Morphogenesis of fruits and types of fruit of angiosperms

52Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Morphological and anatomical fruit characters are used for description of morphogenetic fruit types within eight traditional fruit types–follicle, nutlet, drupe, berry, capsule, pyrenarium, amphisarca and nut, which describe the major diversity of fruits of all angiosperms. The traditional fruit types are representing levels of fruits organization and are described based on morphological characters (gynoecium type, carpels phyllotaxis, fruiting carpel dehiscence or indehiscence, number of seeds per fruit, and the presence or absence of the continuous sclerenchymatous zone in the fruit wall), whereas morphogenetic fruit types are described based on fruit wall (pericarp) anatomy. Fundamental differences between basal types of pericarp structure of the outlined morphogenetic fruit types lie in the localization (in the exocarp, specific zone of the mesocarp and/or endocarp) of the continuous sclerenchymatous zone, which secures protection of seeds, fruit dehiscence in follicles and capsules, and dissemination. Twenty seven morphogenetic fruit types are recognized in the current research: four types of follicle (Hakea, Illicium, Myristica and Talauma types), two types of nutlet (Nelumbo and Rosa types), three types of drupe (Laurus, Prunus and Rhapis types), two types of berrie (Schisandra and Nuphar types), seven types of capsule (Bombax, Eriocoelum, Forsythia, Galanthus, Hamamelis, Lilium and Nepenthes types), four types of pyrenarium (Butia, Ilex, Latania and Olea types), two types of amphisarca (Adansonia and Theobroma types), and three types of nut (Corylus, Polygonum and Centaurea types) in angiosperms. The modes of evolutionary transformations of main morphogenetic types of fruits are described.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bobrov, A. V. F. C., & Romanov, M. S. (2019). Morphogenesis of fruits and types of fruit of angiosperms. Botany Letters, 166(3), 366–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.2019.1663448

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free