II. Phylogenetic analysis. 
Preliminaries. 
Current classifications of the Lauraecae still maintain genera solely on the basis of 
particular combinations of characters despite their suspected polyphyletic condition (Burger, 
1988; Rohwer et al., 1991; van der Werff, 1991a). This approach, although it allows a workable 
system of classification, prevents the recognition (for most of the cases) of phylogenetic 
relationships among the taxa. 
Nees' (1836) monographic work defined the features on which taxonomists would later 
base their judgements for subdivision of the family. On page 18 of his Systema Laurinarum, 
Nees (1836) lists those characters that are important (in his point of view) for the classification of 
the Lauraceae. Notable among them are: number of sporangia in anthers, hypanthium covering or 
not covering the fruit, persistence of tepals in fruit, flower merosity, and type of inflorescence. It 
is interesting to note that although Nees often discussed (1836: 2, 10; in "Character Naturalis" 
and "Adversaria in Laurinarum Dispositionem" sections) and used (1836: 19-28; in "Affinitates 
Generum Laurinarum Naturales" section) the presence and extent of differentiation of staminodia 
of fourth whorl, and the extrorse condition of anthers in the third whorl to group species and 
genera in tribes, he did not list these characters as among the important ones for the subdivision 
of the family into natural groups. 
Agreement on which of those characters used by Nees are the most inclusive and critical 
for elucidating evolutionary relationships within the Lauraceae has varied through time. Thus, to 
split the family into major groups, Meissner (1864) considered, after life form, inflorescence 
architecture as one of the most meaningful characters. This was a point of view with which 
215 
