Comparative Micro-Morphology, Anatomy and Architecture of Leaf of Physalis

Two species of Physalis, P.angulataL. and P.
peruviana L. were used as models for comparative study to
understand the values of micro-morphological, -anatomical and
architectural characteristics of leaf for taxonomic purposes and
possibly breeding and commercial applications. Both speciespossess
amphistomaticleaves with 1-layer epidermis, 3-4-layer spongy
mesophyll andbicollateral bundle midrib. Palisade parenchyma cells
of P. angulatawere almost twice longer (65-75 μm) than the other
one. Type of stomata was similar as anomocyticbut stomatal
index(SI) at adaxial surface and abaxial surface of P. angulata were
less than of P. peruvianaas 3.57, 4.00 and6.25, 6.66 respectively.
Some leaf architectural characteristics such as leaf shape, order of
venationalsoprovided information of taxonomic significance





References:
<p>[1] Z.-Y. Zang, A.-M. Lu,&ldquo;A Comparative study of Physalis, Capsicum and
Tubocapsicum; Three Genera of Solanaceae.&rdquo; In M. Nee, D.E. Symon,
R.N. Lester, and J.P. Jessop, Eds. SolanaceaeIV, Kent, WhitsableLitho
Ltd., pp. 81-96, 1999.
[2] R. W. Strain, &ldquo;A study of vein ending in leaves.&rdquo;An. Midland
Naturalist.vol.14, pp. 367-375, 1933.
[3] R. Gupta, &ldquo;Correlation of tissues in leaves. I, Absolute veinlet numbers
and absolute veinlet termination number.&rdquo; Ann. Bot.vol. 25, pp. 65-70,
1961.
[4] L. J. Hickey, &ldquo;Classification of the architecture of dicotyledonous
leaves.&rdquo; Amer.J. Bot., vol. 60, pp. 17-33, 1973.
[5] L. J. Hickey and J. A. Wolfe, &ldquo; The bases of angiosperm phylogeny,
Vegetative morphology.&rdquo; Ann. Misso. Gard., vol. 62, pp. 538-589,
1973.
[6] J. A. Inamdar and G. S. R. Murthy, &ldquo;Leaf architecture in some
Solanaceae.&rdquo; Flora, vol. 167, pp. 2, 1978.
[7] C. E. B. De Rojasand S. M. Ferrarotto, &ldquo;Morphology of Foliar epidermis
in two groups of Solanumsection Geminata (Solanaceae)&rdquo;Caldasia, vol.
31(1), pp. 31-40, 2009.
[8] M. H. A. Loutfy, E. A. K. Karakish, S. F. Khalifa, and E. R. A. Mira,
&ldquo;Numerical Taxonomic Evaluation of Leaf Architecture of Some
Species of Genus Ficus L.&rdquo; Int. J. Agri. Biol., vol. 7 (3), pp.352-357,
2005.
[9] E. J. Salisbury, &ldquo; On the causes and ecological significance of stomatal
frequency, with special reference to the woodland flora.&rdquo; Phil. Trans.
Roy. Soc. London, vol. 216, pp. 1-65, 1927.
[10] D. A. Johansen,Plant microtechnique, New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1940.
[11] Leaf Architecture Working Group, (A. Ash, B. Ellis, L. J. Hickey, K. R.
Johnson, P. Wilf, and S. L. Wing),Manual of Leaf Architecturemorphological
description and categorization of dicotyledonous and
net-veined monocotyledonous angiosperms,Washington, DC,
Department of Paleobiology Smithsonian Institution,1999.
[12] R. W. Korn, &ldquo;Concerning the sinuous shape of leaf epidermal
cells.&rdquo;Journal New Phytol., vol.77, pp. 153-161, 1976.
[13] R. Korn, &ldquo;The three-dimensional shape of plant cells and its relationship
to pattern of tissue growth.&rdquo;New Phytol., vol.73, p. 927, 1974.
[14] P. D. Sethi and B. Kannabiran, &ldquo;Phamacognostic study on four Indian
Physalis.&rdquo; J. Res Indian Med., vol. 10(4), pp. 152, 1975.
[15] S. Sandhya, S. A. H. Jaffery, and K. R. Vinod,&ldquo;Pharmacognostical
studies on the leaf and root of Physalisangulata L.,&rdquo; IJPRD, vol.2(1),pp.
1&ndash;8,2010.</p>