Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:30:35.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—Size in Relation to Internal Morphology. No. 3. The Vascular System of Roots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Claude W. Wardlaw
Claude W. Wardlaw
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Botany, Glasgow University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent papers published in the Proceedings and Transactions of the Society the importance of Size as a factor determining the morphology of the vascular system of Pteridophytes has been discussed (2, 3, 29). The purpose of this memoir is to submit data concerning the vascular system of roots, and to determine to what extent Size may have acted as a causal factor in influencing the morphology of these structures. It has been pointed out that the most useful material for these causal studies is to be found where there is only primary vascular tissue, free from complexities such, for example, as the formation of secondary wood. In the case of leafy shoots the vascular system is often profoundly influenced by the insertion of the appendages, especially where the latter are of the megaphyllous type. In many of these instances the resulting vascular structure is due to a complex of so many interacting factors that the specific effect of any one is very difficult to determine. To understand the influence of any one factor in particular we must turn, as Professor Lang has pointed out, to the study of favourable cases (19). These are to be found where the structure is of primary nature, unaffected by the activity of secondary meristems, and where the organ in question is influenced as little as possible by the insertion of appendages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , 1929 , pp. 19 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Blackman, V. H., New Phyt., vol. xx, 1921.Google Scholar
2.Bower, F. O., “Size, a Neglected Factor in Stelar Morphology,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xli, 1921.Google Scholar
3.Bower, F. O., “The Relation of Size to the Elaboration of Form and Structure in the Vascular Tracts of Primitive Plants,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xliii, 1923.Google Scholar
4.Bower, F. O., “Medullation in the Pteridophyta,” Ann. Bot., vol. xxv, 1911.Google Scholar
5.Campbell, D. H., “Botrychium simplex,” Ann. Bot., 1922.Google Scholar
6.Cannon, W. A., “The Root Habits of Desert Plants,” Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Compton, , Linn. Journ., vol. xli, 1912.Google Scholar
8.Cormack, , “Polystelic Roots of Certain Palms,” Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. v, 1896.Google Scholar
9.Costantin, M. J., “Recherches sur l'Influence qu'exerce le Milieu sur la Structure des Racines,” Ann. des Sci. Nat., Bot., 7e sér., tome i, 1885.Google Scholar
10.Dangeard, P. A., “Essai sur l'Anatomie des Cryptogames Vasculaires,” Le Botaniste, vol. i, 1889.Google Scholar
11.De Bary, A., Comparative Anatomy of the Phanerogams and Ferns, 1884.Google Scholar
12.Faull, , Botanical Gazette, 1901.Google Scholar
13.Flaskæmper, , Flora, 1910.Google Scholar
14.Harvey Gibson, R. J., Ann. Bot.Google Scholar
15.Haberlandt, G., Physiological Plant Anatomy, 1914.Google Scholar
16.Jackson, V. and G., “Anatomical Structure of the Roots of Barley,” Ann. Bot., 1922.Google Scholar
17.Jeffrey, E. C., and Torrey, R. E., “Physiological and Morphological Correlations in Herbaceous Angiosperms,” Botanical Gazette, vol. lxxi, 1921.Google Scholar
18.Jones, C. E., Trans. Linn. Soc., ser. 2, Bot., vol. vii, 1905.Google Scholar
19.Lang, W. H., Presidential Address, British Association, Manchester, 1915.Google Scholar
20.Moss, E. H., “Fasciated Roots of Caltha palustris, L.,” Ann. Bot., vol. xxxviii, 1924.Google Scholar
21.Petry, L. and C., “The Anatomy of Ophioglossum pendulum,” Botanical Gazette, vol. lvii, 1914.Google Scholar
22.Priestley, J. H., “The Mechanism of Root Pressure,” New Phyt., vol. xix, 1920.Google Scholar
23.Priestley, and Armstead, , New Phyt., 1920.Google Scholar
24.Rudolph, , Psaronien und Marattiaceen, Wien, 1905.Google Scholar
25.Sablon, Du, Leclerc, , Rev. Gen. de Botanique, tome 22, 1910.Google Scholar
26.Stevens, W. C., Plant Anatomy, 1916.Google Scholar
27.Tieghem, M.Ph. Van, Ann. des Soi. Nat., Bot., 5th ser., vol. xiii, 1870–1871.Google Scholar
28.Tieghem, Van and Douliot, , Recherches Comparatives sur l'Origin des Membres Endogenes, Paris, 1889.Google Scholar
29.Wardlaw, C. W., “Size in Relation to Internal Morphology,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. liii, 1924; vol. liv, 1925.Google Scholar
30.Whitaker, E. S., Botanical Gazette, vol. lxxvi, 1923.Google Scholar
31.Williams, S., Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlv, 1925.Google Scholar
32.Zeiller, R., “Bassin Houiller et Permien d'Autun et d'Epinac,” fasc. 2, Flore Fossile, Paris, 1890.Google Scholar