The shoot apex of Podostemaceae: De novo structure or reduction of the conventional type?

Abstract

The paper reviews and discusses various interpretations of the shoot apex of Podostemaceae with special reference to subfamily Podostemoideae. Main questions concern (1) the proposed absence of a shoot apical meristem (SAM) in apical “meristemless” shoot tips of Podostemoideae and, as the consequence, the endogenous inception of leaf-borne leaves and branches and (2) the predicted stem bifurcation below a “terminal” dithecous (double-sheathed) leaf positioned instead of a shoot apex, as it is reported for subfamily Podostemoideae. Does the “meristemless” shoot apex represent a true evolutionary novelty? Does the view of stem bifurcation represent a new ramification pattern with the consequence that the “classical root–shoot model” of angiosperms is not valid for Podostemaceae? Both interpretations do not conform to previous studies that are complemented here by new data on the SAM of Zeylanidium olivaceum and Thelethylax minutiflora (Podostemoideae). Although a SAM is difficult to observe in the vegetative shoots of many Podostemoideae, it becomes well visible when the shoot passes into the flowering stage approaching the conspicuous shoot apex of floriferous shoots. The arguments of the absence of a SAM in vegetative shoots are not convincing and the endogenous origin of “leaf-borne leaves” appears questionable. Consequently, the “meristemless” shoot apex cannot be considered as a structure having evolved de novo. In the less advanced subfamilies Tristichoideae and Weddellinoideae, the leaf primordia develop only from a few apical cells of the outer shoot layer. This allows the conclusion that the surface layer of the apex in these subfamilies corresponds to the horizontally spread single-layered apical meristem of subfamily Podostemoideae. Similarly, the view of shoot bifurcation does not conform to the diachsial–sympodial branching pattern occurring in the cymose inflorescences of many Podostemoideae. This fact contradicts the presence of a terminal leaf.