What Is Significant-The Wollemi Pine or the Southern Rushes?

9 Pages·2000·7.3 MB·

by  Barbara G Briggs

WHAT
THE
SIGNIFICANT-
Barbara Briggs
IS
G.
WOLLEMI OR THE
PINE
SOUTHERN
RUSHES?'
Abstract
The discovery in 1994 of WoUcmia nobilis, a new conifer genus and species of Araucariaceae, attracted media and
public attention that was probably unprecedented for a botanical discovery. If a plant species may be called charismatic,
it is this one: tall, handsome, rare, of a lineage dating from tlie Jurassic, surviving undiscovered in a mountain gorge.
was front-page news around the world and soon became one of Australia's most publicized species. Scientists shared
It
many
the enthusiasm, offering research collaboration to investigate its aspects. Wollemia has contributed to understand-
ing of stnietures in fossil Araucariaceae and conifer-mycorrhizal associations; its survival has added to the picture of
long-term regional floristic change. After an extended perio<l of small fK)[)ulalion size shows no detectable inter-plant
— it
management
genetic diversity relevant to the of rare plant species. Its discovery helped us explain and emphasize to
the community the value and nature of biological research and the need for habitat conservation. At the opposite end
of the charisma scale are the southern rushes, Australia's relatively inconspicuous Restionaceae and their allies (Cen-
trolepidaceae, Ecdeiocoleaceae, Anarthriaceae). Despite their links with other southern continents and close relationship
to tfie Poaceae, these had been greatly neglected for over 100 years and were largely misclassified generically. Study
40%
and field work in recent decades have revealed 61 formerly undescribed species, nearly of the total now distin-
DNA
guished in these families for Australia. sequencing of plastid genes gave surprising results, with evidence that
new New
two plant families should be recognized. findings are contributing to belter understanding of the ancestr)' of
related families and Southern Hemisphere floras. Distinguishing the new rare species allows focus on their conservation
Many new among
needs. species are still beijig recognized in Australia's flora, flowering plants and conifers as well as
other grou[>s. Wollemia and the southern rushes exemplify significance of these new finds and newly discovered
tlie
understanding of relationships. In each case the significance of the discoveries realized only in the context of the
is
knowledge of organisms and their evolution that comes from research in many fields.
Key words: Araucariaceae, Australia, conservation, Restionaceae, Southern Hemisphere Wollemia.
floras,
—
A
Wollemia Charismatic Subject for largely protected from wildfire, although one tree
RKSKARCIt showed
evidence of followed by resprouting.
fire,
The
trees are mostly emergents overtopping both a
my
1994 and
In colleaeues the National Her-
at
I r r j r
oiense lem li ayer andi a canopy oi cli osed forest*
wr t
r-Kj
barium New Sr.out1h Wal1es • Sr- ydiney i i
of in realized that
— (warm temperate Doryphora
rainforest) of sassafras
we had been given a remarkable opportunity the
Endl. and Ceratopetalum apetalum D. Don. Seed-
new
discovery of a plant species that would catch
mgs 200
present (about juveniles were record-
li
and
public scientific attention in a truly outstanding
ed; Nash, 1997; Offord at ah, 1999), but most only
way
^"^^ ^'^^ '"^^""^y
^•'^^^'' ^^'^"^6
New ^ ^° ^"
David Noble of the South Wales National P'"^*^"'^^
""^^^* ^''""^^ ^'^^^^^ ^^e canopy.
^ ^"
Parks and Wildlife Service had found about 40
The
fossil record of the Araucariaceae has been
unknown
trees of a previously species, soon be
to
& i^t^Ji^d extensively. The family appeared in the late
named
Wollemia nobilis W. G. Jones, K. D. Hill
peak and
new member Triassic, with a of diversity in the Jurassic
M.
Allen, a of the conifer family
J.
A a continued decline since the end of the Cretaceous
(Jones ah, 1995). This rare and
et
Some
highly restricted species had been discovered about (Miller, 1977). of the earliest Araucariaceae
200 km ^^^ reported from the Northern Hemisphere, and
northwest of Sydney, in a deep gorge
bounded by sandstone (McGhee, 1995; Duffy, fossil pollen with Araucaria-like features is wide-
cliffs
1997). Such a site would differ from most of the spread in both hemispheres in the Jurassic and
surrounding area in the constancy of water supply, Cretaceous. Its present survival in the south is thus
more equable climate, and especially in being relictual, rather than implying a Gondwanic origin
my Ken Adam
thank colleagues John Benson, Sue Bullock, Meagher. Cathy
Hill, Marcliiint. Patricia Offord,
' I
Carolyn Porter, and Brett Sumincrcll for discussions and for making available unpublishe<l findings. Deborah McGerty
PERTH
assisted with the illustrations, while Neville Marchant, Director of the hcrharium, and Bruce Fuhrer gave
permission use photographs.
to
^ Royal Botanic Gardens, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney 2(K)0, Australia. bgl)@rbgsyd. gov.au.
Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 72-80. 2000.
87:
Volume Number 73
Briggs
87,
1
2000 Rushes?
Wollemi Pine or Southern
- A
Figure 2. (top). Foliage of Wollemia nobilis with
known
Podozamites (also as Agathis jiirassira). This Ju-
Figure 1. Wollemia nobilis in its natural hal)itat. Photo
rassic fossil conifer is prohahly not the closest relative of
Jamie
Plaza.
Wollemia, but similar especially Wolleniia's juvenile
is to
—
foliage. B (bottom). Cone scales of Wollemia and of a
member
Jurassic fossil of the Araucariaceae, IMiotos
J.
&
(Gilmore 1997; Setoguchi 1998). Be-
Hill, et
al.,
piaa^z-a.
was
fore the discovery of Wollemia, the fauiily
New
known from South America, Zealand, north-
New An
eastern Australia, Guinea, and, in especially interagency government committee was set
New
rich diversity, in Caledonia. Two extant genera up to develop a conservation plan (Nash, 1997) and
had been recognized, Araucaria and Agathis. to monitor threats and actions affecting survival.
its
The
newly discovered Wollemia created a sen- Strict protocols for visits to the habitat were estab-
—
m
sation. was handsome, and so large up to 40 lished, especially changing shoes at entry to the
It
—
tall that was almost unbelievable that had site, to avoid bringing in pathogens. Approvals to
it it
unknown now
been science were highly
to until (Fig. 1). It visit restricted.
who
linked with connected ancient groups, Milton Silverman, had gone from San Fran-
fossils that to
back to the Jurassic (Fig. and this in an age cisco with Ralph Chaney in 1948 to collect the
2),
&
Hu
when dinosaurs have an unrivalled fascination for dawn redwood {Metasequoia glyptostroboides
adults as well as children. Its habitat, in deep W. C. Cheng) in western China, wrote to congrat-
mountain ravines, held an almost sinister appeal. ulate us on our efforts and the discovery, which was
What followed would not apply to the average almost ironic considering how much more acces-
newly found our had been than The name
species. sible find theirs.
A
media conference was called to announce the "Wollemi pine" was coined so that we would not
discovery. This brought a response that exceeded seem too lacking in words in reporting the discov-
was news had been
our expectations: briefly front-page in ery of a plant that not yet botanically
it
the press around the world, with journalists and d. The intrepid travelers to China had coined
science writers seeking further information. Tele- "dawn redwood" partly because Metasequoia glyp-
vision programs and tapes were prepared, featuring tostrohoides would not across a newspaper col-
fit
umn
discovery and the subsequent research. in reporting their collections of that species,
its
.
74 Annals the
of
Garden
Missouri Botanical
Chambers
which, shortly before, had been discovered and Cretaceous (Macphail et al., 1995; et al.,
compared with fossil species. 1998). The most recent fossil records of this pollen
and
Horticultural research propagation started from Bass are about 2 million years
type, Strait,
&
immediately, using cuttings and seeds (Fensom
old.
The aims were An
Offord, 1998; Offord et al., 1999). endophytic fungus, Pestaloiiopsis guepinii,
learn the propagation requirements, establish a
to ^as isolated from Wollemia (Strobel et al, 1997)
conservation population and even-
in cultivation,
^nd found produce which has anti-cancer
to taxol,
safeguard the species by widespread use
tually to
and oomyce-
properties effective in controlling
is
As other Araucariaceae, growth
in horticulture. in
^^^^ f^^^^ jy^^ mycorrhizal associates and suscep-
was found be plagiotropic, with plants raised
to common Sum-
pathogens were studied
^^ (B.
^-j^^ij^y
from branches mostly continuing
cuttings of lateral
^^^^y
^^^^ 5q
^^^^jj^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^f f^^gj
grow honzontally, whereas those from erect stems
to
^^^^^ ^^^^ recovered from the trees and their im-
commer-
continue erect growth. Advertisements for u
j
,. ,. •u r
.^ mediat^e surroundmgs i. n a survey that* cultured lun-
.
. numbers
cial partners in raising large of plants
from
gi seeds, leaves, leaf litter, roots, root debris,
When
many young was
brought proposals. a tree
and Such a number of fungal associates
soil. is
planted in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney,
thought to be typical for a tree species in such an
was done with ceremony by a senior govern-
this
environment, but comparisons are uncertain since
ment member, and the plant was enclosed in a very
few tree species have been examined so compre-
stout cage.
Of
Pensively. these 50 fungal taxa, 9 are thought to
Offers to collaborate in a diversity of research
^^ undescnbed species. Some roots are densely
30 weeks
approaches flowed within two of an-
in,
TAXACOM ^^1^^ ^^^h endophytic fungi whereas ectophytic
nouncing the discovery on the listserv-
fungi are found in other cases, an unusual condition
chemical
er (Brooks, 1997). Studies of genetics,
(McGee
observed also in other conifers et al.,
constituents, embryology, and anatomy, as well as
999)
associated fungi and insects were soon focused on 1
Other studies have focused on Wollemia espe-
Sequencing gene rbch
Wollemia. of the plastid (Gil-
&
more 1997) confirmed the distinctness of cially because is so rare and vulnerable (Benson,
Hill, it
Wollemia, although different analyses using differ- 1996; Offord, 1996). Wollemia was found to be sus-
some Phytophtho-
ent ranges of other taxa gave sharply contrasting ceptible to pathogens, including
phylogenies for the Araucariaceae, Gilmore and ra cinnamomi, which has been introduced and is
Hill (1997) and Stefanovfc (1998) found Wol- spreading southeast and southwest Australia,
et al. in
lemia to be sister to Agathis, with those two genera confirming the need for strict protocols for site vis-
By
forming a clade that is sister to Araucaria. con- population genetics was investigated with
its. Its
same DNA
trast, Setoguchi et al. (1998), using the se- studies of allozymes and (Peakall, 1998), and
quence data Wollemia but combined with a
for dif- these showed no discernible genetic variation
concluded
ferent range of other conifer taxa, that ^mong more 800
individuals, although than loci
Wollemia diverged before the separation of Aran- AFLP
There
^^j.^ evaluated with fingerprinting.
caria and Agathis. hoped that the study of
It is ^^y ^^^^ coppice
j^^ ^l^^^l ^p^.^^^^ ^j^^^ pj^^^tg
other genes will resolve this discrepancy.
and some have multiple trunks, but the genetic
Comparison and
^ of Wollemia^s adult juvenile fo- ^ j »u r
nndii* ngs are i• n*terpret» ed as ilargeli y the resulit» of ex-
„
,
and, cone . , ,
stomates, pollen, scales with other
liage,
tremely low population size over a long time, an
and Araucariaceae (Chambers
living fossil et al.,
extended genetic bottleneck. Preliminary data on
1998) helped in the interpretation of fossil Arau-
some
Agathis and Araucaria, while showing varia-
cone
cariaceae, especially in the structure of the
tion, indicate that genetic variability low in the
is
scales and seed. tree architecture was described
Its
family as a whole (Peakall, 1998).
as unique (Hill, 1997), differing from previously
Was
the concentration of attention on Wollemia
described structural models and other Araucari-
media and from This
^he scientists justified?
'"
Male and female cones are each terminal on
.
when
answering
question resonated especially
and
a first-order, short-lived lateral branch, coppic-
questions about the scientific significance of the
Leaf anatomy has been
ing a consistent feature.
is
my
& while view the slender silhouettes of
studied (Burrows Bullock, 1999) and so has re- find, in
members
The was other of the Araucariaceae towered over
production (Offord 1999). pollen
et al.,
found be indistinguishable from the pollen trees of lesser stature on the skyline of Sydney's
to fossil
form-genus which recorded Aus- Royal Botanic Gardens. That question will be con-
Dillwinites, in
is
New
tralia and Zealand extending back to the late sidered after reviewing a contrasting example.
Number
Volume 75
Briggs
87,
1
2000 Wollemi Pine or Southern Rushes?
The Southern Rushes Australia found a further 10 species (Meney
et al.,
There was among
1996). notably hybridization
little
The Restionaceae and allied families in Austra-
species; the distinctions were sometimes incon-
^\^^
much
the southern rushes, are as in need of
lia,
gpicuous, but they were consistent,
The
charisma as Wollemia blessed with flowers
is
it. Restionaceae show an exceptionally high pro-
are inconspicuous, with small scarious bracts,
portion of newly recognized species, but is esti-
it
glumes, and tepals (Fig. and with the leaves re- 15%
3)
j^ated that about of Australia's flowering
&
duced sheathing scales (Meney Pate, 1999).
to
pi^nj^ ^^e still to be discovered (A. Orchard, pers.
They occur exclusively in low-fertility soils and in
many now
comm.), in addition to distinguished but
arid or seasonally waterlogged sites, habitats avoid-
awaiting publication.
human
ed for agriculture and therefore of low pop-
^he new
view of Australian Restionaceae did not
ulation and often poor access. In one of the allied When
29
g^^p ^^ gpecies. this study began, Austra-
families, Centrolepidaceae, the plants are
tiny, named
species were within the genus Restio,
jj^j^
cm
some species no more than
1 tall. became was member
clear that Restio a of a
l^^^^ ^^
Through such Restionaceae seem
features
to
g^oup of genera limited to Africa and Madagascar
have brought on themselves extreme botanical ne- &
(Cutler, 1972; Johnson Briggs, 1981; Linder,
&
gleet over the half of this century. Before then.
first
1985, 1991; Briggs Johnson, 1999). Therefore,
the three great early figures of Australian botany
„ew genera were required, or old synonyms taken
had made a good on their discovery and clas-
start
accommodate
^^^^ ^g^^ j^ all the Australian species
Robert Brown, on &
sification. naturalist the first cir-
hitherto included there (Briggs Johnson, 1998a,
1801—1803
cumnavigation of Australia in de-
J-,^
scribed seven genera and 47 species of
Moreover, Restionaceae showed a pattern similar
Restionaceae that are currently recognized (Brown,
^^ j^at in Proteaceae, Fabaceae, Ericaceae, and Po-
A
named
1810). further 10 species were by Fer-
^ceae post-Gondwanic
in their floristic richness,
dinand Mueller whereas George Bentham
(1873),
j^e and
history of climates, migrations, survivals
By
(1878) recognized 71 species. the eariy 1960s,
has different traces on the African and Austra-
left
when A. Johnson and our
L. S. I started investi- ^an continents, so that Africa has large numbers of
number known had
gations, the of species crept to
gpecies in relatively few genera, but Australia has
86. Around that time also David Cutler of the Royal
^ diversity of groups appropriate for recognition as
made
Botanic Gardens, Kew, extensive anatomical
genera. This pattern has shown even when the same
became
investigations (Cutler, 1969). clear that
It botanist studied groups in both continents, rather
the generic classification was entirely inadequate
than being an artifact of different generic concepts
&
Johnson
(Cutler, 1969, 1972; Briggs, 1981;
(p^ter Weston, pers. comm.; Nigel Barker, pers.
&
many
Briggs Johnson, 1998a) and that specimens when
comm.), although not apparent Protea-
is
it
matched no named
species
ceae of the Cape Region are compared with only
&
Clearly neglected plant group would present
this
the southwest of Western Australia (Cowling La-
new
a fertile field for discoveries, but it far ex- niont, 1998). Our case led to the description of the
ceeded The have been
expectations. discoveries number new
rather alarming of 16 genera of non-
new new &
both species and understanding of rela-
African Restionaceae (Briggs Johnson, 1998a).
tionships, necessitating a radical reclassification. Morphological (Linder 2000)
cladistics et
al.,
DNA
In recent decades, great swathes of country had and data both indicate that an early division
become more
accessible, especially in the sand- within Restionaceae between the African clade
is
DNA
plains of Western Australia. Examining the uniden- and the Australasian clade (though the data
many new
tified collections in herbaria revealed give only weak support). This would be consistent
Even
species; fieldwork brought additional ones. with an ancient Gondwanic connection. By con-
the largest of all Australian restiads, with flowering the single species in South America, Apodas-
trast,
m &
among
stems over 2 tall, is the recently discov- mia chilensis (Gay) B. G. Briggs L. A. S. Johnson,
New
ered species yet to be formally named. Investigation is extremely similar to the Zealand A. similis
&
of supposedly variable species often showed these (Edgar) B. G. Briggs L. A. S. Johnson, indicating
to be assemblages of several allied species, each long-distance dispersal. Moreover, Apodasmia
(re-
&
and
with a distinctive distribution ecological range. cently segregated from Leptocarpus; Briggs John-
The study brought to light 51 new species, mostly son, 1998a) includes foredune coastal species and
when we
from the south of Western Australia. Just the only notably salt-tolerant genus of the family;
is
thought that few additional finds could be expected is singularly well suited to establish successfully
it
in Australian Restionaceae, colleagues in Western after dispersal.
76 Annals
the
of
Garden
Missouri Botanical
Volume Number
77
87, Briggs
1
2000
Wollemi Pine Southern Rushes?
or
DNA
Sequencing of plastic! was done in parallel live seeds ornamented by minute pits and spines,
with nior})li<)logieal studies anil gave a further un- Anarthria lacks a sclerenchyma cylinder in the
new
expected result, evidence that two plant fam- culms and has unreduced, ensiform leaves and also
should be recognized (Briggs 2000). chromosomes Such chromo-
ilies et al., large (Briggs, 1966).
Hophimia and Lyginia are small genera, of two and somes
are, in general, associated with large ge-
&
three species, respectively (one species of each ge- nonies, an apomoiphic feature (Bemietzen Kel-
&
nus undescribed). Their inclusion in Restionaceae logg, 1997; Bennett Leitch, 2000). Without some
had never been questioned, even when they were
moiphological basis there appears be no case
to for
the subject of detailed anatomical investigations new
enlarging Anailhriaceae or describing a single
DNA
(Gilg, 1890; Cutler, 1969). But two sets of
family for Hopkinsia and Lyginia. The most logical
sequence data (from r6cL, and from the trnh intron
eourse the recognition of "Hopkinsiaceae" and
is
with the trnL-trn¥ spacer) are consistent group-
in
"Lyginiaceae," and these new families are being
them 100% &
ing (each with jackknife support) with
described (Briggs Johnson, in press).
Anarthria rather than with Restionaceae.
(Fig.
4)
7},^ families mentioned above, Restionaceae,
That grouping shown in a jackknife consensus
is
Centrolepidaceae, Anarthriaceae, "Hopkinsi-
tree from analysis of the total sequence from these
^,.^3^^' "Lyginiaceae," together with the Ecdeio-
DNA
regions and further supported by the pres-
is
and
coleaceae. Joinvilleaceae, Flageliariaceae, ap-
ence of two distinctive indels (one insertion and one
Poaceae
^^ ,,^ j^e closest relatives of the
dek'lion) in the /rnL intron (Fig.
4).
Chase
(Dalilgren al, 1985; 1993; Duvall
et et
al.,
lom
Allhoueh needed and nr
further investigations are d oAAn\ tu
^ ^ et. ali., lyyj; lir•iggs et ali., 2000). these are all lam-
, ,
proceeiHng, appears that Anarthria ckide
it i\\e (.4n-
with primarily Southern Hemisphere
ilies distri-
...
arthria, Flopkirisia, Lyginia) not the sister t^roup n
is
^. t- ui ^u u-
ibution. hsperi.ally not* able • thei•r highi concentra-
' is
.
to Restionaceae. Tliat position appears to »he 1hel1 d1
J t•ion \• n t.ihe sout.ihwest. oir t.ihe Aaust.ralii- an continent:
' _„
. . . .
by Centroh^pidaceae. Such close or even
affinities,
six of the eight families occur in that region and
inclusion of Centrolepidaceae within Restionaceae,
four are limited to Together with nine other fam-
it.
have been suggested on morphological and
embr)'-
they constitute the Poales as recognized by the
ilies
&
ological grounds (Hamann, 1962, 1975; Kellogg
Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG, Three
1998).
now
Linder, 1995; Linder 2000) and have
et al.,
of the other families are primarily in the Southern
some
support (although not robust) from analyses
Hemisphere
(Hydatellaceae, placed here but with
DNA
of data (Fig. 4; Briggs et al., 2000). It has
evidence, Prioniaceae, and Thurniaceae),
little
been suggested that Centrolepidaceae are neoten-
while six are distributed in both hemispheres (Cy-
ous, with mature plants showing some similarities
peraceae, Eriocaulaceae, Juncaceae, Spargani-
to seedlings of related families, although tht^r in-
aceae, Typhaceae, and Xyridaceae). The concentra-
florescences are veiy different.
tion of allied families in the south has led the
to
Despite the evidence that Hopkinsia^ Lyginia,
a su2;e;eslion that the Poaceae itself had a southern
4 r ^^
and1 Anart,h7ri•a lorm a cl1 ad]e, they sIhare no syna-
l^^^), although these
°"S'" (D**>'^^ ^^^ distri-
*'*
pomori^hies of morphology, anatomy, Havonoids,
butions could also be relictual, as with the Arau-
pollen. or seeds. pt for features that are either
canaceae
plesiomoiphic within the Poales or widespread in
the order. Similarly, studying these genera in light
DNA
of the data showed that those features that Wll \r Is Su.NlKIc AN r?
common
they have in with Restionaceae are ple-
siomorphies, although each has distinctive aula- The examples considered above are two ends of
pomorphies. Hopkinsia has a reduced carpel num- a spcc-tnuii. In WoUcmia nohilis we have a single
new
ber and succulent indehiscent Lyginia shows sp(^cies and g(nms in a recognized plant family,
fruits.
a distinctive arrangement of thick- and thin-walled but an cxcej)tionally charismatic and interesting
cells interspersed in the chlorenchyma, sloping sto- find. In Restionaceae anrl its allies wc have some
mates, fused stamen filaments, and liighly distinc- 60 new species, many new genera, and two new
—
Figure 3. Australiaii Restiona—ceae' and Aiiartliriaeeae. A (!([> led), h'pidohohts prcissianus^ male (left) and (emale
spikelets, eaeli ea. 1.5 cin long. (lop right). Baloskion telniplnlhirn sul)s[>. fneioslacltyunL female, sjiikelets ea. 5
15
— —
mm mm
C (hoUom D
long. left). Meeholdiiia scariosa, male, spikelets ea. 4 lon^; plioto B. Fulirer. (bottom right).
mm
Amirlliria scahra, female, wiUi prominent stigmas; linear leaves ea. 6 wide; [)lioto B. Fnhrer.
78 Annals the
of
Garden
Missouri Botanical
53 Desmocladus caslaneus
82
- Harperia
laleriflora
efudens
Kulinia
•
75 Coleocarya
gracilis
•
Lepidobolus chaelocephafus
Dielsia stenostachya
74
97
Baloskion
gracile
Baloskion tetraphyllum
Melanostachya
ustulata
81
Tyrbasles glaucescens
Guringalia dimorpha
100
88
Acion hookeri
96
Saropsis
fastigata
CD
Chordifex stenandrus
o
100
Chordifex amblycoleus
-I-
Chordifex jacksonti
Tremulina Iremuta
IT
89
Loxocarya gigas
64 Meeboldina coangustata
•
70
<
Meeboldina cana
Leptocarpus tenax
95
Dapsilanthus ramosus
94
82
Chaelanlhus
aristatus
64 Alexgeorgea ganopoda
Winifredia sola
93
Taraxis grossa
53
Empodisma minus
Eurychorda complanala
80
Calorophus elongatus
88 H
Lepyrodia glauca
100
Sporadanthus lasmanicus
Elegia cuspidata African Restionaceae
80
Centrolepis strigosa Centrolepidaceae
Hopkinsia adscendens
100
H
Lyginia barbata Anarthria
Glade
Anarthria polyphylla
Zea mays
67
100
Triticum aestivum
99
Oryza
saliva
Poaceae
Clade
Ecdeiocolea monostachya
100
Georgeanlha hexandra
Carex
Cyperaceae
Figure 4. Jackknife consensus tree for Reslionaceae and allied families from parsimony analysis of chJoroplast
DNA
Numbers
data. indicate jackknife support for individual nodes. Cross-bars indicate unique (non-homoplasious)
trnlMrnV synapomorphies
indels, in the trn\. intron or spacer, that are for clades.
Volume Number
79
Briggs
87,
1
2000 Wollemi Pine Southern Rushes?
or
plant families. Neither of these examples typical evance of findings in the Restionaceae. The histor-
is
of the situation in the Australian flowering plants. ical biogeography of world floras, especially those
Wollemia created unprecedented public, media, of the Southern Hemisphere, provides a context
for
and
scientific interest. raised public enthusiasm, discoveries in both these groups; findings in these
It
and knowledge of environmental and groups, in turn, clarify aspects of the development
is,
biodiversity conservation issues. Its importance and of these floras
make
rarity a wonderful example in education
it
programs and political contexts. has emphasized Literature Cited
It
to the community the need for habitat conservation APG An
(Angiosperm Phylogeny Group). 1998. ordinal
in species survival and given a focus for programs classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann.
531—553.
To Missouri Bot. Card. 85:
to explain the nature of biological research. in-
&
Bennett, M. D. Leitch. 2000, Variation in nuclear
1. J.
vestigate significance and conservation there has
its
DNA
amount monoeols and
(C-value) signifieanee.
in
its
been and
research in systematics evolutionary re- &
135-143
Pp. in K. L. Wilson D. Morrison (editors),
lationships, palaeontology, ecology, genetics, plant Systematics and Evolution Monocots. CSIRO, Mel-
of
pathology, mycology, and plant propagation; this bourne.
&
L Do
Bennetzen, E. A. Kellogg. plants have
1^^97^
has helped to publicizoe tihelrole of all these disci- J.
1509-
one-way eenomic
a ticket to obesity? PI. Cell 9:
,. /iw-n
T/-.i^^\
plines 1996). bchool groups, government
(Hill,
]^]i
members, and community
the general are enthusi-
Benson, 1996. Threatened by discover)': Research and
J.
astic about seeing the plants, so has raised the management of the Wollemi Pine, Wollemia nobilis
it
& &
105-109
profile of our botanic gardens and of their scientific Jones, Hill Allen. Pp. in S. Stephens S.
Maxwell (editors), Back from the Brink: Refining the
and educational programs; has also been a major
it
Threatened Species Recovery Process. Surrey Beatty,
New
profile-raiser for the South Wales National
Sydney.
Parks and Wildlife Service. Wollemia has contrib- Bentham, G. 1878. Flora Austrahensis, Vol. 7. Reeve,
London.
uted to understanding of structures in fossil Arau-
Chromosome numbers some Aus-
Briggs, B. G. 1966. of
and
cariaceae conifer-mycorrhizal associations;
its
New
monocotyledons. South Wales
tralian Contr. Natl.
survival has added to the picture of long-term re-
Herb. 24^34.
4:
gional floristic change, perhaps even a step in the & New
A. Johnson. 1998a. genera and spe-
L. S.
regional replacement of coniferous vegetation by cies of Australian Restionaceae (Poales). Tel()[)ea
7:
345-373.
flowering plants. After an extended period of small
&
New
1998b. combinations arising from
.
shows no
population discernible inter-plant
size,
it
new
a classification of non-African Restionaceae. Tel-
genetic
diversity.
opea 21—31.
8:
&
Our other example, Resti and was A new
allies, 1999. guide
to a classification
.
25-56
probably the most neglected of substantial Aus- of Restionaceae and allied families. Pp. in K. A.
all
&
Meney Rushes,
S. Pate (editors), Australian Biol-
flowering plant groups and so was the rich- J.
tralian
ogy, Identification and Conservation of Restionaceae
new
remaining discoveries. Distinguish-
est site for
and Allied Families. Univ. Western Australia Press,
many new
ing the rare species permits a focus to
Nedlands.
&
be developed on their conservation needs. Better Hopkinsaeeae anrl lyginiaceae, two
.
knowledge of relationships within the Restionaceae new families of Poales in Western Australia, with revi-
sions of Hopkinsia and Lyginia. Telopea 8 (in press).
an instance of the distinction between the
clarifies
&
A. D. Marchant, S. Gilmore C. L. Porter. 2000,
,
Gond-
from
intercontinental links that date at least A
molecular phylogeny of the Restionaceae and allies.
may &
wanic times and those that represent relatively Pp. 648—657 in K. L. Wilson D. Morrison (editors),
recent long-distance dispersal. In addition to great- Systematics and Evolution of Monocots. CSIRO, Mel-
bourne.
understanding Southern Hemisphere
er of
floras,
66-68
Brooks, A. 1997. The web in the Gardens. Pp. in
there improved understanding of relationships
is &
Webb
B. Diekman, E. Higginson, Sutton H. (edi-
F.
among
the families of the Poales, with the recog-
Ecology the Cutting Edge. Nature Conservation
tors), at
and demon- New
nition of the Anarthria clade further Council of Wales, Sydney.
S.
stration (Fig. 4) of the closeness of Ecdeiocoleaceae Brown,^ R. 1810. Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae el
Insulae Van Diemen. Johnson, London.
J.
to Poaceae, in agreement with Doyle et al. (1992).
&
Burrows, G. E. S. Bullock. 1999. Leaf anatomy of Wol-
Both examples are significant, but in each case
lemi Pine {Wollemia Araucariaceae). Austral.
nobilis,
J.
the significance of the discoveries is only fully re- Bot. 47: 61-68.
&
C,
alized in the context of knowledge of organisms and Chambers, T. A. N. Drinnan S. Mclaughlin. 1998.
Some morphological features of Wollemi Pine {Wollemia
their evolution that has been established by re-
nobilis, Araucariaceae) and their comparison to Creta-
many The and
search history antiquity of
in fields.
160-171.
ceous plant fossils. Int. PI. Sci. 159:
J.
make
the Araucariaceae Wollemia so notable. Sim- W,
Chase, M. D. E. Soltis, R. G. Olmstead, D. Morgan,
ilarly, relationship to the Poaceae adds to the rel- D. H. Les, B. D. Mishler, M. R. Duvall, R. A. Price,
80 Annals
of the
Garden
Missouri Botanical
—
Kmn,
H. G. Hills, Y-L. Qiii, K. A. H. Rrttig, E. ern families Myrlaieae, Proteaceae and Restionaceae.
J.
429-469
Coiiti, D. Palmer, R. Manhart, K. Sytsma, H. Pp. in A. Keast (editor). Ecological Biogeog-
J. J. J. J.
Michaels, W. Kress, K. 0. Karol, W. D. Clark, M, raphy of Australia. Junk, Utrecht.
J.
&
K Wim- C,
Hedren, B. S. Caut, R. K. Jansen, K-J. Kim, C. Jones, W. K. D. Hill M. Allen. 1995. Wollemia
J.
pee, J. F. Smith, G. R. Furnier, S. H. Strauss, Q-Y. nobilis, a new living Australian genus and species in
Xiang, G. M. Plunkcll, S. Soltis, S. M. Sweiisen, S. the Araucariaceae. Telopea 6: 173-176.
P.
&
E. Williams, P. A. Gadek, C. J. Quiim, L. E. Eguiarte, Kellogg, E. A. H. P. Linder. 1995. Phylogeny of Poales.
E. Golenberg, H. Learn, W. Graham, C. H. \Y 511-542 Rudall, R Cribb, D. F Cutler
(i. Jr., S. S. in P. J. J.
& &
Barrett, S. Dayanandan V. A. Albert. 1993. Phylo- C. Humphries (editors), Monocotyledons: System-
J.
An
genetics of seed plants: analysis of nucleotide se- atics and Evolution. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
quences from the plastid gene rbcl.. Ann. Missouri But. Linder, H. 1985. Conspectus of the African species of
P.
Gard. 80: 528-580. Restionaceae. Bothalia 15: 387-503.
&
On A
Cowling, R. M. B. B. l^mont. 1998. the nature of 1991. review of the southern African Restion-
.
Gondwanan
209-264.
species flocks: Diversity of Proteaceae in aceae. Contr. Bolus Herb. 13:
&
mediterranean south-western Australia and South Afri- B. G. Briggs L. A. Johnson. 2000. Restion-
S.
,—
335-355. 639-661
ca, Austral. Bot. 46: aceae a morphological pliylogcny. Pp. in K.
J.
K &
1-357
Cutler, D. 1969. Juncales. Pp. in C. R. Metcalfe L. Wilson D. Morrison (editors), Systematics and
(editor). Anatomy of ihe Monocotyledons FY. Clarendon Evolution of Monocots. CSIRO, Melbourne.
&
Press, Oxford. Macphail, M., K. Hill, A. Partridge, E. Truswell C. Fos-
—
1972. Vicarious species of Restionaceae in Af- ter. 1995. '^Wollemi Pine" Old pollen records for a
.
rica, Australia and South America. Pp. 73-83 D. H. newly discovered genus of gynniosperm. Geol, Today
in
Valentine Taxonomy, Phytogeography and Evo- 4JK50.
(editor),
I 1 :
&
McGee,
lution. Academic Press, London. P. A., S. Bullock B. A. Sunmierell. 1999. Struc-
&
Dahlgren, R. M. H. Clifford P F Yeo. 1985. The ture of mycorrhizac of the Wollemi Pine [Wollernia no-
T., T.
and
Families of the Monocotyledons, Springer- Verlag, Ber- bilis), related Araucariaceae. Austral. Bot. 47:
J.
85^95.
lin.
& McGhee, K. 1995. Wollemi Pine. Nature Australia
Doyle, L. Davis, R. Soreng, D. Gar\'in M. 25(2):
J. J., J. J. J.
DNA
Anderson. 1992. Chloroplast inversions and the 22.
1W9.
Meney,
origin of the grass family (Gramineae). Proc. Natl. Acad. K. A. i^ J. S. Pate. Australian Rushes, Bi-
7722-7726. ology, Identification and Conservation of Restionaceae
U.S.A. 89:
Sci.,
and
Allied Families. Univ. \^'cslern Australia Press,
Duffy, M. 1997. Dave Noble and the Wollemi Pine.
Pf).
Nedlaiids.
177-186
in D. Foster et al. (editors). Crossing the Blue
&
New
K. W. Dixon. 1996. species of
Mountains: Journeys through two centuries, from natu- ,
649-
& F?estionaeeae from Western Australia. Telopea 6:
ralist Charles Dar'win to novelist David Foster. Duffy
666.
Snellgrove, Potts Point, N.S.W.
217-
Miller, C. N. 1977. Mesozoic conifers. Bot. Rev. 43:
Duvall, M, R., M. Clegg, M. W. Chase, W. D. Clark, W.
T.
280.
J. Kress, H. G. Hills, L. E. Eguiarte, J. F. Smith, B. S.
FragmentaPhytographi*
& Australia., Vol.
Zimmer ^- ^^^^/
Gaut, E. A. G. H. Learn, 1993. Phylo-
Jr.
^l^^\^'^
8, fasc. 62. (iovenunent Printer, Melbourne.
genetic hypotheses for the monocotyledons constnicted
Nash, 1997. Wollemi Pine Species Reco\er)' Plan. Syd-
S.
from rbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80:
New
ney Zone, South Wiles National Parks and Wild-
607-619.
Service, Hurstville.
life
&
Fensom,
G. C. Offord. 1998. Propagation of the Wollemi
An
Offord, C. A. 1996. Conserving the Wollemi Pine:
in-
Pine {Wollemia nobilis). Proc. Int. PI. Propag. Soc. 47:
tegrated approach. Danthonia 12-14.
5(2):
66-<)7.
&
Meagher
C. L. Porter, G. Erringlon. 1999.
P. F.
,
Gilg, E. 1890. Bcitrage zur vergleichenden Anatomic der
Sexual reproduction and early plant growth of the Wol-
xerophilen Familie der Restionaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
lemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis), a rare and threatened Aus-
13: 541-r)06.
Ann. 1-9.
tralian conifer. Bot. 84:
&
Gilmore, S. K. D, Hill. 1997. Relationships of the Wol-
Peakall, H. 1998. Exceptionally low genetic diversity in
lemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis) and a molecular phylogeny
an ancient the Wollemi Pine: Implications forcon-
relic,
of the Araucariaceae. Telopea 275-291.
7:
and 86
servatit)n theor)' practice. P. in Genetics Soc.
Hamann,
U. 1962. Beitrag zur Embryologie der Centro-
Austral. 45tli Conf. Abstr., Sydney.
lepidaceae mit Bemerkungen iiber den Bau der Bliiten T T &
Setoguchi, H., A. Osawa, J.-C. Pintaud, Jaffre
J.-
und und
Blutenstande die systematische Stellung der
M. Veillon. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships within Ar-
Familie. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 75: 153-171.
aucariaceae based on rbcL gene sequences. Amer.
J.
1975. Neue Untersuchungen zur Embryologie
1507-1516.
. Bot. 85:
und
Systematik der Centrolepidaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. &
Stefanovfc, M. Jager, Deutsch, Broutin M. Mas-
S.,
J. J.
154-191.
96:
selot. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of conifers in-
Hill, K. D. 1996. The Wollemi Pine: Discovering a living ferred from 28S rDNA gene sequences. Amer.
partial
J.
Resources 20-25.
Nat. 32:
fossil. Bot. 85: 688-f)97.
1997. Architecture of the Wollemi Pine (Wolle- Strobel, G. A., W. M. Hess, J.-Y. Li, E. Ford, Sears, R.
J.
&
mia
nobilis, Araucariaceae), a unique combination of S. Sidhu B. Summerell. 1997. Pestalotiopsis guepinii,
model and
reiteration. Austral. Bot. 45: 817-^J26. a taxol-producing endophytr of the Wollemi Pine, Wol-
J.
&
Johnson, L. A. S. B. G. Briggs. 1981. Three old south- lemia nobilis. Austral. Bot. 45: 1073-1082.
J.