共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 109 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
通过初步调查及查阅文献统计分析,以庐山或牯岭命名的庐山植物资源有33科41属41种,其中蕨类植物5科,6属,6种,分别占总科、属、种数的15.15%、14.63%、14.63%;被子植物28科,35属,35种,分别占总科、属、种数的84.85%、85.37%、85.37%。进一步分析了该类植物种类组成丰富多样及习性多样性,蕨类植物6种,占总种的14.63%,双子叶植物有31种,占总种的75.61%,单子叶植物有4种,占总种的9.76%。探讨了其在庐山的生境、用途及存在的问题。 相似文献
4.
为了摸清色季拉山蕨类植物资源的种类和资源特征,为该区蕨类开发利用提供依据。该研究通过查阅《西藏植物志》和标本,结合色季拉山多年植物调查名录,对该区野生蕨类植物进行统计分析,并对其用途进行了描述。结果显示:(1)色季拉山共有蕨类植物资源29科、57属、196种(包括变种和变型),分别占西藏蕨类植物总科、属、种的65.91%、45.24%、41.70%;优势科为鳞毛蕨科(3属/50种)、水龙骨科(9属/31种)、蹄盖蕨科(7属/22种)、中国蕨科(6属/14种),优势属为鳞毛蕨属(27种)、耳蕨属(19种)。(2)色季拉山蕨类植物的地理成分以热带类型的科和属占优势(分别占非世界分布科、属的80.00%、68.18%),具有明显的热带性质;生态分布类型以陆生为主(118种,占60.20%),其次为附生(45种,占22.96%)。(3)色季拉山共有药用蕨类植物66种,且以清热药种类最多(30种);观赏蕨类植物共有71种(其中新增加23种);食用蕨类植物共有14种,且多以嫩叶或嫩茎或根状茎为食;少数蕨类还具有指示、工业原料、饲料和绿肥等方面的作用。研究表明,色季拉山蕨类植物资源种类丰富,在西藏蕨类植物区系中占很大比例,具有很高的开发利用价值。 相似文献
5.
庐山蕨类植物区系研究 总被引:2,自引:1,他引:1
庐山共有蕨类植物39科87属247种(含变种、变型),其区系带有热带和温带双重性。其中鳞毛蕨科、水龙骨科、蹄盖蕨科、金星蕨科和铁角蕨科属种优势明显,共有38属160种,分别占总属数的43.7%和种数的64.8%,代表了该地区蕨类植物区系的一个重要特征。该区区系地理成分复杂,相互交错,其中热带性属占总属数的64.2%,温带性属占总属数的35.8%。东亚成分在该区系占有绝对优势,共有14属,占总属数的20.9%,中国特有属缺乏,特有种丰富,表明成分具有多样性并具有热带亲缘性,是亚热带向北温带的过渡地区。该区与井冈山、武夷山关系密切,与鼎湖山、秦岭和横断山关系疏远。 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
重庆市蕨类植物区系调查和分析 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
重庆市有野生蕨类植物47科120属604种(含变种及以下分类单位)。其科属优势明显,其中蹄盖蕨科、金星蕨科、鳞毛蕨科和水龙骨科4个科包含了49属337种,占重庆市蕨类植物属、种总数的40.83%和55.79%;特有现象明显,地方特有种十分丰富,中国特有种和地方特有种类分别达到164种和33种;蕨类植物区系具有古老、孑遗和原始性等特点,表现出一定的热带性质或热带亲缘。 相似文献
9.
鼎湖山药用植物资源调查分析 总被引:5,自引:1,他引:4
经调查,鼎湖山国家自然保护区共有药用植物193科677属1 077种,含蕨类植物32科55属85种1 变种,裸子植物7科10属12种,被子植物154科612属979种;对其中具有特色的中草药作了重点介绍,并提 出合理开发利用及保护建议。 相似文献
10.
香港果洲群岛植物物种多样性与植被的研究 总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3
据实地调查统计,香港果洲群岛共有维管束植物140种,隶属于54科115属,其中蕨类植物5科6属6种.裸了植物1科1属1种,被子植物48科108属133种.植被类型主要为常绿阔叶灌丛、南亚热带常绿阔叶林和热带滨海砂生植被.果洲群岛植物区系以热带、亚热带成分占优势.报道了果洲群岛各岛植物种类,并分析了各岛植物物种多样性的特点以及与邻近地区植物多样性的关系,为香港岛屿植物区系的研究提供基本资料. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta 总被引:10,自引:0,他引:10
Martin P 《Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society》2001,268(1471):1089-1098
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. 相似文献
19.
Göran Malmberg 《Systematic parasitology》1990,17(1):1-65
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 相似文献