@inbook {304,
	title = {The androecium of monocotyledons},
	booktitle = {Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution},
	year = {1995},
	pages = {243-254},
	publisher = {Royal Botanic Garden, Kew},
	organization = {Royal Botanic Garden, Kew},
	abstract = {Current opinion considers the basic stamen configuration of the monocotyledons to be an androecium with two whorls of stamens alternating with two trimerous whorls of tepals (e.g. Dahlgren et al., 1985). We suggest that the primitive monocot androecium consisted of many alternating stamen whorls of six or three stamens each, the outer being arranged as three pairs (which is characteristic for the Alismatales). The evolution of the monocotyledonous androecium is believed to follow two main trends:(1) The building of a reduction series starting from an androecium with numerous stamens arranged in whorls (polycycly). Loss of stamen whorls and replacement of the outer pairs by single stamen leads to dicycly, a general condition of many monocots. The inner, respectively the outer whorls can be further reduced leading to monocycly or obmonocycly. Further reductions lead to unistaminate and unicarpellate flowers.(2) Secondary elaborations, which induce a significant change in the number and the morphology of the stamens. Stamen numbers can be either secondarily increased by the subdivision of complex primordia, by the growth of a receptacular zone and by homeosis, or the stamens may be variously transformed in relation to zygomorphy or asymmetry.},
	author = {Ronse Decraene, Louis P. and Smets, Erik F.},
	editor = {Cutler, D.F. and Humphries, C.J.}
}
@article {249,
	title = {Historical Biogeography: Introduction to Methods},
	journal = {Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics},
	volume = {26},
	year = {1995},
	pages = {373-401},
	keywords = {comparative biology, biogeography, cladistics, dispersalism, panbiogeography, cladistic biogeography},
	author = {Morrone, Juan J. and Crisci, Jorge V.}
}
@inbook {206,
	title = {Systematics of subclass Alismatidae: A synthesis of approaches},
	booktitle = {Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution},
	year = {1995},
	note = {1 page appendix fehlt noch - nach kopieren!!!},
	pages = {353-377},
	publisher = {Royal Botanic Gardens Kew},
	organization = {Royal Botanic Gardens Kew},
	abstract = {The study of systematic relationships in and of the monocotyledon subclass Alismatidae has incorporated comparative methods, phenetic approaches and cladistic analyses. Characters used in these analyses have included morphological, anatomical, ultrastructural, biochemical and molecular data. We review the bases and limitations of different hypotheses for relationships of the subclass to other angiosperms, and for interfamilial relationships within the group. Although cladistic analyses have provided many insights to phylogenetic relationships of Alismatidae, the homology of morphological character states in this mainly aquatic group is frequently uncertain and subject to alternative interpretations. One result is that cladistic analyses using morphological features provide equal support for considerably different hypotheses of relationships in Alismatidae. The incorporation of molecular data in cladistic analyses is a potentially powerful technique to study phylogenetic relationships of aquatic plants characterised by highly homoplasious morphological features. Former and current systematic studies consistently indicate strong support for the monophyly of subclass Alismatidae. Relationships within the subclass are less certain, although there is now much evidence to indicate a close phylogenetic relationship between the families Hydrocharitaceae and Najadaceae, and the distinctness of Ruppiaceae and Potamogetonaceae.},
	author = {Les, Donald H. and Haynes, Robert R.},
	editor = {Cutler, D.F. and Humphries, C.J.}
}
@inbook {102,
	title = {Major evolutionary traits of monocot flowers},
	booktitle = {Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution},
	year = {1995},
	pages = {43-79},
	publisher = {Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew},
	organization = {Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew},
	abstract = {Recurrent floral traits present in more than one superorder of monocots but less frequent or even absent from dicots are discussed. The frequent sectorial association of tepals and stamens may be partly related to the frequent occurence of common organ primordia. Common organ primordia also occur among tangentially associated organs, such as in orchids and Zingiberales, which has made the morphological interpretation of the lip of these monosymmetric flowers difficult. The potential of extensive intercalary growth has led to the evolution of "amphibious" flowers with the pollination organs in the air, but the ovary either under water or underground. Septal nectaries are an almost exclusive monocot feature; but tepal nectaries are also rather common. Both features may occur in closely related groups, rarely even in the same genus. In contrast to the disc nectaries of dicots both septal and tepal nectaries of monocots seem to lack stomata; rather, nectar is secreted by the epidermis. Grasses have the most elaborate anemophilous flowers among the monocots. Their close relationship with Joinvilleaceae and Restionaceae is supported by some special floral traits, especially the unique complex plumose stigma. Spathes and large bracts are often associated with condensed inflorescences and they may be intimately synorganized in various ways, the most extreme being the aroid pitcher traps. Although flowers with trimerous organ whorls are common and are probably basal in the monocots, there are many groups with increased or decreased stamen or carpel numbers, the greatest lability being in Alismatanae and Arecanae, both with up to several hundred organs. Floral organ arrangements is whorled or irregular, but apparently never regularly spiral. It is suggested that in both groups that have been thought to represent the most basal monocots (i.e. Alismatanae and Lilianae) the most obvious floral similarities with dicots (i.e. Nympheales and Aristolochiales) have been shaped by similar ecological conditions (aquatic habitat and sapromyophily) and are not necessarily based on very close bauplan relationships.},
	author = {Endress, Peter K.},
	editor = {Cribb, P.J. and Cutler, D.F. and Humphries, C.J.}
}
@inbook {78,
	title = {Juncaginaceae},
	booktitle = {Vascular plants of Russia and adjacent states (the former USSR)},
	year = {1995},
	note = {Triglochin asiaticum (Kitag.) A. \& D. L{\"o}ve (T. maritimum L. subsp. asiaticum Kitag.) - 5T. komarovii Lipsch. \& Pavl. = T. palustreT. maritimum L. - 1,2,3,4,5,6T. maritimum L. subsp. asiaticum Kitag. = T. asiaticumT. palustre L. (T. komarovii Lipsch. \& Pavl., T. palustre var. komarovii (Lipsch. \& Pavl.) Tzvel.) - 1,2,3,4,5,6T. palustre L. var. Komarovii (Lipsch. \& Pavl.) Tzvel. = T. palustreRegions of the former USSR (map see copy):1 = Eastern Europe (European part of the former USSR),2 = Caucasus,3 = Western Siberia,4 = Eastern Siberia,5 = Far East,6 = Middle Asia.},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	organization = {Cambridge University Press},
	address = {Cambridge},
	keywords = {Juncaginaceae, Russia, USSR, Triglochin, T. asiaticum, T. maritimum, T. palustre},
	author = {Czerepanov, S.K.}
}
@article {16,
	title = {A revision of the tuberous-rooted species of Triglochin L. (Juncaginaceae) in Australia},
	journal = {Muelleria},
	volume = {8},
	number = {3},
	year = {1995},
	pages = {331-364},
	author = {Aston, Helen Isobel}
}
