The wood of Amentotaxus
Controversy over the taxonomic relationship of the Taxineae with the Coniferineae has created a new interest in the field of wood anatomy. This has been reflected by the flurry of investigations being conducted in families such as the Podocarpaceae. The systematic position of Amentotaxus is somewhat uncertain (see Keng, 1969). While many authors place Amentotaxus in the Taxaceae, this genus has also been referred to the Cephalotaxaceae or even considered to represent a separate family, the Amentotaxaceae. When Kudo and Yamamoto (1931) described this last family, it was considered to be represented by only a single species, Amentotaxus argotaenia (Hance) Pilger. In his revision of Amentotaxus Li (1952) recognized four species. However, the description and publication of three new species of Amentotaxus based on leaf morphology would appear to have been overly optimistic and has not gone unchallenged. Hu (1964) recognized only three of the species, since she thought that Amentotaxus cathayensis Li could not be usefully upheld as distinct. Moreover, Chuang and Hu (1963) considered that Amentotaxus formosana Li was better referred to Amentotaxus argotaenia (Hance) Pilger. The divergence of opinion has increased the need to investigate any anatomical features that may be of taxonomic importance. In connection with this work it was thought an examination of the wood anatomy would be worthwhile, even though taxonomic evaluation at the subgeneric level is not often successful in this field. A comparative study of the wood anatomy within the genus Amentotaxus is considerably limited by the lack of availability of suitable material; most locations of Amentotaxus are in China. The scanty and now somewhat rare wood specimens were collected before 1935, with the exception of some from Taiwan.
|Journal||Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum en Herbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht|
|Rights||Released under the CC-BY 4.0 ("Attribution") License|
Miller, H. J. (1973). The wood of Amentotaxus. Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum en Herbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, 390(1), 111–119.