孢粉药材及花类药材的孢粉形态研究

孢粉药材及花类药材的孢粉形态研究周日宝方石林１常劲罗友义（湖南中医学院中药系,长沙４１０００７）ＳＴＵＤＹＯＮＴＨＥＳＰＯＲＯ┐ＰＯＬＬＥＮＭＯＲＰＨＯＬＯＧＹＯＦＴＨＥＭＥＤＩＣＩＮＡＬＳＰＯＲＥＳ,ＰＯＬＬＥＮＳＡＮＤＦＬＯＷＥＲＳＺｈｏｕＲｉ...     

孢粉药材及花类药材的孢粉形态(续)

 利用光学显微镜和扫描电子显微镜对10种孢粉药材及花类药材进行了孢子或花粉的显微和亚显微研究,为孢粉药材及花粉药材的鉴别提供了新的方法和科学依据。     

孢粉药材及花类药材的孢粉形态（续）

利用光学显微镜和扫描电子显微镜对１０种孢粉药材及花类药材进行了孢子或花粉的显微和亚显微研究,为孢粉药材及花粉药材的鉴别提供了新的方法和科学依据。     

孢粉

孢粉吴剑峰（江苏省南通师范学校２２６００６）孢子和花粉简称抱粉。孢子是植物所产生的一种有繁殖或休眠作用的细胞,能直接发育成新个体。而花粉是种子植物雄蕊花粉囊内的粉末状体,它在雌蕊柱头上或在花粉囊内萌发,形成花粉管,产生精子。孢粉有很重要的应用价值,下...     

孢粉学学报

孢粉学学报是由法国蒙彼利埃新建立的孢粉学实验室创办的一种国际孢粉学杂志。1989年创刊,季刊。刊登内容包括化石孢粉、现代孢粉和有关利用孢粉学作为工具的所有学科。创刊号有三部分(各占1/3):化石花粉(形态、分类、演化等);现代花粉(空中漂浮孢粉、形态等);孢粉学相关学科(地质学、海洋学、气候学等)。杂志的文种是英文,偶尔也使用法文和西班牙文,但附英文题目和摘要。该刊为高价     

漫话小小孢粉

漫话小小孢粉刘炳仑（中国科学院植物研究所,北京１０００４４）花粉是裸子植物和植物界的后起之秀,当代地球绿原的主宰──被子植物生殖器官的一部分,而有些较低等的植物,如菌藻、苔藓和葫类植物的孢子囊中的孢子成熟后,破囊散发出来,就是孢子。孢粉学家,把孢子和...     

孢粉用途面面观

众所周知,孢粉形态和孢粉分析是孢粉学的两个主干分支。研究地层中的孢粉化石,可以探讨古地理、古气候和古植被,以及进行地层的划分和对比,从而成为找油、找气、找矿、找水的重要手段之一。研究现代孢粉,不但能为孢粉微体化石的鉴定提供对比的可靠依据,而且能为植物的系统发育与演化积累丰富的资料。另外,研究现代孢粉还在养蜂学、医学、侦缉学、冶金、照明、地形学和土壤学等方面,有着多种用途。１－冶金工业方面当今之世,在盛产一种蕨类植物石松的众多国度里,已把破囊而出的石松孢子,这些看来不起眼的小家伙,广泛用于各种金属…     

孢粉与环境

本文探讨了孢粉学在研究古植被、古气候、古地理方面的意义。文中运用我国丰富的新生代孢粉分析资料,详细地讨论我国新生代以来古植被的特点,古气候的演变以及古地理的变迁,进一步讨论上述古环境诸因素的演变对寻找石油、煤等有机可燃矿产及各种沉积矿产方面的意义。本文还讨论了现代孢子花粉研究在环境保护和人类保健方面的意义。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor