%0 Journal Article
%T 中国龙胆科一新属——扁蕾属
%A 马毓泉
%J 中国科学院研究生院学报
%D 1951
%I 
%X Gentiana was originally proposed by Tournefort in 1700. Linnaeus adopted this generic name in his “Genera Plantarum” published in 1737. He divided the genus into seven groups on the basis of different shapes of corolla and forms of floral appendages. In his “Species Plantarum” he reorganized them into three artificial ones.  Forty years later, Moench established a new genus, Gentianella under which he described G. tetrandra as the type of his new genus.  In the view of identity of Gentianella tetrandra with Gentiana campestris L., it is evident that Gentianella represents only some plants formerly included in Gentiana at Linnaeus time.  In 1796, Froelich’s monograph on Gentiana appeared.  In his work four sections were represented and one of them was Crossopetalum.  In 1845, Grisebach also published a monograph of  Gentianaceae and recorded fifteen sections of which Amarella and Imaicola are two of his seven proposed ones. In 1888, Huxley studied the floral structure of Gentianaceae  in relation with pollination mechanism and, accordingly, divided the family into two  main groups, one with epipetalous glands, the other with glands at the base of the ovary.  In each group, four types of flowers were found.  He concluded that Gentiana was a  complex genus on account of presence of four different types of flowers in this group,  and suggested that many species of the genus should be separated out to form some smaller  generic categories.  Six years after, Kusnezow in his monograph divided Gentiana into  two subgenera Eugentiana and Gentianella.  In his system, subgenus Eugentiana consists  of ten sections and the Gentianella, seven.  He contributed much to the systematic  treatment of Eugnetiana but little to that of Gentianella.  He maintained the genus  Gentiana in a broad sense.  With increased knowledge of this group in the last thirty years, a number of botanists were able to make a clearer delimitation of true Gentiana  and its allies and treated them in more natural way.  Moench’s genus Gentianella was  rerised.  In 1936, H. Smith separated Megacodon from Gentianella as a genus.  In the  present paper, the writer suggests a generic name Gentianopsis for the section Crossopetalum in the same Genus. This new genus is characterized by (1) its large and somewhat flattened ellipsoidal   flower bud, (2) two dissimilar pairs of calyx lobes which are distichously imbricate in  aestivation, (3) four triangular, ciflated intracalyx membranes at the base of and  alternate with the calyx lobes, (4) distinct gynophore and (5) enlarged stigma. While  in typical Gentianella represented by section Amarella, the flower buds are small and terete, a laciniate corona is usually present, and the calyx-lobes are leafy, lanceolate, imbricate, and not provided with intracalyx membrane.       Besides the morphological characters mentioned above, the anatomical structure of  the floral parts is also a significant generic criterion.  In Gentianopsis, eight vascular  bu
%U http://www.alljournals.cn/get_abstract_url.aspx?pcid=B5EDD921F3D863E289B22F36E70174A7007B5F5E43D63598017D41BB67247657&cid=B47B31F6349F979B&jid=67CDFDECD959936E166E0F72DE972847&aid=1BE4019783FECC57A9EC118FFC503849&yid=3B99442D3C631650&vid=CA4FD0336C81A37A&iid=CA4FD0336C81A37A&sid=94C357A881DFC066&eid=2A8D03AD8076A2E3&journal_id=1002-1175&journal_name=中国科学院研究生院学报&referenced_num=0&reference_num=0