Interpretative floral morphology of the Cyperaceae on the basis of the anthoid concept

A re-consideration of the phylogenetic origin of the functional reproductive units of the Cyperaceae on the basis of the anthoid concept reveals that at one time or another a macroblastic preanthoid of the Scirpodendron type originated from some (perhaps pro-pandanoid?) progenitorial taxon. Brachyblasty and oligomerisation, frequently followed by a sometimes complete depauperisation of the sterile meromonandrial members of the floral region, resulted in the modification of this archetype into the predominantly ambisexual anthoids of the scirpoid type (in the subfamily of the Scirpoideae = Cyperoideae), and into the almost invariably unisexual and (especially in the female sex) often extremely oligomerised anthoids of the Caricoideae (= Kobresioideae). Previous neological interpretations by Holttum, Kern and others, although sometimes essentially correct in many respects, were very much confused owing to connotations and notions emanating from the classical floral doctrines such as the postulation of a pseudanthial (synanthial) nature of some manifestly pluriaxial structures conventionally regarded as “flowers”. The ensuing inconsistencies in nomenclature render the anthomorphological relations rather obscure; what is called a “flower” in one genus is referred to by the name of “inflorescence” (“spikelet”) in another one, although the two are in fact homologous entities. The scirpoid assembly differs from the caricoid taxa in the more or less imperfect radial symmetry of the anthoids if tepals (or vestigial tepals in the form of scales or bristles) were retained, whereas the unisexual anthoids of the latter group do not show such a tendency. The fundamental equivalence of the bisexual scirpoid anthoid and the unisexual (and often depauperated) caricoid anthoid permits the evaluation of the nature of the florescences. The ultimate ramifications of the reproductive region (if not the whole inflorescence) must be indeterminate (although sometimes considered determinate on account of a pseudo-terminal pistil passing by the name of “female flower”), so that the incidence of both “cymose” and “racemose” part-inflorescences in the Scirpoideae as reported by some workers is, therefore, highly improbable. The possible phylogenetic significance of the archetypic procyperaceous reproductive region is discussed.