Comparative Micro-Morphology, Anatomy and Architecture of Leaf of Physalis

Authors: Chockpisit Thepsithar, Aree Thongpukdee

Abstract:

Two species of Physalis, P.angulataL. and P. peruviana L. were used as models for comparative study to understand the values of micro-morphological, -anatomical and architectural characteristics of leaf for taxonomic purposes and possibly breeding and commercial applications. Both speciespossess amphistomaticleaves with 1-layer epidermis, 3-4-layer spongy mesophyll andbicollateral bundle midrib. Palisade parenchyma cells of P. angulatawere almost twice longer (65-75 μm) than the other one. Type of stomata was similar as anomocyticbut stomatal index(SI) at adaxial surface and abaxial surface of P. angulata were less than of P. peruvianaas 3.57, 4.00 and6.25, 6.66 respectively. Some leaf architectural characteristics such as leaf shape, order of venationalsoprovided information of taxonomic significance

Keywords: Physalis, Solanaceae, micromorphology, anatomy, leaf architecture.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1086767

References:

[1] Z.-Y. Zang, A.-M. Lu,“A Comparative study of Physalis, Capsicum and Tubocapsicum; Three Genera of Solanaceae.” In M. Nee, D.E. Symon, R.N. Lester, and J.P. Jessop, Eds. SolanaceaeIV, Kent, WhitsableLitho Ltd., pp. 81-96, 1999.
[2] R. W. Strain, “A study of vein ending in leaves.”An. Midland Naturalist.vol.14, pp. 367-375, 1933.
[3] R. Gupta, “Correlation of tissues in leaves. I, Absolute veinlet numbers and absolute veinlet termination number.” Ann. Bot.vol. 25, pp. 65-70, 1961.
[4] L. J. Hickey, “Classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous leaves.” Amer.J. Bot., vol. 60, pp. 17-33, 1973.
[5] L. J. Hickey and J. A. Wolfe, “ The bases of angiosperm phylogeny, Vegetative morphology.” Ann. Misso. Gard., vol. 62, pp. 538-589, 1973.
[6] J. A. Inamdar and G. S. R. Murthy, “Leaf architecture in some Solanaceae.” Flora, vol. 167, pp. 2, 1978.
[7] C. E. B. De Rojasand S. M. Ferrarotto, “Morphology of Foliar epidermis in two groups of Solanumsection Geminata (Solanaceae)”Caldasia, vol. 31(1), pp. 31-40, 2009.
[8] M. H. A. Loutfy, E. A. K. Karakish, S. F. Khalifa, and E. R. A. Mira, “Numerical Taxonomic Evaluation of Leaf Architecture of Some Species of Genus Ficus L.” Int. J. Agri. Biol., vol. 7 (3), pp.352-357, 2005.
[9] E. J. Salisbury, “ On the causes and ecological significance of stomatal frequency, with special reference to the woodland flora.” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, vol. 216, pp. 1-65, 1927.
[10] D. A. Johansen,Plant microtechnique, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1940.
[11] Leaf Architecture Working Group, (A. Ash, B. Ellis, L. J. Hickey, K. R. Johnson, P. Wilf, and S. L. Wing),Manual of Leaf Architecturemorphological description and categorization of dicotyledonous and net-veined monocotyledonous angiosperms,Washington, DC, Department of Paleobiology Smithsonian Institution,1999.
[12] R. W. Korn, “Concerning the sinuous shape of leaf epidermal cells.”Journal New Phytol., vol.77, pp. 153-161, 1976.
[13] R. Korn, “The three-dimensional shape of plant cells and its relationship to pattern of tissue growth.”New Phytol., vol.73, p. 927, 1974.
[14] P. D. Sethi and B. Kannabiran, “Phamacognostic study on four Indian Physalis.” J. Res Indian Med., vol. 10(4), pp. 152, 1975.
[15] S. Sandhya, S. A. H. Jaffery, and K. R. Vinod,“Pharmacognostical studies on the leaf and root of Physalisangulata L.,” IJPRD, vol.2(1),pp. 1–8,2010.