
关键词 木兰科; 含笑属; 合果木属; 观光木属; 盲脉; 分类学意义