Akyrockmisrry, Vol. 25. No. 7. pp. 1519-1535. 1986. 0031-9422/86 S3.00+0.

00
Printed in Cira;t Britain. Fkrgamoa Journds Ltd.

REVIEW ARTICLE NUMBER 18

PHYTOCHEMISTRY AND PLANT TAXONOMY-AN ESSAY ON THE

CHEMOTAXONOMY OF HIGHER PLANTS*

R HWNAUER
Cobctstmat 49,2313 KA Leiden, Naherlandst

(I&c&d 4 Ckrober 1985)

Key Word Idcx-Vascular plants Angioopermae; phytochcmistry; plant taxonomy, chmwtaxonomy.

Aktrrct-Modem methods of plant ckssi6cation and plant nomenclature arc outlined. It is proposed that
taxonomists should make greater cKorts to amsc~~e existing plant nanxq for the benefit of phytochcmists and other
users. Chcmotaxonomic principles arc considered and some examples arc provided to show the importance of chemical
evidence in taxonomic revision. The value of chemical characters in the classitication of plants Mow the speciiic level is
also emphasized.

INTEODlJCllON shall use them interchangeably. This is more or less

Modem phytochcmistry is often more or kss intimately
connectaJ with plant taxonomy. In the past, usefulness to
man was the main stimulus for chemists to investigate
plants. Today, curiosity concerning the course of cvol-
ution, and concomitantly, the ambition to help tax&
nomists in their mdcavour to arrive at truIy natural
classilications of the many groups of plants rccq&abk
in nature are additional reasons for initiating chemical
investigations of plants The phytochcmist interested in
plant classi6cation needs a sound basic knowledge of
scvcraI aspacts of plant taxonomy. It is the aim of the
present essay to provide such an introduction to those
chemists who arc generally unfamiliar with taxonomk
principles and practice. In the present review formulae arc
combined in figures and ciphers in brackets [l, 2 etc]
refer to ‘Notes and References’.
PWNT TAXONOMY AND SOURCES OF DATA USED BY TT
fbtaniad systematics or plant taxonomy is the science
of delimiting, describing and naming of any group of
plants considcral to represent a distinct unit (taxonomic
unit or entity = taxon) and of arranging all raqnixd
taxa in classi6cations (system+ Other IXda exploited by
plant taxonomy are the study of relation&ips between
taxa and of the dynamics of evolution of charaers and
taxa in past and present. Tabk 1 is an attempt to
summa&c the essential activities awered by plant
taxonomy.
At this point some remarks on the notions tcaxonomy
and systunaficJ seem appropriate. As shown in Table 1, I
consider these terms to be synonyms and consequently
l- lo PhytochcmiSuy on the occuionofh2stb
aruliversrrry.
tR&cd profusor of Expaimental Plant Taxonomy,
Laboratorium voor E!xpaimentek Phntmsyrw
Uninrsi~y of Leidcn.
common practice in modem botanical taxonomy or
systanatic~ [ 1,4-7-J. It should be remembered, however,
that scientists such as Alston [8]. MerxmMkr [9] and
others advocate a sharp distinction between plant taxo-
nomy and plant systemat& the former is claimed to cover
only field A of Tabk 1 and the latter to include the whole
field illustrated by Table 1. In my view much is to be said
forthelesJpragmatkapproach[7jwhichhasbcenmine
for many years [lO-121, bazausc other biologists [2,13
and others] consider taxonomy to be the more inclusive
term and systematkx to correspond more or less to field A
of Tabk 1. Just a few words should be spent on the term
clauilccatfool; it is often applied more or kss
synonymously to the terms taxonomy or syematks
(14,15-j, and should replace the supctiluous term taxo-
nomy according to Crowson [16].
The main aims of plant taxonomy arc to provide an
inventory of pEscntIy raqnizabk plant groups and to
arrange them in a system useful to all people interested in
planta Colkction, observation, comparison and descrip-
tion of plants enabk the taxonomist to delimit and classiiy
group A more or kss uniform plant group is called a
tuonomic entity, or. shortly, a taxon (plural ma).
Description and naming of plant taxa has to be followed
by incorporating them in a system. A plant classification
that is not only useful to plant taxonomists, but to all
scientists and interested laymen needing a botanical
system, is a scknti6c achievement that does not ncgkct
P-=-l uircmcnts. Taxonomists accept a number of
pr&ipka and rules agreed upon for practiad purposes
[la. Important ruk6 apply to taxonomic ranks or
categories and to the naming of taxa (nomenclature). For
armngingplanttaxainasyatcmthcmainranksreportcd
in Tabk 2 arc obligatory. Ifa taxonomist fcek the need for
a greater number of rank8 he is allowed to intcnxlatc
additional ones. A number of the more commonly used
i.ntc~&~ ranks or categorica is indicated in Tabk 3.
The taxonomic category ‘specks’ is by far the most
important one. By studying individual plants and plant
populations in nature and in botanical gardens and

Pm-m .a:74 1519

1520 R. HEGNAIJER

Table 1. Fields of activity in plant taxonomy and their designations*

F&is of taxonomic activities Main aims of each field

A: Plant classiic4ttion = plant lMimitation, description, naming and classiition of all accepted
systematks or plant taxonomy plant taxa.
sensu strict0
B: Plant geography in the Study of the distribution (dispersion) of plant taxa ( - chorologyh
broadest sense historical and ecological interpretation of distributional ranges of
tnxa; comparison of areas of taxa
PLANT SYSTEMATICS C: Phylogenyt Study of evolutionary relationships of taxa at all kvek of the
in the broadeat sense taxonomic hierarchy; study of cbaracter+volutioo. Study of the
= faults of evolution
PLANT TAXONOMY D: Evolution t Study of causes and processes which initiate and govern the
in the broadest sense evolution of characters and of taxa of any rank.
E Biosystematics or experimental Understanding microcvolution~ study of processes of adaptation
plant taxonomy and speciation in nature; mutations, hybridization, reproductive and
dispersal biology, etc.

l For definitions and tcrminologv compare refs [ 1.21.

tThese two fklds are not treated separately by all taxonomists, e.g. [3]_
$As far as it can be studied experimentally; usually restrictal to the levels of populations, specks and species aggregates.

Tabk 2 The ranks * or categories t which must always be wed in constructing

hirarchiql plant ckssdications, and indikations of taxonomk k-v& by final

Rat&s or categories in singular (and

phtrai~ English equivaknts Exampks

Regam (Rcsnn):WNomP Plantae (plants)

Divkio (Divisioncs)z Division[l Spermato*ymll Wdptants)
ck!uis (chtsseaf: class Magnoliopaida- (angiosperms)
Ordo (Ordines): Otder Ranuncukkatt
Famiha (Familiae): Family RanttnctlkcUa#
Genus (Genera): Genus Ranuncuhrs $0 (Buttercup)
specks (Speck@ species Rammcdus nemorose DC.[ 1

‘Taxonomic rank or kvel= position of a taxon in the ciassifkatory

hierarchy.
Category = a kvel within the taxonomic hierarchy.
~Rank-defining terminations (here given bold-faced) arc used in the taxo-
nomk hierarchy from the division to the subtribe (supragencric entity; compare
Tabk 3).
&kuaUy two (plants, animals), but in recent timeoftenfour (181 or five (193.
iPhylum in zoology; used also for plants in ref. [ 193.
$Rawmmendai termination for green terr&riaI plants; for
fungi.. . mycobe.
**Recommended for green terrestrial plants; also used . . . atae. For
fungi.. . myeasea and for algae.. . phyeeoe recommended.
tt Recommended if derived from a genus name. Other names, such as
Centrospermae, Farinosae, Helobiae and Polycarpicae also allowed.
#Obligatory final sylkbk [ 12; to be combined with a genus name, in casu
Ranuncuhq if the genetic name tambates with a (c.g Scropbularia) . . . cat
INI.
~&cneric
names
arcnouns used in singular.
1 i Species names (binary namq binomina) are generic names combiied with
specitic epithets; epithets are now used generaliy uncapitaliz& form&y those
derived from persons (e.g. R -1w sepien~ geographic areas (eg
Kornukulns ittyricus) or (often prelinnek) generic names (e.g. Rcnnncalw
@unt&, R. &spa) were capitahzcd. Specks names should always b: given in
italics in scientific publications.
 Phytochcmistry and plant taxonomy 1521

Table 3. A number of taxonomic ranks between classand local population illustrated by RMvmlus
rqxns L (rank-indicating terminations in italics)

Rank or attcgory Exampk

Classis Magnoliopsrclo [Zl] l

SUbClassi Ran- [21]

superordo RanlmcukuW [21] t
Ordo RanumxUu ( = Bcrbcridola) [21]
Subordo Ran-W [U]
Familia RanIuux&aceor[21,22]
Subfamilia uIIcuLoidc4c( = AnemonoLlcor) [U]
Tribus LMXlkW [U]
Subtribus Ran- PI
Genus Rantmculus [U]
Subgenus Subgcn Ranunculus [23]$
Scctio !kct. Ranunculus [23]0
Subsaxio not used in ref. [23]
!Gxics !kr.: not used in ref. [23].
Q=ks Ronwevlw reprns L [23,24]
Subspecies Subsp.: not used in refs [23-253
VarittM var. mtiseclus Grcmli [24]; and var. prosrrotw (Poiret) Gaud. [25]; var.
repens, var. erectus DC., var. gluitrarusDC and var. uillanrr Lamotte [26j.
cultivar (cv.)[ ‘Pkniiorus’ ( = Wore Pkno’)~ and ‘Nanus’ 1273.

lAhcmativc names are Annonidac [2g] and Dicotykdoncac [tg, 291.

t . florae [28,29] is an alternative termination to. . . me, e.g. Ranunculieorae[B] or
AnnbLlorac [B].
$Subgcous Ratrachium, the water crowfoots, is often treated as a separate genus and R circiw
Sibth.. e.g., then becomes Earrochiwn circinatuarFries.
@ection Ficaria is often treata! as a separate genus, and Rficmio L. e.g. then Ames Ficaria
vema Hudson or Picmh ranunculoides Roth.
(Nomenclature of cultivated plants is tqulated by ref. [30]; article 7 decras”Cultivatui planc~are
named at three main kveb: genus, spa&s and cultivar” (cultivated txz&kq abbreviated cv.). The
concept of cultivar differs from the taxonomk rank varktas which is a rank below that of spccics.
Cultivars correspond to varktk~ (English), varidt&(French) or Sorten (German), Artiik 27 regulates
nomenclature of cultiran; all cvs named atlcr I January 1959 should be given fancy names, a&
Chamoecypnrislawsoniana ‘Silver Queen ( = CA lawA cv. Silver Queen); names in use before
this date may be in latin. but should bc treated in the same way (see Table 3, last line).
~R4nu~ulu.s repent var.fire-p&m is an older synonym of R. repmr cv. Pknillorus = R. repens
‘Pkniflorus’ = R repens ‘llorc-plcno’.

herbaria we learn much about the species to which they
belong, and by ranking plants and plant products in a
given species we are able to define more or less exactly the
ouarial under study. Moreover, species names are used to
communicate about the many particularitits. inclusive of
chemical properties, of hundreds of thousands of taxo-
nomic entities considered to belong to the category
SpECkS.
Taxa are delimited, described and named by taxo-
nomists. They represent more or less arbitrary and
subjective man-made units. Taxonomists very often dis-
agree with regard to the delimitation of plant groups
which should be ranked as species or genus (T’abk4).
wment is oRen even more pronounced in the case
of taxonomic entities belonging to higher categories of the
taxonomic hkrarchy (Table 5). There are absolutely no
objective and infallible criteria for rank-determination in
plant classification.
As illustrated by Tabk 2, binomina (scientific names of
spaciu)arebascdonthegenusnameandaspecificcpitbet.
Therefort any splitting or lumping of genera severely
affects specilic nomenclature. Many plant groups have
acquired more than one name, because the specks or
genera to which they were attributed were split, lumped,
resplit, relumped and so on in the course of time. Other
causes of the ofien confusing synonymy (two or more
names for the same taxon) and homonymy (the same
name for more than one taxon) are the intentional or
unintentional negkct by some taxonomists of previous
description and naming of the same taxon by others, and
application of names formerly given to another plant
group of the same taxonomic rank. A remedy to such
confusion, but a rather deli&at one, is the usual citation
of the name(s) of the botanist(s) who tirst described and
named a given taxon and who is (are) responsibk for the
rank accepted for it in a given flora or scientific paper.
Alas,theX&MXlkd crufhw dt(ltions are far from perfect
in the tuonomk literature because in many instances
nomcllckture is a rather complex matter [compare e.g. 11,
pp. 524-525-J.
Tabk 4 illustrates a number of nonmbaclatural annoy-
ances to all scientists needing plant &s&cations, but
bciig not ‘pure’ taxonomists A few additional examples
are given under refs [33] and [34]. Ranunucfus~ario and
1522 R. HEGNAUIJR

Tabk 4. Eumpla of texottomk @itting and lumpy at specka and genus kvek and their nuamcktural implications

Rflntudus wumanw Wiid.
sJ.t
RansowiltuJicrptci L al.t
RammdusbmdotiiGodron
R. adnncusGrcn. Additional scggqata described in ref. [U]; splitting
R. cnrinthiacus Hoppc of a polytypic Spccics in a number of nlicrospccks~
R grenkrfawJordan [c-g. 23.24.31 J.
R monfanw Willd s. str.t
R tweophllw M. Bicb.
R vmctusHutcr ex Landolt
Flcorh - (L) Hucls.s. SW. seaion Fiaria -+ Genus Flccvia [e.g. 321; splitting of a
( - F. rarrunculoidcsCL] Roth s. str.)t polytypk speck8 in a number of microspacits~~
F. cd#foliu Roth
F. fasc~ C Koch ( - Ramculw
edti Bob. et Hob)
F. &arMu (Rosy et Cbaub.)
H&lay ( = F&&a edlIltsGrossh.)
Rummculiufi&attu L. Genus Ceraruce~w of Pemooll rcblmprd with
R urrferJorw Crantzj RaLlumllks [3t].
OxyqroplJI wroarzSFnys Section Crymodes - genus Oxwu@s [cg 321.
non 0. glad& (FM.) Bungen
Botrachanu/oWAmxum (Gilib.) subgeu BMracam -, pnur B@achtum [c., 333; many
V. Kraz comb. aov.** - 8. cMmtuwr ikuruchilolt qKcks UC dacult to identify* inlmpccifie
(Sib&) Spach = Raumcufus fbmk&mta hybrids coznmon bee and there.
GiAib.=R dimfcam Lukb.
Batrochiulnmzrimm (Art%.et Fries) cf. [23.31.33,353.
Fries - B. &u&U (Godron) F. Schultz
- Ranumdw pclfatw SchrMk subep.
bavdoti (Godron) Mcikk cx C. D. K. Cook

*Only a small numba oftbe sometimea numcrotui synonyms given.

t Without addiug saw iuto &.I.)or sauu SMero (sstr.) thcac biiomctw ate ambiguous today.
*Often qecimaw can only be identified wrrcaIy by spa+lists, but even qxcklists mtty dii in mattes of mkroqwcies
ideutif@utical.
#In ref. [23] all Fii-tua, exceptRsmmcdw&~u Bory et Chaub, arc treated as subspccks of the polytypic spscies
Ranwrulw$cur&x If Fkaria is iloccptal a8 a genus and the varianb as tnicroapccicsthe binomen F&orb cerna becomes ambiguous
without qxcifyiog its wmpr&cnsiveness by s.1.or s&r.
~Trated as aepuate s& or as a variant of specks folfMu [for ref. 6cc 311.
~Oxwropkk gbctcrlls (Finch.) Bunge wrtcsponds to Fiuvicr &rial& Fisch. ( - C&w gicu‘hfisSprat& = R-a kamtscb
-DC).
l*imllid name saxding to ref. [313.

Flcorio turnn mentioned in Tabks 3 and 4 rqxzaent the
sanx speciu and all members of Rununculw subgenus
&rrroehhun have to change their names if the latter taxon
ismkedinmnkandbocomceagenuxThesameholdafor
CcratoupMus if this genus is lumped with Runurululus.
Similar nomcnclatd confusion arises if a so-call4
aggngate spbcies (spacies group, macros- linneon) is
treated by a splitter (formerly generally a keen observer.
pmently often a biosystematist: field E of Tabk 1)
Rananculu.ijkurfa, R. nwntams and R. nenwrosw rep-
resent such taxonomkally di&ult specks aggregates
[23,24], at kast in parts of their area of distribution.
Aggregate specks often are socalkd polyploid com-
pkxes. A taxonomicalty extrudy di!iicult situation is
iilustratedbytltehighlyvariabkspeckspairR.uurkornru
and R CQuybjtyt which comprises fertile diploid (2n
= 16) populations and assumedly hybrido&c polyploid
(2n - 24.324948 and still other qtodemes) popu-
lations. The polyploids are fAtat& or obligate
apomkts, but need pollination for seed setting
(pseudogamy) Many species were described by splitters
[for ref. see 313 within the Rcmmcu lusaurtcamuscompkx
which was treated by Linnaeus as comprising R. aurf-
cows and R. cawbkus only.
Tabk 4 and accompanying explanations require some
comments on the handling of plant material by phy-to
chemists, and on presently accepted taxonomic practiaz
L In many instances consulting a taxonomk 8-t
for plant kkntitication is highly desirabk. However,
taxonomk advice often does not guarantee unambiguity
with regard to the material actually invautigated. The only
means of avoiding possibk doubts and thus providing a
means whereby the identScation can be rechecked is to
prepare and keep adequate voucher sp&mens for each
phytochemkal investigation.
IL Taxonomy ia the only scknce which allows its
 Phytochetitry and plant taxonomy 1523

practitionm, professionals as well as Boristic amateurs, to scientists are after all aware of the fact that taxa of the
change arbitrarily the circumscription and naming of higher categories of plant classification are far from being
accepted entities. The only requirement for aazeptance of definitive. Moreover, specks namts are by far the most
new taxa and names is to proceed according to the rules important names needed for communication about the
of the International Code [ 173. practical proper&s of plants.
IIL Persons performing classiticatory work should Three of the five authors mentioned in Tabk 5 rank
always real&e that they are not only responsibk to angiosperms as a division whenzas refs [28] and [29] rank
themselves and other taxonomists, but to all peopk who them as class. The considerable differences in the
have to handk taxa Generally new names and name number of orders and families are caused by Merent
changes at the specific and generic level do not really taxondelimitations. The three liliiilorean familks
represent scientitk progress and could easily be avoided. Liliaceae, Philesiaceae and Smilacaa~ of ref. [2E] cor-
New facts, materials and insights, in most instances, could respond, for instance, to Cokhicaaz, Hmeriaaac,
adequately be d&ussed within an existing classitkation Liliaceae s.str., Alstroemertvyar All&U&
and by making use of ranks such as subspecies and Hemerocallidaaz, Amaryllidacu~, Phormiace+
subgenus which do not affect binomina, or by using Agavactat, Doryan-, AsphodelaQtae,
experimental categories (see later). Xanthorrhoeaceae, Aphyllanthaceae, Huanguanaceae,
IV. Proposals for changes of taxondelimitations or for Asparagaceae, D-naceac, Tecophilaeaceae,
the creation of new taxa at the specific and generic kvels Hypoxia Phiksiaceae, Trilliaceae and Smilacaaae
should become valid only after having been evaluated by a of ref. [21].
panel of highly qualified taxonomists. A procedure similar Differences between proposed angiosperm class&
to the periodical evaluation of proposals adopted for cations are not only caused by taxondelimitations In
purely nomenclatural questions (conservation of names many instancea they express fundamental disagreements
of long-standing, but not corresponding with the ruks of concerning relationships of taxa. Those who believe that
priority) could perhaps be used in a form adapted to the the Umbelliferae and Compositae are directly related [ 373
taxonomic problems in question. will arrange these familiu di!Terently Rom Cronquist
V. Perhaps a way to really stabilize the names of plant [38], who is convinced that the Asteraks came from the
specks would be to declare the most suitable monographs Rubiaks.
of individual familks and genera as valid and nomencla- The study of relationships of taxa-independently of
turally obligatory. A panel of experienced taxonomists their explanations (blueprint of creation versus
(see IV) should take responsibility for the choice of the evolution)-formed a fundamental part of sckntilk plant
most appropriatemonographs.Proposals foraherationsat classiiication from its beginning TherefoE taxonomists
the speciea or genus kvel in ‘standard monographs’ could began to use ail availabk features for the elaboration of
periodically be evaluated and should be accepted only if multipurpose classitications. Harbome and Turner [39]
they are scientifically really unavoidable. summa&d the trends in acquisition of new data by plant
Unless a satisfactory mode of proceeding is elaborated, taxonomy in their tabk 3. I and clasai6ed features used as
synonymy at the specks kvel will continue to expand and, characters in essentially four groups (if their Evolutionary
more-over, names like Achilka mfllefdium, Rammcultu Period is dropped)
montatu~~, Valerha oficituah and many others will 1. Megamorphic featurea or charactersz morphological
remain ambiguous notwithstanding the commonly used description and delimitation of taxa
author citations 2 Micromorphic features: comparative anatomy.
Tabk 5 compares five modem systems of angiosperms. palynology. embryology.
The differences concerning taxondelimitation and taxon- 3. Cytogenetic or karyologic features: chromosome
ranking are obvious, but at the higher levels of the numbers and karyotypts; meiotic behaviour of chrome
taxonomic hierarchy such disagreements between tax+ some-s etc.; essentially corresponds to part of field E in
nomists have insignificant practical consequences. Most Table 1.

Tabk 5. Numbers of taxa at higha himrchic kveb in five modern cJudkacion~ of angioqmms

hllk8 or categoris*

CZh&SiEation DivisiOns Cb subclass*l supcfOr&l3 ofdm FUdiLY

@ll&dS Syllabus [36-j 1. 2c _d 62 343

Takhtajm [21] le ; lo( 28h 92 410
cronquist [IS] lC 2’ 118 _d 102 392
Thome WI _d 1’ 2’ 28’ 53 350
Ikhlsrtn PI -d 1’ 2’ 33’ 109 456
1524 R HEBNAUER
4. Biocbemkal featurcsz micro- and macromokcuks
and metabolic pathways as character.
Their dating of the Biochemical feriod as ‘ca 1950 (2)
t- is not wholly adequate in myvkw. In fact&en&al
characters belong to the earliest non-morphological
chamctem applied to pknt classifkation by distinguished
taxonomists [40] and organic chemists [41,42]. It is true,
of course, that the explosive development of comparative
phytochemistry started towards 1960, but methods and
principks of chemotaxonomy, the field which I d&k as
comparative phyto and biochemisvy applied to all
aspects of pknt taxonomy, were ckarly described by men
like De Candolk [40], Rocbkdcr [41], Greshoff [42] and
others [43] in tbe nineteenth and the begbming of the
twentktb century. The rest of this essay is devoted to
chcmotaxonomy.
CHEMOTAXONOMY AND PLANT CLASSIFlCATION
In many instances plant ckssitications have to be
established without the help of adequate fossil remains
Phylogeny of taxa is reconstructed with the aid of
character comparison of living plants. Tbe task of taxo-
nomists is rendered very di5cult, however, by relatively
rapid divergences of cbaractcrs and taxa in tbe course of
adaptive radiation, and by several types of convergence
known to occur during taxon evolution. Inevitably ail
existing systems of classification are imperfa% in part. In
such cases chemical cbaractcrs may he very helpful. A
really signifkant use of chemical characters requires a
relatively sound knowledge of tbe chemistry, bio-
chemistry and distribution of natural products on the part
of tbe taxonomist, and of taxonomic and biological
practices and probkms on the part of the chemist. Tbe
following general points may be made-
I. Many pbytoconstituents vary in their distribution
within the plant. The amount and composition of classes
of compounds such as alkaloids, Bavonoids, essential oils,
cardenolides and many others are governed by the age of
the plant or its parts, by the plant’s locality (a geographical
~rn~nent~ and its habitat (an ecological component). A
soild knowledge of chemitxd variation is essential.
Geographical and ecological variation has two main
aspects. It may he the result of the plasticity of individual
genotypes (modifications), or of a genetic heterogeneity of
plant taxa. Local populations of cross-breeding species
are built up by a variable number of individual genotypes
some of which may be chemical variants. Genetical
variation in local populations is called genericul j&y-
morphism, or po@no$&m for short. Polymorphism is
one of the starting points of differentiation: individual
variants (inclusive of chemical ones) are able to become
new races by migration and selection. Specks which
comprise several races or subspecies, it. units with their
own combination of characters and area and (or) habitats
are calkd potytypic. The phytochemist is mainly interested
in chemical polymorphism and cbemkal polytypism
which may or may not be correlated with other types of
variation. As already mentioned limits between racts,
subspecies and specks, i.e. between taxa, are bigbly
subjective. Nevertheless variants and races represent
essential entities of species evolution (speciationh We
should he abk to communicate about them. For such
purposes the infraspecific categories of experimental plant
taxonomy, such as co&via and ecotypes, arc available
and preferable bearuse they are independent of the Code
[ 171and do not interfere with botanical nomenclature. By
far the most universal and most versatile categories arc
demes [44]. Tbe demc terminology was unfortunately
abandoned by Briggs and Walters in the second edition of
their excelknt book [45]. A deme is a local group of
individuals [local spoon J; the term should he used
combined with prefixes wbicb spec$y*tbe type of deme
under discussion. Tbe following cxampks ckarly
illustrate the possibilities and advantages of the deme
terminology:
Gamodemez A more. or less int.mbrecding population,
Agamodemez Population of apomicta
Autogamodew: An auto~o~ population.
Ecodeme: A popuktion of a spec& ecologkal habitat.
Topodeme: A population of a speci& geographical
Cbzemez A population differing chemically from
others
Cytodeme: A population di&ring in some cytological
features (e.g chromosome number or karyotype).
Genodeme: A population di&ring genetically.
Ekogenodeme: An ecological race or an ecotype sensu
TtlXsX?n.
Cbemo-ecogenodemes chemical races in the
Chemo-topogenodemcs 1 taxonomic sense.
It should be ckar that a cbemodeme may be at tbe same
time a cytodeme etc.; tbe properties indicated by the
pretix(cs) used in a discussion are those under study. It is
also immediately apparent that application of the deme
terminology in the case of polyploid aggregates (e.g
Ranuncuilu montanus s.L, Tabk 4) and groups in which
apomicts predominate (e.g. the Raauneuln.s curkontus
complex) would prevent such a confused nomenclature as
occurs in taxonomkahy difficult species aggregates.
Without any doubt, many plant specks comprise a
number of cbemodemes or even ‘pure’ chemical races.
II. Analogies and homelc@es of chemical characters arc
only recognizable if we have enough biogenetical infor-
mation or sufbcknt plausible biogenetic hypotheses
(Figs l-3).
IIL Very often, even homologous characters cannot be
used as indicators of phylogenetic relationships because
metabolic convergence is a very common feature (Fig 4).
Errors of judgemcnt and consequent classitkatory
fallacies are only avoidabk by a careful examination and
comparison of many types of characters.
IV. Many secondary metabolites perform diverse eco-
logical roks Cbemotaxonomy shouki not negkct this
aspect of natural products. The less secondary metaholites
deviate from essential metabolites and the more tbe
former are ecologically important, the more probable
becomes their occurrence in unrelated taxa (Fig 5).
V. Many natural products have a large number of
unexpected occurrences; often, however, only trace
amounts are detected in a given taxon (cf. Fig. 6). There
are several arguments for qualifying storage of a given
metaholite(s) as taxonomkally more important tban its
syntbesis alone. Storage is a much more compkx event
because it requires means of prevention of self-inhibition
or self-poisoning Moreover, only compounds stored to
some extent are abk to take over the larger part of tbe
ecological functions demonstrated hitherto for secondary
metabolites. Storage makes chemical characters readify
applicabk to taxonomic problems and gives biological
sense to the immense number of individual compounds
and patterns of natural products.
1526 R HEONAUER

HO

co1
a
3 OMe
Me

7 P 5
Octaketide

Fi 2. Some exampksof assumcdIyhomoIogousmetabolites whichhavq or have not, rctaincd simibrity of

structure: some biogewkaUy in- skdeta are iihwtratad by compounds isolated from plants
14 Members of the bcnzyliwquinoline family of aikfdoid+ 1 - retiadine, a bcnzylisoquinolim, 2 - canadinc
( = tetmhydrowcrioc~ a tttmhydroprombe&t%w alkaloid; 3 - noruabinsunint, an aporphinei 4 and
5 * eupokwridine and cupolllunmiae, alkaloids of fiupomatto &w&w with strongly modified skeletons [49];
6-U = &trophcuanthrcncaand iactams which arc dwacta%ti of Aristolochii but have also bun &taxed in
Aruionaaaz 6 =debilic acid; 7 = aristohxhic acid-I; I-aristoio~; P-11, acetogenins of Lii 9
- xantborrhoeot; 10 - aiowmodii 12 - alocsaponarin-I.
 Phytochemistry and plant taxonomy 1527

HO

HO
o-glue

Fig. 3. The biogenetically homologous, but structurally highly diverse class of iridoid compounds. l-3, Stcam-
volatile compounds, iridodial, dehydroiridodial and ncpctalactonc 4, iridoid glycosidcs, loganin and E-qGloganin;
5. a sccoiridoid glucoside. sccologanin; 6, an ester iridoid, vahratum; 7, a sacoiridoid pyridi~~ alkaloid, gcotianinc;
S. an iridoid pip&dine alkaloid, skytanthirq 9. a saxiridoid isoquinolinc alkaloid gluaxidc, dcaaceyl&xxidc;
compare 1 of Fig. I; 10. a sccoiridoid indolic alkaloid, strictosidine, precumor of auny soelkd cempkx indok

tannins; moreover Piperaaae produce benzyltetrahydro- because Nymphaeales, the second order of
isoquinoline alkaloids, many types of lignans and neolig- Nymphaeiilorae sensu [29] lack oil-idioblasts and iso-
nans,andalargearrayofamidesofwhichsomearevery quinoline alkaloids, but produce rather large amounts of
acrid; Chloranthaceae produce sesquiterpenoids includ- galli- and ellagitannins
ing C1&ctones, reminiscent of compounds of kidoids in the broadest sense (Fig. 3) are highly charac-
Magnoliaceae and Lauraceae, and Sauturaaae store teristic metabolites which occur mainly in a number of
lignans and neolignans. As a whole the chemistry of assumedly phylogenetieally related dicotykdonous plant
Piperales sensu [36] strongly suggests that Theme’s families, if their occurrence in Malpighiaaae [46],
reclassilkation is much more natural than Dahlgren’s, insects [47] and molluscs [413] is neglected. The detec-
IS28 R. H~GNAIJER

i
Tyramine _
Cinnsmic acid )

t
/-TGzzq

-Me

MC0

3
MeOH

3 /
‘Me

Me0

Me0 ‘Me

Fig. 4. A striking exampie of metabolic converJJc~~~ the fax&y of p~~yie~yl~ui~J~e aJJutJoids (some
individualtypes of aJkaJoids represented by compounds i&at& from plants). 1.Tbc phmyk&yJisxJuimJhu
aummnaJine (R, I H, RI -OH) and homoJaudanmine (R, = Me, R1 = H) 2, tbe bomoproaporphine group
(kreysiginone);3, the homoaporphioegroup (multi&xaminek4, the homw@rinane group (acheW
and ~~e~~k S, the hornorno~~~e group(androcymbiik6, the tropolonctype(cokhkinc~id
occur in Liiiaceae-Wurmbaeoii [ = G+&kaa& and 6 seems10 be rat&cd lo thii taxon, but 1 was also
detected in MeJiaceae and4 occursalso in t2ph&tawcx., Taxodiwse, Aquifolirrctae
(PJMJinc also cJasiiuJ in
PhcUiname) and McJiaas.

tion of itidoids in Callitrichauq E~~tnmia~~~, CXXMWAXONOMY AND MPPXRBmATION (FIG. 7)

Fouquichxac, Hippurideoarc, part of Icacinws,
tfquidambor,PartofLaasaceae Tbcligo- and other When brieflydiscussing poIymorpbism and polytypissn
often mono- or oligotypic taxa made a considerable above, ecogeographica evolution of new taxa was mea-
contribution to their appropriate cIassification. tionu! bridly, The study of variation and di@xentiation
 Phytochcmistry and plant taxonomy 1529

3
“, ’

A@
OHC

OH
BlYC---0 glyc-0
OH

OAc

5 6

Fig. 5. Some biologically highiy active compounds which arc stored ct~~~ticallyby green t~~~~trial plants:
Metabolic convcrgences based on ccologica~ functions? 1. A glywsidc of digitoxigcnin, a cardenolide; toxic and
bitter-tasting cardcnolidcs occur in many famik ofangioqxrns 2, A glyan~& of hclkbrigcn& a bufadicoolide;
bufadknolida oaxr. e.g. in Lihaox, Ranuncukeq Cwubccac and hiclianthaoxq moreover, they are
defensive substancea of many toads. 3, A &a&de of bydroxyhtai pregn-Scne; such prcgnencs arc known from
several families of angioqcrms (eg. RanuncuLaae, SwphuMaceack bitta, acylatcd pqnanoid glycosida
replace cardenolidcs in part of Asckpii 4. Cucurbitacin-B aod -E (Al, 2). Bitter and cytotoxic cucurbitacin-
type tctracyclic triterpenes occur in many familicx of DilkGde scnxu [21], but have xlso ban isolated from
a liliacwus, a rosaaoug a suophukriaocpn genus and from DufW spfnosa [SO]. 5,Costunolidc (R = H) and
tuhpinolide (R = /JOA@. 6, Arbusculin and 4-cpiibusculin. 7. zalumnin-C. 57 rue examples of so-called
gwmacranolides, cudamanolida and guaianolidca which OOCUIin He&me, cupmsactrt. Magnoliiwac,
Lauraaaz, Umbellifcrac and Compositac. Such aesquitapcne bctonts arc often very bitter and somttiws taste
acrid; in many instances they were shown to possess alkrgcnic, tithyotoxic, qtotoxic, anti-f&ant and other
biological activities.

in plants is the field of genecologists, population geneti-
cists and experimental plant taxonomists (field E in
Table 1). Experimental plant taxonomy aims at the analy-
sis of variation and an understanding of the so-ca&d
microevolution, a field also called speciation. The latter
name is inappropriate in as much as it suggests that only
taxa ranked as species are concerned. I have already
advocated the use of subspeci6c taxonomic categories or
the application of &me-terminology when reporting
results of taxonomic or biosysttmatic studies with poly-
typic speciea Independent of the classiicatory treatment
of the microevolutionary units studied, two main cau9e9
of local polymorphism and two main processes of dif-
ferentiation can bc discerned, and phytochemistry can
provide key charactm for the understanding of complex
situations. The following examples serve to illustrate this
point.
L.ocal polymorphism depends on mutations or on
hybrid&tion. Many plant species are polymorphic with
regard to qanogenesis, that is, the release of HCN after
cell dampet. Usually cyanogcnesis depends upon the
presence of cyanogenic glycosides and corresponding
hydrolysing enzymes in a given tissue. In the fern
Ptcridtum aquihumacyanogenic genotypes and popu-
1530 R. HEGNAUER

c
OII
/
ti--C-_N

I
1 3

4 5 6

,coot1

9-- COOH
t++,COOH

COOH Ka
7 __
8

Fig. 6. Examplesof secondary metabolita which are stored erratically in unrelated plant taxa, but which also occur
widelyto ubiquitously in trace amounts. 1, Hydrocyanic acid; erratically stored in the form of cyanogenic glycuddts
(e.g 2 of Fig. 7) and lipids; probably ubquiteoua in trace amounts. 2, Eugenol; stored here and there in essentialoils
or as a glycoside; very widespread in trace amounts 3, Linalol: as 2 [Sl]. 4, Carvone; stored here and there in
essential oily; frequently present in trace amounts. 5, Gxrvacrol; like 24.6, NDotine (R = Me) and nom&tine (R
= Hk stonxl in taxa of Solanaaae and Compositaq known to occur in small to trace amounts in many plant
families 7, Azetidinc-2carboxylic acid; stored as defensive compound by part of Liliaceae (green parts) and some
Legumin~inioideae (seedy secdlingskin tract amounts probably widespread;also stored by the red alga
Lop/&odia ManandU. t5, Mugineic acid, an ironchelating compound of barley, wheat and oat (R, - RI - OH)
and nicotianamine (R, - H, RI = NH& a so4led phytosiderophore, which seemsto be involved in cellular iron
transport of all tracbcophyta [M. Budesinsky et al. (1981) Terra/w&on37, 1911. Essential mctabolitcs such as 8
might explain the occurrem of trace amounts of 7 in many plants.

lations have lost by mutations the ability to synthesize and
store prunasin or to produce active ‘emulsin’, or both. In
the genus Linaria hybridization was proved to be a
possible cause of local polymorphism. If the cyanogcnic,
prunasincontaining species L. repens ( = L. sWiafa) is
crossed with acyanogenic L. vulgaris or L. purpurea,
cyanogenic Fl-hybrids are produced. L repens x L. tnd-
garis is knows as L. x sepium Allman ( = Linaria notho-
species sepium Allman) [ 17; article So, Appendix I, names
of hybrids]. When L. x sepiaun is backcrossed to L.
vulgar& plants morphologically indistinguishable from
lSpc&tion by hybridization witbout chromosomedoubling
does also OCCUT;this lo&sting process belongs to the field of
eqeogr@ical di6erentiatioo: increax of loenl polymorphism
+migratioo -fixation of distinct genotypes by selection.
E.xampks are Pemitw pmdcw mn-lP. kablikia~~ which are
assumed to have originated by hybridization between P. albus
and P. hybrldw;all taxa have Zn - 60. See L. Novotny et al. (1966,
1968) Phymchmdsrry 5, I28 I; 7. 1349.
L. vulgaris originate after a second and third backcros-
sing. Some of these L. vdgaris plants, however, proved to
have retained cyanogenesis. Such a transfer of genes from
one spa&s to another by hybridization and backcrossing
is called introgressive hybridization by Anderson; chemical
characters may be very good indicators of this event.
Polytypism depends on migration followed by spatial
isolation and ecological adaptation (radiation as already
mentioned earlier) or on hybridization usually followed
by genome doubling_* The former proasses have been
called ecugeugraphical diffmentiation (speclarfon) and the
second one saltation or abrupt speciation by
(aUo)polyploidy. In both cases taxonomidy di&ult
aggregates emerge in the first instance, and chemical
characters may prove extremely useful in analysing and
understanding complex patterns of variation.
Chemical coogeographic differentiation was studied
intensively with many essential oil bearing species; they
were shown to comprise a number of chemodemes
(Asarum europnnR4 MyfVoMl desertl, n?yMls olclsarir
and others). Polytypism, however, can affect each class of
 Phytochemistry and plant taxonomy
phytoconstituents. Two other examples should suffice to
illustrate this fact IWuania somnifera has a number of codeine, the main alkaloids of most strains of P. Somali-
withanolide-type Css-steroidal lactonechemodemes
[SZ], and Lumena cwnara comprises toxic and non-toxic
triterpene-chemcXlemes [S3].
Chemical constituents are valuabk characters during
studies of polyploid complexes. Essential oils proved to be alkaloids. Papacer set&rum does not seem to store
useful with Acorns calomur (2.x. 3x, 4x), and mangifetin
was shown to be an indicator of the Asplenium montanum
gmomc in the Appalachian polyploid aggregate which
also contains the diploids (2x) A. platyneuron and A. morphine synthesis and storage, are still unknown. It is
rhizophyllum and the fertile allotetraploids (4x) A. self evident that every biosystematic study aiming at an
bradleyi, A. pinnati@un and A. ebeddes, besides a
number of sterile diploid, triploid and tetraploid hybrids.
By a study of alloxyme variation it could recently be
demonstrated [54] for A. brad&and A. pinnatijidum that
the assumption of recurrent ( = polytopic) origins of
these allotetraploids explains most satisfactorily. the
observed patterns of variation. It is still not known how
current polytopic ‘speciation’ is in nature; probably it is a
rather common event in the case of allopolyploid taxa
Mangiferin may also be a genome indicator in that
European species group of Asplenia which comprises
diploid A. cuneifolium, A. obovatum and A. onopteris and
allotetraploid A. diantum-nigrwn and A. balearicwn.
Filixic acid-BBB is a characteristic acylphloroghtcinol of
several species of the large genus Dryopteris. Together
with flavaspidic acid it occurs in all members of the Dfilix-
mas aggregate which comprises at least the allotetraploid
D.fllix-mas s str.. its diploid anastors D. abbrtwiata ( = D.
ore&s) and D. caucarica, and the apogamous taxon D.
borreri ( = D. afinis = D. psedomas) [35] with diploid
By hybridization and
and triploid cytodemes.
allopolyploidy D. villarii (2x), D. pallida (2x), D.
submonfuna (4x) and D. tyrrhena (4x) are connected with
the jilix-mas aggregate. Phloroglucinol chemistry agrees
perfectly with these assumptions based on biosystematic
studies. AII taxa mentioned lack aspidin and produa
flavaspidic acid, para-aspidin (D. obbreviuta excepted),
filixic acid (except D. pallida) and desaspidin (D.
abbreviara and D. tyrrhena excepted) Albaspidin seems to
be restricted to the villarii group where it was detected in
all members, and trispara-aspidin seems to be a character
of D. pallida and its allotetraploid derivatives D.
submontana and D. tyrrhena.
Alkaloid chemistry of the genus fopaver is extremely
well known because P. somniferum, the opium poppy,
belongs to it. P. somtu$rum is a polymorphic and
polytypic Mediterranean species cultivated sina anti-
quity for its oil-rich seeds and medicinally valuable latex.
Today a large number of cultivars, agricultural as well as
ornamenta& are known. Many of the cultivars belong to
distinct alkaloidchemodemes [e.g. 551. According to De
Candolle P. somtu@um originated from P. set@nm, a
taxon variously interpreted as a subspecies of P. somni-
fcrwn or as a species of its own which mainly occurs in the
Mediterranean regions of France, Italy, Spain, Algeria
and Tunisia. Karyosystematic and chemotaxonomic
studies and hybridization experiments, however, do not
agree with such a hypothesis. P. somniferwn is diploid (~JI of chemotaxonomic arguments is unexpected he should
= 22) and P. setigerumis allotetraploid (2n = 44) contain-
ing genomes Ss from P. somniferum and UU from a still
l Becauseof its pscudoepigynic Bowers it is also classi6ai in the
separate family Alstrocmckxac.
1531
unknown diploid parental taxon [56]. Morphine and
ferum, wild forms as well as cuhivars, are exclusively
known from this taxon; they are accompanied by the less
restricted and biogenetically related alkaloid thebaineand
by a very large array of other types of benaylisoquinoline
morphine, codeine and thebaine-, but contains appreciable
amounts of papaverine and laudanosine [SS. 573. The
origin of P. somn@um and of its unique character,
understanding of the evolution of P. somnifirnm and its
many forms cannot neglect alkaloid patterns.
CHEMOTAXONOMY AND ECONOMIC AND MEDICAL
BOTANY
Phytochemists and economic botanists are often look-
ing for new sources of important chemical compounds
(examples: cokhicine. quinine, reserpine; digitoxin) or
classes of constituents (examples: tanning materials; corn-
plex indole alkaloids). Generally they will be most success-
ful when they follow the lead of natural classilication
supplemented by phytochemical knowledge, i.e. if they use
the chemotaxonomic approach. There are many
examples; the few given &la, however, to illustrate the
fact that comparative phytochemistry combined with an
adequate plant classilkation is an excellent guide for
chemical exploration of the plant world.
The same is true of prevention and treatment of plant
poisoning of animals and man. If poisoning is caused by a
plant species related to Colchicum autumnale, for instance
by Gloriosa superba from a bunch of flowers or by
Bulbocodium wrnum cultivated in a garden, it will be wise
to suspect colchicine (6, Fig. 4bpoisoning and to act
correspondingly. The same holds for the many types of
plant contact dermatitis. Tuliposide-A and its allergenic
product of hydrolysis, tulipalin-A, not only occur in all
species of the large genus Tulipa, but also in related
liliaceous genera such as Erythronium, Gogea and
Alstroemeria.* Very recently Hausen et al. [S9] reported
that species of Lilium and Allium triquetrum, but not
Asparagus o@cinalis, contain moderate amounts of l-
tuhposide-A. These authors suggested that breeding of the
above-mentioned ornamental liliaceous taxa for high
tuliposide-B and low tuliposide-A content could result in
mildly allergenic cultivars retaining a reasonable disease
resistance (Fig 8).
CONCLUDING PEMAPXS
I hope to have shown that chemotaxonomy has a lot to
offer to phytochemists, pharmacists, economic botanists,
taxonomists and even phyxkians. One rather essential
point has not yet been mentioned. In every instana when
a phytochemist detects a chemical compound or pattern
of chemical compounds in a given species which in virtue
become akrt. Did the material investigated really belong
to the assumed taxon? Could compounds often isolated
only in small amounts during large scale extractions not
originate from one of many possibk impurities? Just a few
examples should exemplify this point. The dimethyl-
PYranocotm=in jatamansin was not isolated from root-
1532 R. H~GNAUER

0-&c

H-C-CN
I

Me0
OH 0
2 3

HO

IO 11 12

Fig 7. Some plant constituents discussed in the text. 1 - Mangiferiq 2 = prunasin and sambunigrin [SS];
3 = troN_asaronc ( = lrans-isoauuonc).4 = Withafcrin-A. main CII-stcroi&l Iactone of chcmodcmc I (Lsracl)of
Mthonia somni/crrr.5 = Filixic acid-BBB, a characteristicphlorogkidc of the Dryopterisjlix-mas L s. Laggregate,
which includes D. 4b&eui414 ( = D. cmades) (2x), D. coucIuic0 (2x), D. &rrmi ( = D. a&is - D. pseudomcas)(2x. 3x)
and D.filix-ma s. str. (4x). 611: some typesof buuyIisoquinoIinc alkaloids (compare Fig. 2 also) of Papace
sumnifwum and their possible biosynthetic reIationsbips;all types exemplifiedby alkaloids isolated from opium, the
dried latex; 6 = laudanosinc; 7 = papavcrine; 8 = scoukrinc; 9 = narcotinc; 10 = thebainq 11 = codeine; 12
= morphine.

stocks of Nardostachys jatamansi (Vak riamcuw), but
from their substitutes, rootstocks of Sdinwn vaginatum
(Umbelliferae), and the taxane-type alkaloid cephalo-
mannine did not come from Cephulotaxus mannii but
from an Indian form of Taxus boccata
I conclude with the suggestion that the amaryllidaceous
alkaloids lycorinc and acetykaranine ascribed to bulbs of
Orginecl altissi~~ (Liliaaae) [60] stemmed from
misidentified amaryllidaccous bulbs, and that some
mistake was made when sitosterol, yuccagenin and
lycorine were isolated from rhizomes of Curculigo
orchioides (Hypoxidaaac) [611.
 Phytochemistry and plaot taxonomy 1533

OH-
CHI
\
H’
glut t HO COOH
+
R
1 3
R CHl

t glut
K 0 0

Fig. 8. The allergenic and antifungal (antibiotic) system of 7idlpa and related liliaceous plants. 1 = Tuliposides-I
(very labikk 2 = tutiposides-6 (stabk); 3 = a-mcthykoe-y-hydroxybutyric rcids; 4 = tulipahns. R - H: A series
(fungitoxic and allergenic activity of compoundsk R - OH: B series (only fuogitoxic activity of compounds). Only 1
and 4 are active.

NOTES AND REFERENCES phannazeutische Biol*ie; in Biogene Arzneisloffe (Czygan,

F.-C., ed.) S. 157-175. Friedr. Viewcg und Sohn,
I. Lincoln, R. J., Boxshall, G. A. and Clark, P. F. (1982) A Braunschwci&
Dictionary ofEcolugy. Ewlulion and Systematics. Cambridge 13. Rothmakr, W. (1955) Al&n&e Taxomnnie und Chorologie
University Press, Cambridge. der PponrCn. 2. Aulf. Wilhelm Gronau, Jena.
2. HeslopHarrison, J. (1953) New Concepts in Flowering-Plant 14. Benson, L (1979) Plant Classi,ka~ian. D. C. Heath,
Taxonomy. William Heinemann. London Lexington. MA.
3. Hutchinson, J. (1969) Ewlution and Phylogeny ofFlowering 15. Cronquist, A. ( 1981)An lntegrared Sysra of Classijkation of
Plants. Academic Ress, London; see preface. Ploueriq Plants. Columbia University Rtss, New York.
4. Davis. P. H. and Heywood, V. H. (reprint l%5) principks o/ 16. Crowson, R. A. (1970)C&ssjficorion Md Biology. Hcinemann
An&sperm Taxonom y. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. Educational Books, London.
5. Benson, L (1962) Plant Taxonam y. Methods and principles. 17. lntemarional Code of Botanical Nommclature. adopted by
The Ronald Ress Company, New York. the 13th Int. Bot. Con- Sydney, August 1981. Rcgmun
6. Ross, H. H. (1974) B&&?gicolSys~emarics. Addison-Wesley, Vegetabile VoL II I. Bohn. Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht
Reading. Sa p. 12 for the taxonomy-systematics discussion. (1983).
7. Jones. S. B. and Luchsinger. A E. (1979) Plant Syst~irr. 18. Besides Plantae and Animalia the regnum of Rokaryota
McGraw-Hill, New York. See p. 2: “Since there is no (- Monera) formed by bacteria and blue-green algae
agreement or etymological basis for the distinction between (Cyaoophyta = Cyanobactcria) and the hcterotrophic
systematics and taxonomy, these two terms are used intcr- regnum of Fungi are accepted in this case.
changeably in this text”. 19. Margulis. L and Schwa- K. V. (1982) Fiw Kingdoms. An
8. Alston. R. E. (1966) Chemouxomxny or Biochemical Illnstrakxi Guide to the Phyla of L&e on Earth W. H.
Sysremarics?; in Comparative Phyk&ends~ry (Swain, T, cd.) Freeman, !5an Franc&o. The 6fth regnum called Rotoctista
pp. 3356. Academic Press, London. comprises all algae except blue-greens, Myxomycota. part of
9. Merxmiillcr. H. (1967) Ber. Dbch. itof. Gea 80. 608. the former Phycomycota and many -plankton organisms.
IO. Hcgnauer, R. (l%2-1973) Chewwtaxonowde der P-en, Plantae are restricted to Cormophyta (Mouq Liverworts
B&I& l-6. Birkhauser, Basel. and Tracbeophyta).
II. Hcgnauer. R. (1986) Chemouxomxnie der Pfinzen, Band 7. 20. Nine family names of long standing and usage remain valid;
Birkhiiuser, Bawl. they may be replaced by alternative names: Compositae
12. Hegnauer, R. (1982) Disviburion and Chrmou_xonumy of (- As-). Cruciferae (- Brassicaaac). Gramineae
Essential Oils; in Cultiwrion and Utilization of homahc (- Po===A Guttiferae (= Clusiaceae~ Labiatae
Plants (Atal, C. K. and Kapur, B. M.. eds) pp. l-23. Regional _Teh
(- Lcguminosae ( = Fabaczae sensu lafo),
Res. Lab., Council Sci. Ind. Res., Jammu-Tawi, India; seealso - ccaceac). Papilionaceae ( = Fabaaae sensu
Hegnauer, R. (1984) Bedevrung da Chemo~axonomiefir die s@icto), Umbdiferae ( = Apiaceae). It is evident that in the
1534 R HEONAUEB
case of Lcguminosac and PapilionaaXe the okkr names arc
prefembk, because they distinguish sharply the two taxa.
21. Takhtajan, A. L (1980) Owlti o/ the Clas#catbn o/
Flowering P&s (Magndiophyta). Bat. Rm. 46,225.
22 Buchheim, G. (1964) in A. En&r’s Sylfabus der
Pjlimz~~Um, 12. Aufl., Band II, S. 133137, Gcbr.
Bomtnuger, Berlin.
23. Tutin, T. G. and Cook, C. D. K. (1964) in Flora Europaea,
Vol 1. pp. 223-238. University Press, Cambridge.
24. Hess, H. E., Landolt, E. and Hirzcl, R. (1970) Flora der
Schwefz. Band z S 89-90. BiikNLuscr, Bn.uL
25. Braun-Blanquct, J. and Robcl, E (1933) f&a van
GraubiMen, 2. Lkferung, S. 562-563, Valag Hans Huber.
Bern.
26. Scoggan, H. J. (1978) m Fkva of Canada, Part 3.
pp. 753754. National Museum of Natural Sciinas
Publication in Botany, No. 7 (3), Ottawa, Canada
27. Stalf of tbc L. H. Baiky Hortorium, Come1 Univ. (1976)
Horws Tldrd--A Concise Dictionary of Plants Ctdtknued in
the tlnited Stares and Conada. M&i&n, New York.
28. Thomc, R F. (1983) Nordic 1. Botany 3,85. The superorder
Annooiaorac of Thomc is much more comprchcnsive than
Takhtajan’s [21] Ranunculanac. Theme’s taxon of this rank
also includes Magnolianac of ref. [Zl], but or&r I1 of
Ranunculanac, !!&uma.niaks [21], is classified in Thcaks
which bdOtl8 to -i-heiflont~ [28-j.
29. Dahl8rcn. R. M. T. (1983) Nordic 1. Batany 3. 119; see also
Dahlgren, R. M. T. (1980) Bar. J. LINL Sac. gO,91.
30. ltuematlonal Code of Namenclatnre of CuMoafed Plants
(1969) (Gihour J. S L. et af., als), Jkgmun VegeZde,
VoL64, pubL by the Bureau of IAPT. Utrccht Last edition
1980 not seen by me.
31. Damboldt, J. (1974) Ranuncul~~,S. 232-317 in Htsi: Plaza
LXM Mllteleurom 2. AtIn.. B8nd III/$ Carl Hanser,
Mih&Xt.
32. Ovczinnikov (Ovchinnikov). P. N. (1937) Cerotoccpholu~,
Oxygraphk, Hakrpestes, Fkmh and Rannn&u; in Flora of
the U.SS.R. (Komarov, V. L, cd.) VoL VII, Ran& und
Rhoeadaks, Izdatel’stov Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moskva-
Leningrad; Engl. translation by Z Blake, Israel Program for
scientific translations, Jcmsakm, 1970.
33. Krazctowia (Krechctovich), V. I. (1937) Earrachfum,
pp. 260-271 in ref. [32].
34. The needless annoyance of nanx changing is humorously
dixussai by R. J. Charuxllor from the Wad Research
Organization, Oxford, in Ncwsktter Aas. AppL Biologists;
Reprinted in B. S. B. L News Dee 1985 No. 38, p. 29. He
discerns four types of name change: % rec@rocaringtype,
thepgre.utw type,he UncleTomCobbkigh et aL oariatkm
and the Musti Chairs lype which is illusuatcd by a diagram
a&d “the Dana of the fiywccds” which among other
specia includm the medicinally very important Mafricaria
Chcaomillfl.
35. P. 46 of BSBI Abstracts, part 15, July 1985 reports ‘New”
Nmnes in he Flora of r/w B&i& Is&s.pnrticukrly I should
like to draw attention to the w of Alstromvrh aurea
Graham replacing A. aura&uca D. Don, SUmpaecvVri
(L) Grcuta et Burdet replacing L-m L and the
ever namechanging fern Dryoptcrt borreri and its wiants;
the two names mentioned, D. @nis subsp. bofreri var.
r&a (Oberhobzr et Tavel ex Fraser-Jenkins) Fraser-
Jenkins et salvo, stat. nov. (1984) and D. psvdomcu subsp.
robwtu (Fraser-Jatkins) Holub (1984), represent the same
taxon Another example of a nomcnclatuml punle is sup.
pliai by Amaracu~ and Ma@a= It is rather Minting
that several raxnt spa& of Amaroc~ had their DBm*I
chal&@ between 1975and 1980.Tbc point is that the gmcnl
Amarac~~ and Majarana arc retained by some taxonomists
(e.g Briquc& 1897; Wundalkh, 1967; Brullo and Fumari,
1979),but are included in Or&man by others (e.g. Ictswaa&
1980). The result is that the much appreciated spice mar-
joram btars the names Mqiarana hortmdr (also Meana
mtw) and Or@num wormsa (and many others), and that
or@anlml dJdornur Ietswaart et Boulos (1975) becuIu
Amaracus akhdarense (Ietswaart et Bouloa) Brullo et Fumari
in 1979 [this name is used by Piozzi et al. (1985) in
Phyruchem&cry 24, I I131, and that Amaracw pcrmponlnfl
Brullo et Fumari (1979) became Origamim pcmponhu
(Bmllo et Fumari) Ietswaart in 1980. It is also tatha
ridiculous that a statement like Pimcnow’s [Taxon 34,274
(1985)] is neassaq; when commcntiug on Him& moocr
typic genus ~anscaucaska (UmbcUifcrae&nkuloidac) he
wrote: ‘I believe it is nazasary to know at least the getters of
the family being studied when dwxibii new ones. e+&lly
from a region littk known to the deacribcr”.
36. Mckhior, H. (Hcrausgebcr) (1964) A. Englrr’s Syllabus der
PpcuuCffcail@ 12. Au!& Band II, Gcbr. Bomtr&gcr,Berlin.
37. Hegnaucr, R. (1969) Chemkal Evidence for Ihe Cl&&u&n
of Some Plant Togo; in Perspec&es in Phytuchemistry
(Harbomc, J. B. and Swain, T., cds) pp. 121-138 Academic
Rcss, London; see also Hqnaucr, R. (1983) Chendcal
CharactersMd theClass@cation of Ihe Rutuieq in Chmisny
andChemicalT axonany of he Rum&s (Wow P. 0. and
Gmndon, M. F., ais) pp. 401-44Q Acadcmk Press, London.
38. Cronquist, A (1980) Chemistry in Planf Taxmomy: An
Asmsmenf of Mere We St&, in Chenmystematics:
Principles and Practke (Biiby, F. A., et al_ cds) pp. l-27.
Academic Press, London.
39. Harbomc, J. B. and Turner, B. L (1984) Planf Cti
systensarkx M Press+Loodon.
40. DC Candollc, A. P. (1816) Essai SW la propriMs mkdicales
des pIantes comparCa rawc lews faws extbknres et lew
cl@3cation nazurelle, 2nd odn, rcvuc et augment&, Cha
Crochard, Paris; lirst cdn 1804.
41. Rochkder, F. (1854) P/~yrochemie, Vcrlag Wilbetm
Engelmann, Leipzig with Uekr den ZB zwis-
then dm Fona urmiZwommnvtzung der G&Mu, chap. 3,
s. 257-308.
42 Greshoff, M. (1893) Gedanken &er Ppontenkr@e umf
phytochemische Venvandtsch& Ber. Deursck Phonn Gu. 3,
191; see also ncaologue and bibliography, ibid. 20, 159
(1910), and Gresltoff (1909) Phyzochendcol lnoestigatfow at
Kew, Bull. Misc. lnformolion, Roy. Bot. Ganf. Kew 397; with
on p. 424 announcement of his death at the early age of 47.
43. For rcfemuxs see, e.g. Hcgnaucr, R. (19%) Phytochemie und
SysfemarUc Elne Rk%md Vawus&au mcf die Entwickhmg
einer Chemoraxonomie, Phann Acta Heb. 33, 287. and
bibliographic chapter B7, Clumolaumak, S 198-205, in
ref. [ll]. and Gibh R. D. (1963) History of Chrmicol
Taxomnnx in Chemical Plant Taxonom Y (Swain, f., cd.1
pp. 41-88. Academic Press, London.
44. Gilmour, J. S. L and HalopHarrison, J. (1954) Gene&a 27,
147;sccalsoGilmour.J.S LandGngor, J. W. (1939) Nature
144,333; and pp. 29 and 105 of ref. [Z].
45. Plant Varbtion amd
Briggs, D. and Walters. S. M. ( 1!369,1984)
Ecalwion, 1st and 2nd ains. University pras,Cambridge;scc
2nd cdn, p. X11.
46. Several iridoid glycosida isolated from Srlgmatophylla,
sagittaruinand S. con~lmrl(fdfum. but no1 detected in kavu
and bark of S. splmkry D. Sainty et ol. (1981) 1. Nor. Prod.
(&&a) 44,576; E Dpvioud et rrL(1985) Plant0 Med. 51.78.
47. In defensive saxetions of Orthoptera (AM* bupre-
 Phytochcmistry and plant taxonomy
sto&fes~ofimagines (Ccrambycidac, Staphylinidac) or larvae
(certain Chrysomchdac) of mcmbcrs of scvcral families of
Cokoptcra, and of ants of the subfamily Dolichoderinac.
48. Fulvophuukrin from Nerfra oJbicilla
49. Taylor, W. C. (1985) Eupowda Alkaloids: 177~Alkaloids 24,
l-23.
50. Amonkar, A A. et al. (1985) Phytockmirtry 24. 1803;
1Idcoxocucurbitacin-I.
51. A rcccnt cxampk are potato kavcs cv. stdina; fresh kavcs
yicidcd trwze amounts of cssmtial oil with 27 % linalool; the
greater part of linalool is prcscnt as /J-ghrcoside in fresh
kava: Mocde, J. (1985) Phu Med. 51,312.
52. Kirson, 1. ei al. (1970) Terrahedrm~ 26, 2209; Abraham, A.
ei al. (1968,1975) Pkyrochrmisfry 7.957; 14.189; Eastwood.
F. W. et al. ( 1980)Php&emistry 19,1503; Van de Vekk, V.
ana lavic, D. (1982) Phym&emistry 21, 731; and references
given in these papers.
53. Hart, N. K. et al. (1976) Aust. 1. Chem 29,655; and references
given hcrc.
54. Wcrth, Ch. R., Guttman, S. I. and Eshbaugh, W. H. (1985)
%encc 22g 731.
55. Nyman, U. and Hansson, B. (1978) Hereditas g& 17. In this
paper the obsolete name noscapine ( - noacopioc) should bc
rcpkccd by narcotine.
56. Malik, C. P., Mary, T. N. and Grover, I. S (1979) Cyrokgiu
44. 59.
57. La Vulva, V.. Sabato. S. and Gigbano. G. S. (1985) Taxon 34,
191.
58. The phydroxyderivativcs, taxiphylhn and dhunin, occur in
many monocots and polycarps. Dhunin-producing
Rrmunculru rqens (Table 3)and R. montanus s.1 (Table 4) are
additional cxampks of chemical polymorphism and poly-
1535
typism
infacultativcly cyanogcnk taxa; acyanogcnic, weakly
cyanogcnic and strongly cyanogcnic plants occur in many
populations (personal observations in Switxcrland and the
Ncthnkndsk Rcguk Dickcmann [Rer. G&. Inst. ETH,
Stiftung Rebel, 49.5675 (1982)] showed by a study of 1004
iodividuak of the microspecies R. gmkrianus (a ~JI = 16)
and R. moutanw s. str. (4x; 2n = 32) that in the Davos region
cyanogcnk genotypes arc much more fraptent in usually
cakiphilous R. mm~anus (24.8%) than in R. grenkriunus
(7.8%) which is restricted to acidic silicate so& and that
strong cyanogcncsis does practically only occur on carbonate
sob (15.8 versus 0.9% of respective samples tated). In this
instance cdaphic factors might be involved in sckction for
cyanogcnais in an alpine habitat.
59. Hauscn, B. M., Rata. E and Schubert, H. (1983) Contact
Dennaritis 9,46.
60. Miyakadq M, Kate, T., Ohno, N. and Koshimixu, K. (1975)
Phyzuc~rry 14, 2717.
61. Krishna Rae, R V., Naxir Ah and Rcddy, M. N. (1978) Indian
J. Phann Sci 40, 104.
Suggesrions for regular consultation
Jeffrcy. ch (1977) Biological Ncmenckature, 2nd cdn. Edward
Arnold, London.
Farr, E R, Lcussink, J. A. and Statley F. A. (1979) Index
nominum genwicorum, 3 volumes, Regnum Vegembik,
vols 100-102 pub1 by Bohn, Schcltcma & Holkema, Utrccht
and dr. W. Junk b. v.. Publishers, The Hague.
Willis, J. C. (1973) A Dictioturyofthr Fbwerhg Plants and Feu,
8th cdn revisal by H. K. Airy Shaw. University Press,
Cambridge.