Pollinarium morphology and floral rewards in Brazilian Maxillariinae (Orchidaceae)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is strong support for the monophyly of the orchid subtribe Maxillariinae s.l., yet generic boundaries within it are unsatisfactory and need re-evaluation. In an effort to assemble sets of morphological characters to distinguish major clades within this subtribe, the pollinarium morphology and floral rewards of representative Brazilian species of this subtribe were studied. METHODS: The study was based on fresh material from 60 species and seven genera obtained from cultivated specimens. Variation of pollinarium structure and floral rewards was assessed using a stereomicroscope and by SEM analysis. KEY RESULTS: Four morphological types of pollinaria are described. Type 1 appears to be the most widespread and is characterized by a well-developed tegula. Type 2 lacks a stipe and the pollinia are attached directly to the viscidium. Type 3 also lacks a stipe, and the viscidium is rigid and dark. In Type 4, the stipe consists of the whole median rostelar portion and, so far, is known only from Maxillaria uncata. Nectar, trichomes, wax-like and resin-like secretions are described as flower rewards for different groups of species within the genus Maxillaria. Data on the biomechanics and pollination biology are also discussed and illustrated. In Maxillariinae flowers with arcuate viscidia, the pollinaria are deposited on the scuttellum of their Hymenopteran pollinators. In contrast, some flowers with rounded to rectangular, pad-like viscidia fix their pollinaria on the face of their pollinators. CONCLUSIONS: Pollinarium morphology and floral features related to pollination in Brazilian Maxillariinae are more diverse than previously suggested. It is hoped that the data presented herein, together with other data sources such as vegetative traits and molecular tools, will be helpful in redefining and diagnosing clades within the subtribe Maxillariinae.     

The pollination mechanism in Trigonidium obtusum Lindl (Orchidaceae: Maxillariinae): sexual mimicry and trap-flowers

The pollination process in Trigonidium obtusum Lindl. (Epidendroideae: Maxillariinae) is documented. The flowers are pollinated by sexually excited drones of Plebeia droryana (Meliponinae). When attempting to copulate either with sepals or petals, these bees slip on the waxy perianth surface and become trapped in the funnel-like flower tube. Bees trying to escape from the flowers may instead access the space between the column and lip, fixing the pollinarium on their scutellum. Pollinarium-bearing bees may pollinate the flowers when repeating the above-mentioned steps, leaving pollinia on the concave stigmatic surface, thus effecting pollination. Recently removed pollinaria are too broad to enter the stigma but they begin to dehydrate and within 40 min of removal are small enough to fit the stigmatic cavity. This mechanism prevents insect-mediated self-pollination and promotes cross-pollination. Preliminary evidence based on experiments with cultivated plants suggests that they are self-compatible but that fruit set is pollinator-dependent. The data obtained are discussed in a phylogenetic context. It is suggested that the pseudocopulatory syndrome in Trigonidium could have evolved from rewardless (food advertising) ancestors. Pseudocopulation in the context of the long flowering period of this orchid species (about 7 months) is understandable since the eusocial Plebeia bees produce fertile individuals several times a year.     

Comparative labellar micromorphology of Zygopetalinae (Orchidaceae)

Background and Aims

Molecular evidence indicates that the Neotropical sub-tribe Zygopetalinae is sister to Maxillariinae. Most members of the latter sub-tribe have deceit pollination strategies, but some species produce rewards such as nectar, pseudopollen, resin and wax, and are pollinated by a range of pollinators that include stingless bees (Meliponini), wasps and hummingbirds. By contrast, relatively little is known about the pollination of Zygopetalinae species. However, some are pollinated by fragrance-gathering, male euglossine bees or employ nectar deceit strategies. The aim of this study is to describe the labellar micromorphology of Zygopetalinae and to compare it with that of Maxillariinae sensu lato (s.l.) as part of an ongoing project to record the range of labellar characters found within the tribe Maxillarieae, and to assess whether these characters represent synapomorphies or homoplasies resulting from similar pollination pressures.

Methods

The labella of 31 species of Zygopetalinae, including Cryptarrhena R. Br. and representatives of the Zygopetalum, Huntleya and Warrea clades, were examined using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, and the range of labellar characters was recorded. These characters were subsequently compared with those of Maxillariinae s.l. which formed the subject of our previous investigations.

Key Results and Conclusions

The labellar micromorphology of Zygopetalinae is less diverse than that of Maxillariinae and does not reflect the currently accepted phylogeny of the former sub-tribe based on molecular studies. Instead, the relative uniformity in labellar micromorphology of Zygopetalinae is probably due to homoplasies resulting from similar pollinator pressures. Labellar trichomes are relatively uncommon in Zygopetalinae, but occur in certain members of both the Zygopetalum and Huntleya clades. Trichomes are unbranched, uniseriate and multicellular with rounded apices, or unbranched and unicellular, with tapering, pointed and flexuose apices. Hitherto, unicellular trichomes of this kind have been observed only for euglossophilous orchid taxa, and the adoption of a relatively limited range of pollination strategies by Zygopetalinae may have resulted in reduced investment in micromorphological labellar characters.     

Micromorphology of the labellum and floral spur of Cryptocentrum Benth. and Sepalosaccus Schltr. (Maxillariinae: Orchidaceae)

Background and Aims: Gross vegetative and floral morphology, as well as modern moleculartechniques, indicate that Cryptocentrum Benth. and SepalosaccusSchltr. are related to Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav. However, theydiffer from Maxillaria in their possession of floral spurs and,in this respect, are atypical of Maxillariinae. The labellarmicromorphology of Maxillaria, unlike that of the other twogenera, has been extensively studied. In the present report,the labellar micromorphology of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccusis compared with that of Maxillaria and, for the first time,the micromorphology of the floral spur as found in Maxillariinaeis described. Methods: Labella and dissected floral spurs of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccuswere examined using light microscopy (LM) and scanning electronmicroscopy (SEM). Key Results: In each case, the labellum consists of a papillose mid-lobe(epichile), a cymbiform region (hypochile) and, proximally,a spur, which is pronounced in Cryptocentrum but short and bluntin Sepalosaccus. The inner epidermal surface of the spur ofCryptocentrum is glabrous or pubescent, and the bicellular hairs,where present, are unlike any hitherto described for Maxillariinae.Similar but unicellular hairs also occur in the floral spurof Sepalosaccus, whereas the glabrous epidermis lining the spurof C. peruvianum contains putative nectar pores. Conclusions: The labellar micromorphology of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccusgenerally resembles that of Maxillaria. The floral spur of Cryptocentrumdisplays two types of organization in that the epidermal liningmay be glabrous (possibly with nectar pores) or pubescent. Thismay have taxonomic significance and perhaps reflects physiologicaldifferences relating to nectar secretion. The trichomes foundwithin the spurs of Cryptocentrum and Sepalosaccus more closelyresemble the hairs of certain unrelated, nectariferous orchidtaxa than those found in the largely nectarless genus Maxillaria,and this further supports the case for parallelism.     

Sexual mimicry in Mormolyca ringens (Lindl.) Schltr. (Orchidaceae: Maxillariinae)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pollination through sexual mimicry, also known as pseudocopulation, has been suggested to occur in some genera of the Neotropical orchid subtribe Maxillariinae. However, it has been demonstrated so far only for Trigonidium obtusum. This study reports and illustrates pollination through sexual mimicry in Mormolyca ringens. METHODS: A total of 70 h were dedicated to the observation of flowers and pollinator behaviour, which was photographically recorded. Flower features involved in pollinator attraction were studied using a stereomicroscope and by SEM analyses. Preliminary observations on the plant breeding system were made by manually self-pollinating flowers. The chemical composition of the fragrance volatiles was determined by GC/MS analysis. KEY RESULTS: The flower features of M. ringens parallel those of other pseudocopulatory flowers. The labellum shape and indument are reminiscent of an insect. Sexually excited drones of Nannotrigona testaceicornis and Scaptotrigona sp. (both in the Apidae: Meliponini) attempt copulation with the labellum and pollinate the flower in the process. In both bee species, the pollinarium is attached to the scutellum. Pollinator behaviour may promote some degree of self-pollination, but preliminary observations indicate that M. ringens flowers are self-incompatible. Flowers are produced all the year round, which ties in with the production of bee males several times a year. The phylogenetic relationships of M. ringens are discussed and a number of morphological and phenological features supporting them are reported. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that further research could bring to light whether other Maxillariinae species are also pollinated through sexual mimicry. When a definitive and robust phylogeny of this subtribe is available, it should be possible to determine how many times pseudocopulation evolved and its possible evolutionary history.     

Labellar micromorphology of Bifrenariinae Dressler (Orchidaceae)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The two closely related subtribes Bifrenariinae Dressler and Maxillariinae Benth. are easily distinguished on morphological grounds. Recently, however, molecular techniques have supported the inclusion of Bifrenariinae within a more broadly defined Maxillariinae. The present paper describes the diverse labellar micromorphology found amongst representatives of Bifrenariinae (Bifrenaria Lindl., Rudolfiella Hoehne, Teuscheria Garay and Xylobium Lindl.) and compares it with that found in Maxillaria Pabst & Dungs and Mormolyca Fenzl (Maxillariinae). METHODS: The labella of 35 specimens representing 22 species of Bifrenariinae were examined by means of light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy and their micromorphology compared with that of Maxillaria sensu stricto and Mormolyca spp. The labellar epidermis of representatives of Bifrenaria, Xylobium and Mormolyca was tested for protein, starch and lipids in order to ascertain whether this tissue is involved in the rewarding of pollinators. KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The labella of Bifrenaria spp. and Mormolyca spp. are densely pubescent but those of Xylobium, Teuscheria and Rudolfiella are generally papillose. However, whereas the trichomes of Bifrenaria and Mormolyca are unicellular, those found in the other three genera are multicellular. Hitherto, no unicellular trichomes have been described for Maxillaria, although the labella of a number of species secrete a viscid substance or bear moniliform, pseudopollen-producing hairs. Moniliform hairs and secretory material also occur in certain species of Xylobium and Teuscheria and these genera, together with Maxillaria, are thought to be pollinated by stingless bees (Meliponini). Differences in the labellar micromorphology of Bifrenaria and Mormolyca are perhaps related to Euglossine- and/ or bumble bee-mediated pollination and pseudocopulation, respectively. Although Xylobium and Teuscheria share a number of labellar features with Maxillaria sensu stricto, this does not necessarily reflect taxonomic relationships but may be indicative of convergence in response to similar pollinator pressures.     

Subtribal and generic relationships of Maxillarieae (Orchidaceae) with emphasis on Stanhopeinae: combined molecular evidence

The monophyly of and phylogenetic relationships within the orchid tribe Maxillarieae Pfitzer were evaluated using parsimony analyses of combined nuclear ribosomal and plastid DNA sequence data of ITS 1 and 2, matK, and the trnL intron and the trnL-F intergene spacer. Each of the separate analyses produced highly congruent but weakly supported patterns (by the bootstrap), so these were combined in a single analysis. Analysis of 90 ingroup taxa (representing ～35% of currently recognized genera) and four outgroup taxa produced resolved and highly supported cladograms. Based on the cladograms, we recognize six subtribes: Eriopsidinae, Oncidiinae (including Pachyphyllinae, Ornithocephalinae, and Telipogoninae), Stanhopeinae, Coeliopsidinae, Maxillariinae (including Lycastinae and Bifrenariinae), and Zygopetalinae (including Cryptarrheninae, Dichaeinae, Huntleyinae, and Warreinae). Stanhopeinae were sampled most intensively; their generic relationships were highly resolved in the analysis and largely agree with currently accepted generic concepts based on morphology. Coeliopsidinae (Coeliopsis, Lycomormium, Peristeria) are sister to Stanhopeinae. Correlations are drawn among phylogeny, pollination mechanisms, and life history traits.