{"title":"Comparative Micro-Morphology, Anatomy and Architecture of Leaf of Physalis","authors":"Chockpisit Thepsithar, Aree Thongpukdee","volume":80,"journal":"International Journal of Bioengineering and Life Sciences","pagesStart":806,"pagesEnd":811,"ISSN":"1307-6892","URL":"https:\/\/publications.waset.org\/pdf\/16204","abstract":"
Two species of Physalis, P.angulataL. and P.
\r\nperuviana L. were used as models for comparative study to
\r\nunderstand the values of micro-morphological, -anatomical and
\r\narchitectural characteristics of leaf for taxonomic purposes and
\r\npossibly breeding and commercial applications. Both speciespossess
\r\namphistomaticleaves with 1-layer epidermis, 3-4-layer spongy
\r\nmesophyll andbicollateral bundle midrib. Palisade parenchyma cells
\r\nof P. angulatawere almost twice longer (65-75 μm) than the other
\r\none. Type of stomata was similar as anomocyticbut stomatal
\r\nindex(SI) at adaxial surface and abaxial surface of P. angulata were
\r\nless than of P. peruvianaas 3.57, 4.00 and6.25, 6.66 respectively.
\r\nSome leaf architectural characteristics such as leaf shape, order of
\r\nvenationalsoprovided information of taxonomic significance<\/p>\r\n","references":"
[1] Z.-Y. Zang, A.-M. Lu,“A Comparative study of Physalis, Capsicum and\r\nTubocapsicum; Three Genera of Solanaceae.” In M. Nee, D.E. Symon,\r\nR.N. Lester, and J.P. Jessop, Eds. SolanaceaeIV, Kent, WhitsableLitho\r\nLtd., pp. 81-96, 1999.\r\n[2] R. W. Strain, “A study of vein ending in leaves.”An. Midland\r\nNaturalist.vol.14, pp. 367-375, 1933.\r\n[3] R. Gupta, “Correlation of tissues in leaves. I, Absolute veinlet numbers\r\nand absolute veinlet termination number.” Ann. Bot.vol. 25, pp. 65-70,\r\n1961.\r\n[4] L. J. Hickey, “Classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous\r\nleaves.” Amer.J. Bot., vol. 60, pp. 17-33, 1973.\r\n[5] L. J. Hickey and J. A. Wolfe, “ The bases of angiosperm phylogeny,\r\nVegetative morphology.” Ann. Misso. Gard., vol. 62, pp. 538-589,\r\n1973.\r\n[6] J. A. Inamdar and G. S. R. Murthy, “Leaf architecture in some\r\nSolanaceae.” Flora, vol. 167, pp. 2, 1978.\r\n[7] C. E. B. De Rojasand S. M. Ferrarotto, “Morphology of Foliar epidermis\r\nin two groups of Solanumsection Geminata (Solanaceae)”Caldasia, vol.\r\n31(1), pp. 31-40, 2009.\r\n[8] M. H. A. Loutfy, E. A. K. Karakish, S. F. Khalifa, and E. R. A. Mira,\r\n“Numerical Taxonomic Evaluation of Leaf Architecture of Some\r\nSpecies of Genus Ficus L.” Int. J. Agri. Biol., vol. 7 (3), pp.352-357,\r\n2005.\r\n[9] E. J. Salisbury, “ On the causes and ecological significance of stomatal\r\nfrequency, with special reference to the woodland flora.” Phil. Trans.\r\nRoy. Soc. London, vol. 216, pp. 1-65, 1927.\r\n[10] D. A. Johansen,Plant microtechnique, New York, McGraw-Hill Book\r\nCompany, Inc., 1940.\r\n[11] Leaf Architecture Working Group, (A. Ash, B. Ellis, L. J. Hickey, K. R.\r\nJohnson, P. Wilf, and S. L. Wing),Manual of Leaf Architecturemorphological\r\ndescription and categorization of dicotyledonous and\r\nnet-veined monocotyledonous angiosperms,Washington, DC,\r\nDepartment of Paleobiology Smithsonian Institution,1999.\r\n[12] R. W. Korn, “Concerning the sinuous shape of leaf epidermal\r\ncells.”Journal New Phytol., vol.77, pp. 153-161, 1976.\r\n[13] R. Korn, “The three-dimensional shape of plant cells and its relationship\r\nto pattern of tissue growth.”New Phytol., vol.73, p. 927, 1974.\r\n[14] P. D. Sethi and B. Kannabiran, “Phamacognostic study on four Indian\r\nPhysalis.” J. Res Indian Med., vol. 10(4), pp. 152, 1975.\r\n[15] S. Sandhya, S. A. H. Jaffery, and K. R. Vinod,“Pharmacognostical\r\nstudies on the leaf and root of Physalisangulata L.,” IJPRD, vol.2(1),pp.\r\n1–8,2010.<\/p>\r\n","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 80, 2013"}