370 INTRODUCTION TO EMBRYOLOGY OF ANGIOSPERMS 



delinae and Anthericinae may not be placed even under a common 

 tribe but ought each to be given the status of an independent tribe. 

 In support of this view is cited the work of Bouvier (1915), who 

 reports several anatomical differences also between the Asphodelinae 

 and Anthericinae. 



Fig. 202. Diagram showing comparison of the more important embryological 

 features of Asphodelinae and Aloineae (A-F) with those of Anthericinae (G—L). 

 A, Asphodelinae- Aloineae; simultaneous division of microspore mother cell. B, 

 nucellus, showing megaspore mother cell and parietal cell. C, tetrad of megaspores. 

 D, mature embryo sac. E, embryo sac, showing Helobial endosperm. F, l.s. 

 ovule, showing aril. G, Anthericinae; successive division of microspore mother 

 cell. H, nucellus, showing megaspore mother cell and parietal cell. /, tetrad of 

 megaspores. J, mature embryo sac, showing lateral haustorium. K, embryo sac, 

 showing Helobial endosperm. L, l.s. ovule; note absence of aril. (After Schnarf, 

 1944-) 



On the other hand, embryology indicates such a close alliance 

 between the Asphodelinae (Asphodelus, Asphodeline, Eremurus, 

 Bulbine, Bulbinella, Bulbinopsis, and Alectorurus) and the Aloineae 

 (Haworthia, Gasteria, Aloe, Kniphofia, Apicra, and Lomatophyllum) 

 that both of them may well be united into the same subfamily or 

 tribe (Schnarf, 1944). The following characters are common to 



