Abstract
Abstract Karyological data are presented for 13 genera of palm subfamily Coryphoideae s.l. Chromosome numbers of 4 species and of genus Guihaia ( G. argyrata , 2n = 36) are new. Apart from the prevailing chromosome number of 2n = 36, subfam. Coryphoideae s.l. shows extreme heterogeneity with respect to chromosome size and morphology, organization of constitutive heterochromatin (C‐banding, fluorochrome staining), interphase nucleus structures and prophase condensation patterns. Five karyologically differing groups of genera can be distinguished ( Coccothrinax ‐group, Guihaia, Livistona ‐group incl. Sabal, Phoenix , and Bismarckia ). Chromosome evolution probably has gone from medium sized to very small chromosomes with an average length of less than 1.5 μm; hc‐distribution from evenly distributed throughout the karyotype to accumulated in few chromosomes; from simple banding patterns to complicated ones (hc‐elaboration). Karyotypes with chromosomes of continuously decreasing size, similar morphology, and uniform prophase condensation probably gave rise to almost bimodal karyotypes with non‐uniform, heteropycnotic chromosomal structures. Changes in the organization of interphase nuclei are corresponding. Karyotype differentiation is compared to major evolutionary events in floral and vegetative morphology of subfam. Coryphoideae s.l. Karyologically, genera Phoenix and Bismarckia are isolated and the relations to the remaining part of the subfamily are not clear.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Chromosome numbers for four species and Guihaia were newly reported.
Verbatim
e0“Chromosome numbers of 4 species and of genus Guihaia ( G. argyrata , 2n = 36) are new.”
t0“Palm”
Claim · model-written summary
Coryphoideae varied greatly in chromosome size, morphology and heterochromatin organization.
Verbatim
e0“subfam. Coryphoideae s.l. shows extreme heterogeneity with respect to chromosome size and morphology, organization of constitutive heterochromatin (C‐banding, fluorochrome staining), interphase nucleus structures and prophase condensation patterns.”
Claim · model-written summary
Five karyologically distinct groups of genera were distinguished.
Verbatim
e0“Five karyologically differing groups of genera can be distinguished”
t0“Palm”
Claim · model-written summary
Chromosome evolution was inferred from medium-sized toward very small chromosomes.
Verbatim
e0“Chromosome evolution probably has gone from medium sized to very small chromosomes with an average length of less than 1.5 μm”
t0“Palm”
Claim · model-written summary
Heterochromatin distribution was inferred to shift from even to concentration in a few chromosomes.
Verbatim
e0“hc‐distribution from evenly distributed throughout the karyotype to accumulated in few chromosomes”
t0“Palm”
Claim · model-written summary
Banding patterns were inferred to evolve from simple to complex.
Verbatim
e0“from simple banding patterns to complicated ones (hc‐elaboration).”
t0“Palm”
Claim · model-written summary
Uniform karyotypes were inferred to give rise to almost bimodal karyotypes.
Verbatim
e0“Karyotypes with chromosomes of continuously decreasing size, similar morphology, and uniform prophase condensation probably gave rise to almost bimodal karyotypes with non‐uniform, heteropycnotic chromosomal structures.”
t0“Palm”
Claim · model-written summary
Phoenix and Bismarckia were karyologically isolated from other genera.
- Taxon
- Phoenix and Bismarckia
Phoenix
Bismarckiae0 - Outcome
- isolatede0
- Qualifier
- relations to the remaining part of the subfamily are not cleare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Karyologically, genera Phoenix and Bismarckia are isolated and the relations to the remaining part of the subfamily are not clear.”