1
The ovules of all gymnospermous groups are essentially bitegmic.
2
The two integuments of the angiospermous ovule are the homologues of the two ovular coats of a gymnospermous prototype.
3
The cupule, a characteristic organ of pteridospermous and lower cycadopsid groups, is also represented by homologous structures in bennettitalean, chlamydospermous and angiospermous forms.
4
In the Higher Cycadopsida (including the Angiosperms) the homologue of the cupule is almost invariably one-ovuled, which is the result of a progressive oligomerisation of the number of ovules during its evolution from a primitive pluri-ovulate pteridospermous archetype.
5
Derivatives of the cupule in the Higher Cycadopsida include the interovular scales of cycadeoid groups, the chlamys of gnetalean forms and the true aril of the angiospermous ovule, but more important from a phylogenetic point of view is that in a number of angiospermous taxa the cupule homologue constitutes the outer wall (or at least a substantial part of the outer wall) of the ovuliferous gynoecial structure, i.e., of a pistil or ‘ovary’, or of an element of a phalangiate gynoecium.
6
The homology of some traditional angiospermous ‘pistils’ with a cupulate (chlamydote, arillate) ovule sheds light on the phylogenetic relationships between plants at a gymnospermous (chlamydospermous-bennettitalean) evolutionary level and a number of angiospermous forms, thus indicating that Angiosperms with carpellate gynoecia have attained a higher level of organisation and are derived from archetypes with primitive ecarpellate female genitalia.
7
From a discussion of the structure and vascularisation of the primitive angiospermous pistil of the cupulate ovule type the conclusion is drawn that the persuance of the interpretative floral morphology of one-ovuled pistils by means of anatomical studies is inadequate.
[1]
A. Meeuse,et al.
THE GYNOECIUM OF ENGELHARDIA SPICATA (JUGLANDACEAE) AND ITS PHYLOGENETIC SIGNIFICANCE
,
1964
.
[2]
A. Meeuse.
From ovule to ovary: A contribution to the phylogeny of the megasporangium
,
1963
.
[3]
A. Meeuse.
THE SO‐CALLED “MEGASPOROPHYLL” OF CYCAS — A MORPHOLOGICAL MISCONCEPTION. ITS BEARING ON THE PHYLOGENY AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE CYCADOPHYTA
,
1963
.
[4]
W. H. Camp,et al.
ON THE ORIGINS OF THE OVULE AND CUPULE IN LYGINOPTERID PTERIDOSPERMS
,
1963
.
[5]
W. H. Camp,et al.
VASCULAR SUPPLY AND STRUCTURE OF THE OVULE AND ARIL IN PEONY AND OF THE ARIL IN NUTMEG
,
1963
.
[6]
A. Meeuse.
MARSILEALES AND SALVINIALES — “LIVING FOSSILS”?
,
1961
.
[7]
R. Melville.
A New Theory of the Angiosperm Flower
,
1960,
Nature.
[8]
H. H. Thomas.
The Early Evolution of the Angiosperms
,
1931
.
[9]
R. Melville.
A New Theory of the Angiosperm Flower: II
,
1962
.
[10]
J. G. Long.
XII.—On the Structure of Samaropsis scotica Calder (emended) and Eurystoma angulare gen. et sp. nov., Petrified Seeds from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Berwickshire
,
1960,
Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
[11]
C. Barnard.
Floral histogenesis in the monocotyledons. I. The Gramineae
,
1957
.