# How (much) do flowers vary? Unbalanced disparity among flower functional modules and a mosaic pattern of morphospace occupation in the order Ericales

Marion Chartier, Stefan Löfstrand, Maria von Balthazar, Sylvain Gerber, Florian Jabbour, Hervé Sauquet, Jürg Schönenberger

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Marion Chartier, Stefan Löfstrand, Maria von Balthazar, Sylvain Gerber, Florian Jabbour, et al. How (much) do flowers vary? Unbalanced disparity among flower functional modules and a mosaic pattern of morphospace occupation in the order Ericales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2017, 284 (1852), pp.20170066. 10.1098/rspb.2017.0066. hal-03891419

HAL Id: hal-03891419

https://hal.science/hal-03891419v1

Submitted on 3 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
PROCEEDINGS B

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org

Research

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

**Cite this article:** Chartier M, Löfstrand S, von Balthazar M, Gerber S, Jabbour F, Sauquet H, Schönenberger J. 2017 How (much) do flowers vary? Unbalanced disparity among flower functional modules and a mosaic pattern of morphospace occupation in the order Ericales.

*Proc. R. Soc. B* **284**: 20170066.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0066

Received: 11 January 2017

Accepted: 3 March 2017

**Subject Category:**

Evolution

**Subject Areas:**

evolution, plant science

**Keywords:**

disparity, Ericales, flower morphology, fossils,
functional modules, morphospace

**Authors for correspondence:**

Marion Chartier

e-mail: chartier.marion@gmail.com

Jürg Schönenberger

e-mail: juerg.schoenenberger@univie.ac.at

Electronic supplementary material is available
online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.fig-
share.c.3717514.

THE ROYAL SOCIETY
PUBLISHING

# How (much) do flowers vary? Unbalanced disparity among flower functional modules and a mosaic pattern of morphospace occupation in the order Ericales

Marion Chartier<fnref n="1" />, Stefan Löfstrand<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Maria von Balthazar<fnref n="1" />, Sylvain Gerber<fnref n="3" />, Florian Jabbour<fnref n="3" />, Hervé Sauquet<fnref n="4" /> and Jürg Schönenberger<fnref n="1" />

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

MC, 0000-0001-6757-4760

The staggering diversity of angiosperms and their flowers has fascinated scientists for centuries. However, the quantitative distribution of floral morphological diversity (disparity) among lineages and the relative contribution of functional modules (perianth, androecium and gynoecium) to total floral disparity have rarely been addressed. Focusing on a major angiosperm order (Ericales), we compiled a dataset of 37 floral traits scored for 381 extant species and nine fossils. We conducted morphospace analyses to explore phylogenetic, temporal and functional patterns of disparity. We found that the floral morphospace is organized as a continuous cloud in which most clades occupy distinct regions in a mosaic pattern, that disparity increases with clade size rather than age, and that fossils fall in a narrow portion of the space. Surprisingly, our study also revealed that among functional modules, it is the androecium that contributes most to total floral disparity in Ericales. We discuss our findings in the light of clade history, selective regimes as well as developmental and functional constraints acting on the evolution of the flower and thereby demonstrate that quantitative analyses such as the ones used here are a powerful tool to gain novel insights into the evolution and diversity of flowers.

## 1. Introduction

Angiosperm evolution has given rise to an overwhelming diversity of floral morphologies adapted to pollination by a multitude of different vectors. This diversity is mirrored in the high variability of breeding systems and reproductive strategies across angiosperms. Hence, it is hypothesized that floral form and function have important effects on diversification [1-4]. There is an extensive body of literature on floral morphology, pertaining both to extant and extinct taxa [5-11]. However, the distribution of flower morphological diversity across major subclades, let alone across the angiosperms as a whole, has rarely been addressed using an explicitly analytical and synthetic approach [12,13]. Such broad-scale analyses of disparity (morphological diversity) have so far been largely restricted to animal groups [14-17].

Morphospace analyses are used to study macro-evolutionary patterns and trends in disparity within and among clades. While disparity analyses are traditionally conducted on large numbers of traits capturing the overall morphology of

© 2017 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original
author and source are credited.

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité, UMR 7205 ISYEB MNHN/CNRS/UPMC/EPHE, 57 rue Cuvier, CP 39, 75005 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Laboratoire Écologie, Systématique, Évolution, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS UMR 8079, 91405 Orsay, France</footnote>
particular organisms [18–21], some studies have focused on sets of traits of specific functional, developmental or evolutionary significance (e.g. the morphology of animal jaws in relation to feeding behaviour [22–24]). This latter approach also allows us to account for the fact that different traits might evolve with different modes and rates [25] and at different times in the history of clades [26]. Under the assumption that traits/subsets of traits involved in different functions are subject to different evolutionary constraints and selective regimes, one might expect these traits to show different levels of disparity. Studies on significant subsets of organs are thus necessary to clearly characterize the different drivers and causes underlying the disparity exhibited by a clade; such studies provide an alternative and complementary approach to traditional comparative structural analyses.

Most flowers are composed of three main functional modules. From the periphery to the centre, a flower usually comprises one or two sets of sterile organs (perianth), a set of male reproductive organs (androecium) and a set of female reproductive organs (gynoecium; electronic supplementary material, figure S1). In the perianth, sepals commonly protect younger organs during pre-anthetic stages, while petals mainly attract and guide pollinators at anthesis [27]. The function of the androecium is pollen production and presentation, and, more rarely, pollinator attraction. Finally, the main functions of the gynoecium are ovule production, pollen reception and sustenance of pollen tube growth, as well as seed protection and dissemination. The organization and development of these three functional modules are not only the basis of traditional, taxonomic descriptions and comparative analyses of floral structure, but are also the target of modern, molecular developmental (evo-devo) models of floral evolution and development such as the ABCE-model [28,29]. Recent research has also focused on the synorganization of functional units in flowers [11,30,31]. However, the allocation of morphological variation among these three floral components has never been quantified. Here, we tested whether disparity in the flower as a whole is equally reflected in the three functional modules, or whether, by contrast, one part of the flower varies more than the others. At the scale of an entire plant order, where organs can be compared at the organizational and functional level, we expected the perianth to show low variability, owing to the simple structure of petals and sepals. On the other hand, the gynoecium is a very complex structure, achieving numerous functions throughout the flower's life [7,32], and we expected it to show high variability when compared with the rest of the flower.

We addressed these issues in the Erikales, a speciose order of angiosperms nested in the asterid clade of core eudicots. Erikales diverged from their sister group in the Early Cretaceous, ca 112 million years ago [33] and encompass 22 families (APG IV [34]; figure 1a), 346 genera, and approximately 11 550 species [41] displaying considerable ecological diversity [42]. In many tropical rainforests, ericalean taxa account for up to 10% of the total tree species diversity [43]. The order includes species of great economic importance, such as tea (Theaceae), kiwi (Actinidiaceae), persimmon and ebony (Ebenaceae), Brazil nuts (Lecythidaceae), sapote (Sapotaceae, Ebenaceae) and a variety of ornamental species such as heather and rhododendrons (Ericaceae), and primroses (Primulaceae). Erikales have a worldwide distribution and a considerable diversity in habit, general morphology, method of nutrient uptake, and in particular, floral morphology [42,44]. This diversity is also reflected by the fact that the

identification of non-molecular synapomorphies for the order as a whole has been proven difficult, while detailed comparative studies of floral structure have identified series of potential synapomorphies for various suprafamilial clades [45–47]. Importantly, Erikales also have a comparatively rich fossil record with a series of charcoalified flower fossils from the Late Cretaceous, the geologic period during which the angiosperms began to dominate most terrestrial ecosystems [36,38,40]. As the charcoalification process preserves the three-dimensional shape of floral fossils and only leads to moderate alterations at the morphological level (e.g. shrinkage [48]), most of these fossil flowers are extremely well preserved and can be compared directly with their extant relatives [8,48].

For this study, we compiled an extensive dataset of extant and fossil ericalean species and built a floral morphospace based on 37 traits capturing the morphology of their flowers. Our first goal was to quantify patterns of morphospace occupation within and among ericalean families and suprafamilial clades. We tested the hypothesis (i) that various suprafamilial clades do not overlap or only overlap partly in the floral morphospace. This hypothesis derives from the fact that several clades such as, for instance, the ericoid and the primuloid clade, were not considered to be closely related in pre-molecular, largely morphology-based classifications (e.g. [49]), suggesting divergent floral morphologies. At the same time, we hypothesized (ii) that families that are supported as closely related based on comparative floral structure (such as the balsaminoid families or the polemonioid families), will occupy overlapping areas in the morphospace due to their relatively recent common ancestry. We then used our dataset to investigate (iii) whether floral disparity is coupled with clade age and/or species richness. Furthermore, we placed several Cretaceous ericalean fossils in the floral morphospace of extant taxa. Based on their old age and the fact that most of these fossils have been referred to different ericalean lineages, we hypothesized (iv) that they fall in different areas of the total floral morphospace of Erikales. Finally, we compared the disparity of the sterile, male and female parts of the flower, to test the hypothesis (v) that levels of disparity differ according to the biological or ecological function of organ modules, reflecting different evolutionary constraints and selective regimes.

## 2. Material and methods

### (a) Taxon sampling

We sampled 381 species belonging to 275 genera (accepted in [50]). For each family, we sampled at least one species per genus, to ensure that our sample is representative of the families' floral morphological diversity. When there were less than 10 genera in a family (that was the case for 14 families, see electronic supplementary material, figure S2), we sampled at least 10 species whenever possible (electronic supplementary material, figure S2). For the families Ericaceae (126 genera), Primulaceae (68 genera) and Sapotaceae (60 genera), we sampled at least 50 genera, taking care to cover all major clades identified in phylogenetic/taxonomic studies (e.g. [51–53]).

### (b) Character set and character coding

We used original species descriptions or, when available, recent taxonomic revisions, online floras, and other scientific literature, as well as personal observations from living and alcohol collections
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** The floral morphospace of Ericales. (a) Phylogenetic relationships among ericalean families; dated tree modified from [33], keeping only nodes (with crown ages given in Ma) that are supported in [35]. Pictures of six of the fossil genera included in the analyses: *a Raritaniflora*, *b Paleoenkianthus*, *c Glandulocalyx*, *d Parasaurauia*, *e Paradinandra* and *f Pentapetalum*. Assigned positions (according to original papers) of the fossils are highlighted in (a) by superscript letters on the family names. *g* Proposed positions of *Actinocalyx* (picture not shown). (b) Disparity. In blue: mean pairwise dissimilarity; in orange: maximum pairwise dissimilarity (range) rarefied to 10; in black: number of species according to [34]. Error bars are bootstrapped s.e. (c) Morphospace representation using principal coordinate analysis. Each graph corresponds to the two-dimensional representation of the space. Black dots: species of highlighted major suprafamilial clades or families; grey dots: all remaining ericalean species. (d) Illustration of floral diversity in Ericales: from top to bottom: *Satyria* sp.* (Ericaceae), *Sarracenia* flava (Sarraceniaceae), *Syplocos* pendula (Syplocaceae), *Schima* superba (Theaceae), *Anneslea* fragrans** (Pentaphylacaceae), *Primula* officinalis* (Primulaceae), *Cantua* quercifolia (Polemoniaceae), *Couroupita* guianensis* (Lecythidaceae), *Impatiens* paucidentata (Balsaminaceae), *Mitrastemon* matudae*** (Mitrastemonaceae). (e) Position of the nine fossil species (black dots) in the morphospace (grey dots). Fossil pictures: a republished with permission of The University of Chicago Press from [36]; b, e and f republished with permission of the Botanical Society of America from [37–39]; c republished with permission of Oxford University Press from [40], permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.; d by P. Herendeen. Photos by *A. Weissenhofer*; **T. Rodd; ***D. Breedlove, included with the authorization of D. L. Nickrent. (Online version in colour.)</figcaption></figure>

of the Botanical Garden of the University of Vienna. We scored 37 floral characters describing: general features (e.g. flower size; five characters), the perianth (12 characters), the androecium (13 characters) and the gynoecium (six characters) of the anthetic flower. These characters were chosen for their capacity to characterize the number and position of organs, organ union (organs of the same type), organ fusion (organs of different types) and organ form (for staminodes). Using taxonomic keys as our primary source, we selected all the characters that described the flower and that were applicable throughout the whole order of Ericales.

For species producing unisexual flowers, characters of androecium and gynoecium organs were only scored for

functional organs and not for sterile organs, such as staminodes and pistillodes.

Some characters, such as organ number and size, were frequently described as polymorphic in the literature. As the frequencies of these variations were rarely detailed, we choose to code the most common state, when it was documented. For instance, ‘(4-) 5 (-6) petals’ in a description was coded ‘5’ in our dataset. The remaining polymorphic characters (e.g. ‘4–6 petals’) were coded as such, which represents 274 data entries (2.2% of all data entries; electronic supplementary material, table S2). As most of our analyses do not support polymorphisms, we randomly sampled a matrix (for each analysis), in which each of the
polymorphic cells was replaced by a value comprised of the cell range (for numerical discrete data) or by one of the possible states (for binary and categorical data). Given the low amount of polymorphic data entries, this matrix sampling had no effect on the statistics calculated nor on data visualization (data not shown).

Data were entered and are stored in the online database PRO-TEUS [54]. Each data entry, user name, source and putative notes are available in electronic supplementary material, table S2. The detailed description of the characters and character states is given in the electronic supplementary material.

### (c) Dissimilarity matrix

All our analyses were performed using the software R v. 3.0.0 [55]. Scripts are available upon request from M. Chartier and S. Gerber.

We calculated pairwise dissimilarities between taxa using the mean character difference (here noted D) [56]. Let us have two taxa A and B described by N morphological characters. For a character i, the difference $d_{ABi}$ between A and B was calculated in different ways depending on the type of character:

- for numerical characters, $d_{ABi}$ was calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the values of the character for A and B, divided by the range of the character in the dataset;

- for ordered categorical characters, $d_{ABi}$ was calculated as the number of steps between the values of the character for A and B, divided by the maximum possible step difference for the character in the dataset;

- for binary and unordered categorical characters, $d_{ABi}$ took the value {1} if A and B shared the same state, {0} if not;

- if the value of a character was missing for A or/and B, this character was removed from the calculation of D. N was thus reduced to the number N' of characters with no missing data for A or B.

The mean character difference $D_{AB}$ between taxa A and B was finally computed as

$$D_{AB} = \frac{\sum_{i} d_{ABi}}{N'}$$

D was calculated for each pair of taxa to create the dissimilarity matrix. Note that characters '19. Number of stamens' and '36. Number of ovules per carpel' were log transformed to reduce the weight of extremely high (and rare) values on the analyses, observed in the distributions of these two characters only.

### (d) Morphospace and disparity

To illustrate morphological differences between the 22 Eriales families, we visualized the morphospace of Eriales with a principal coordinate analysis (PCoA; [57]) taking as input the original dissimilarity matrix.

Calculation and analyses of the morphological diversity (disparity) were carried out from the original dissimilarity matrix, and not from the ordination scores. Disparity within each family was calculated as the mean pairwise dissimilarity, i.e. the mean D per family (here noted $\bar{D}$; [58]), and as the range (here noted R, the maximum value of D for a family; [59]). Contrary to $\bar{D}$, R is sensitive to sample size [60]. We thus rarefied R to 10 (our minimum sample size whenever possible).

Partial disparity (PDiv, the additive contribution of each family to the disparity of the whole order) was calculated following [61]. It is the sum, over each PCoA axis, of the squared Euclidean distances between all taxa from a clade and the centroid of the whole dataset (divided by the total number of species in the dataset).

### (e) Interfamilial comparison

Two groups falling in different parts of the morphospace are morphologically different, whereas they are similar if their

distributions in the space overlap. We assessed morphological differences among ericaean families with non-parametric analyses of variance (npMANOVA, sometimes also referred to as PERMANOVA) using the function adonis() from the vegan package in R [62]. We used the original dissimilarity matrix as input, and 10 000 permutations to calculate the distribution of a pseudo F ratio under the null hypothesis. We used the same analysis as post hoc, with a Bonferroni correction.

### (f) Correlations between disparity and clade size/clade age

Spearman correlation tests were performed to investigate the links between disparity ($\bar{D}$ and R) and the number of species per family as reported in [41]. The same test was performed to investigate the link between disparity ($\bar{D}$ and R) and the stem age of families as estimated in [33], for only those nodes that were supported in [35].

### (g) Trait variation

To compare variation among the 37 morphological traits, we averaged $d_{AB}$, i.e. the differences between taxa, for each character. The resulting values, here noted Dchar, increase with the variation of a character in the dataset.

### (h) Comparison of the disparity of floral functional modules

In our dataset, the perianth morphospace is based on 12 characters, the androecium space on 13 characters, and the gynoecium space on seven characters. Because these three morphospaces differ in character composition and in size, their respective disparities cannot satisfactorily be compared directly. We first investigated if the disparity for each of the functional modules increased with total disparity in Eriales. To do so, we performed a Mantel test, to test for a correlation between the disparity matrices ($\bar{D}$ for each taxa pair) calculated for each of the modules' character sets, respectively, and the disparity matrix calculated for the whole character set. Taxa pairs for which $\bar{D}$ could not be computed for one of the functional modules, due to missing data, were pruned from the matrices before performing the test.

To assess if the perianth, androecium and gynoecium of Eriales are more or less variable than the rest of the flower, we then compared the disparity ($\bar{D}$) of the whole dataset associated with the perianth ($\bar{D}_{per}$), the androecium ($\bar{D}_{and}$), and the gynoecium ($\bar{D}_{gyn}$) to the distributions of $\bar{D}$ calculated for random character sets of the same sizes (similarly to the method proposed in [63] for assessing the significance of the Escouffier' RV coefficient value). Using the total taxon set, each of these distributions was obtained by calculating $\bar{D}$ for 1000 matrices of respectively 12 (to be compared with the perianth), 13 (to be compared with the androecium) and seven (to be compared with the gynoecium) characters randomly sampled without replacement in the character set. Perianth, androecium and gynoecium were considered as significantly more (or less) variable than the rest of the flower if $\bar{D}_{per}$, $\bar{D}_{and}$ and $\bar{D}_{gyn}$ were higher (or lower) than 97.5% of the 1000 randomly sampled $\bar{D}$ values. We calculated pseudo p-values p as the proportion of the randomly sampled $\bar{D}$ that were higher (lower) than $\bar{D}_{per}$, $\bar{D}_{and}$ and $\bar{D}_{gyn}$. As this is a two-tailed test, the presented values of p are corrected (by adding 0.025) to match the usual 0.05 threshold value.

### (i) Incorporation of floral fossils

In addition to the 381 extant species, nine ericaean floral mesofossils from the Cretaceous were added: *Actinocalyx bohrii* (Diapensiaceae; [64]), *Glandulocalyx upatoiensis* (Actinidiaceae or
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Relation between disparity and (a) species richness (log transformed) and (b) stem age in ericalean families. Blue line: linear regression between disparity and log transformed species number (Spearman's rho = 0.14, *p* = 0.63). (Online version in colour.)</figcaption></figure>

significantly increased with species number (Spearman's rho = 0.84, *p* < 1.10⁻⁵).

### (d) Incorporation of floral fossils

The nine fossils of Eriales included in our dataset group together near the centre of the morphospace (figure 1e). Their distribution in the space overlaps with the balsaminoids, the ericoids, the Pentaphylacaceae-Sladeniaceae clade and Mitrastemonaceae (electronic supplementary material, table S2) and they contribute 1.8% to the total disparity of Eriales. Note that the percentage of missing data in the fossil dataset was 10.51% (electronic supplementary material, table S2).

### (e) Comparison of the disparity of floral functional modules

The most variable characters (i.e. characters with a mean pairwise difference between all taxa *Dchar* ≥ 0.5) stem from the androecium (anther orientation, filament fusion to corolla and anther attachment) whereas the least variable characters (i.e. characters with a mean pairwise difference between all taxa *Dchar* ≤ 0.05) describe the perianth (number of petal whorls, petal phyllotaxis, sepal phyllotaxis, and perianth differentiation; electronic supplementary material, figure S5).

Disparity for each of the three modules significantly increases with disparity of the whole character set (figure 3a-c): Mantel test for the perianth (71 631 taxa pairs): *p* < 0.001; for the androecium (72 390 taxa pairs): *p* < 0.001; for the gynoecium (70 876 taxa pairs): *p* < 0.001.

The perianth varies significantly less than the rest of the flower (mean pairwise distances between all taxa for the perianth organs only: *Dper* = 0.15 ± s.e.0.0005; bootstrap analysis: *p* = 0.040; figure 3a,d), the androecium varies marginally more than the rest of the flower (*Dand* = 0.28 ± 0.0004; *p* = 0.073; figure 3b,e), and the gynoecium shows neither less nor more variation than the rest of the flower (*Dgyn* = 0.22 ± 0.0004; *p* = 0.444; figure 3c,f).

## 4. Discussion

### (a) The floral morphospace of Eriales

The floral morphospace of Eriales is organized in a continuous cloud, where most of the suprafamilial clades occupy distinct neighbouring regions arranged in a mosaic pattern. In other words, each of these lineages evolved towards a distinct combination of floral morphological traits. Our analysis also reveals two contrasting patterns of trait variation. On the

one hand, ericalean species from across the order share recurrent combinations of character states: for instance, 75.1% of the 381 sampled species share structurally bisexual flowers with a differentiated perianth, a single whorl of sepals, and a single whorl of five petals (electronic supplementary material, table S2). Many of these common traits are likely plesiomorphic and evolutionarily constrained within the order. On the other hand, some floral traits, such as petal union and stamen and integument numbers, are highly variable in Eriales (see electronic supplementary material, table S2), although they have traditionally been considered stable within major angiosperm clades [35]. These two conflicting patterns are the main reasons for the pre-molecular phylogenetic placement of Eriales' taxa in more than 10 different angiosperm orders [44,49].

Within each suprafamilial clade, our analysis showed that there are two main patterns of space occupation by families. The balsaminoid, styracoid, sarracenioid and ericoid clades are all morphologically homogeneous, with the families overlapping (electronic supplementary material, table S1). For instance, the sarracenioids (Sarraceniaceae, Roridulaceae, and Actinidiaceae) are all characterized by, e.g. free petals to which stamens are not (or only basally) attached. The recovery of sarracenioids based on morphology is consistent with their phylogenetic relationships and illustrates a case where floral traits typically have a higher diagnostic value than vegetative traits [66]. In contrast with the pattern described just above, families of the polemonioid, primuloid and Pentaphylacaceae-Sladeniaceae clades occupy distinct regions of the morphospace (electronic supplementary material, table S2). For instance, in the polemonioids, flowers of Polemoniaceae and Fouquieriaceae significantly differ (see also [45]): Fouquieriaceae flowers have a free calyx and more than five stamens arranged in two whorls and free from the corolla, whereas Polemoniaceae flowers generally have a united calyx and a single whorl of five stamens that are more or less fused with the corolla. Consequently, Polemoniaceae and Fouquieriaceae were placed in various different orders before being recovered in molecular phylogenies [35,67]. A discussion about Eriales families whose placement in the phylogeny is not resolved is given in the electronic supplementary material.

### (b) Disparity

In Eriales, the most variable family, Lecythidaceae, is a pantropical family of trees (340 species). The least variable family, Mitrastemonaceae, is a root-parasitic family composed of only one Asian and one Central American species (it is thus
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Differential variation in the three functional modules of Ericales flowers. (a–c) Pairwise dissimilarities (*D*) for (a) the perianth, (b), the androecium and (c) the gynoecium, plotted against pairwise dissimilarities for the total character set. Black plain lines: *y* = *x*. Blue dashed lines: linear regressions between the plotted variables. The heat colour gradient indicates the density of dots in the graph. (d–f) Disparity (in blue) of (d) the perianth, (e) the androecium and (f) the gynoecium, plotted with the distributions of *D̄* calculated for the total character set. (Online version in colour.)</figcaption></figure>

the smallest family of Ericales). The positive correlation between disparity and the species richness of families can be explained by the fact that family size is highly variable in Ericales, ranging from two species in Mitrastemonaceae to 4010 in Ericaceae. Although disparity measured as mean pairwise distances is generally robust against differences in group sizes [60], a group containing a thousand times more species than another is very likely to be more diverse. Additionally, reproductive isolation is often due to differences in floral traits [68,69], hence a correlation between floral disparity and species number is, in many cases, to be expected.

In a study on the disparity of Neotropical pollen morphotypes, Mander [70] found a similar positive correlation between disparity and family size, with some exceptions (e.g. Poaceae and Papilionideae). Such exceptions to the overall patterns are also revealed in our study and may be illustrated by comparing, for instance, Sapotaceae and Lecythidaceae. Although Sapotaceae are more than three times as speciose as Lecythidaceae, their flowers are only half as morphologically diverse (figure 1). These two families are both constituted mainly of tropical trees, and have similar stem ages [33,42]. Other factors might thus explain their contrasted disparity, such as different diversification events, polyploidization events, species distribution or ecology. For instance, the higher diversity of Lecythidaceae may be linked to specialized

floral adaptations towards different functional groups of pollinators. Lecythidaceae have evolved highly elaborate and specialized pollination mechanisms involving bees, beetles and bats [71–73], whereas Sapotaceae appear to be characterized by more generalist insect or sometimes bat pollination systems [42,74].

Only four ericalean families together (Lecythidaceae, Sapotaceae, Primulaceae and Ericaceae) contribute 50% of the Ericales disparity. Some families, like Ericaceae and Pentaphyllaceae, display high partial disparity because they are widely spread in the space; i.e. are themselves highly variable. Alternatively, some families, like Sapotaceae and Balsaminaceae, display high partial disparity because they are distributed in the periphery of the space, i.e. they increase the overall disparity by adding new traits or trait combinations. Such traits are, e.g. two whorls of sepals in Sapotaceae, and distally united filaments, nectar spur and zygomorphic flowers in Balsaminaceae (see electronic supplementary material, table S2). Zygomorphy and the presence of nectar spurs might explain the peculiar pattern found in Balsaminaceae: the family displays very low morphological disparity in the investigated organizational floral traits (figure 1b), in spite of the fact that it is extremely speciose. Balsaminaceae is composed of two genera: *Impatiens* (1100 spp.) and *Hydrocera* (1 sp.). The high taxonomic diversity in *Impatiens* may result from rapid radiation during the Pliocene
and Pleistocene, triggered by climatic fluctuations resulting in refuge areas [75]. This recent diversification might explain the low structural disparity in Balsaminaceae (although perianth shape and colour, not coded here, are highly variable [76]). Zygomorphy and nectar spurs are often considered to be key innovations associated with high diversification rates: they are often linked to speciation through increased specialization in pollination, e.g. through precise pollen placement on pollinator bodies [77,78], and spur length filtering for the most efficient pollinators [79].

The lack of correlation between disparity and the age of families is not surprising, as disparity does not necessarily steadily increase over time [80]. The nine fossils we included showed low levels of disparity and contributed little to the total disparity of Erikales. These fossils are not considered to be closely related to each other [8,40], and have been tentatively assigned to a number of different families, albeit all belonging to a group consisting of ericoids, sarracenioids, styracoids and Pentaphylacaceae-Sladeniaceae (the assigned positions of the fossils, according to original papers, are highlighted in figure 1a). They are close in age (72–94 Ma) to the Erikales’ initial diversification (crown age: ca 104 Ma [33]) and the features they share (e.g. bisexual flowers, pentamerous and actinomorphic whorls of sepals and petals, free stamens, and superior ovaries) could thus represent plesiomorphies for the order. Compared with other types of fossils (e.g. permineralized fossils or compression/impression fossils), charcoalized fossils often show excellent preservation of morphological and anatomical features [8]. The availability of such fossils thus offers opportunities for future work on the extinct disparity of flowers, also at the level of the angiosperms as a whole.

## (c) Linking function and disparity in the flower

Our results indicate that, in Erikales, morphological variation differs considerably among the flowers' three functional modules, probably because of the different selective regimes they are submitted to. The perianth varied significantly less than the rest of the flower, as expected. Contrastingly, the androecium varied marginally more than the rest of the flower, and the gynoecium showed neither less nor more variation than the rest of the flower, although we expected it to show more variation, due to its complex organization.

In our dataset, most species are characterized by actinomorphic, whorled, and pentamerous flowers (like most core eudicots [5,10]). In general, the perianth is structurally less complex than the reproductive floral organs [27] and the characters we could code for were mostly related to organ number and arrangement (Bauplan; [81]). In the perianth, these characteristics are likely spatially and functionally constrained during development and anthesis and mostly stable at higher taxonomic ranks, with one explanation being that the number of perianth organs and their arrangement depends on meristem size during early development [10]. Stamen number, however, appears to be much less constrained, ranging from two to several hundred in our dataset (see electronic supplementary material, table S2). Large stamen numbers can easily be accommodated even on a relatively small floral base as the filament bases are generally small [7]. Polystemony (i.e. flowers with more stamens than perianth organs) has apparently evolved along several separate lineages in Erikales [35]. In addition to the diversity in stamen numbers, ontogenetic patterns of androecium development and anthetic stamen arrangement

are also particularly diverse in Erikales, including complex ring primordia with multiple stamen whorls and stamens arranged in fascicles [82]. With the exception of early diverging angiosperms, there are probably only few other groups of angiosperms with such labile and diverse patterns of stamen numbers and arrangement as the Erikales. It seems likely that this lability in the androecium has played a major role during the evolutionary history and diversification of the Erikales and has allowed the group to explore new evolutionary paths in connection with different functional groups of pollinators.

Finally, the gynoecium, with its multiple functions and complex morphogenesis, is often considered the most complex module of the flower [7,32]. All Erikales in our dataset were syncarpous. Syncarpy is relatively stable in angiosperms [81] and is believed to have many advantages [83]. For instance, it allows for the presence of a centralized canal for pollen germination that allows a single pollen load on a stigma to potentially reach all the ovules of the same flower [83]. It has been proposed that syncarpy allows for higher levels of synorganization both within the gynoecium and also between the gynoecium and other floral organs [32], like in Balsaminaceae and Tetrameristaceae, where the syncarpous gynoecium is highly synorganized with the androecium [46]. Once syncarpy has evolved, it is therefore likely to remain stable, and it is a factor decreasing disparity in the gynoecium. However, other gynoecial traits such as ovary position, type of placentation, the number of ovules per carpel and the number of integuments are remarkably variable across Erikales (electronic supplementary material, table S2). These contrasting trends of variation might explain the lack of signal for more or less variation of the gynoecium.

Overall, variability occurs less at the level of floral organization (e.g. organ number, organ arrangement), than at the level of floral construction (architecture, mechanical properties) and mode (traits like organ shape and colour). Floral mode often directly concerns interactions with pollinators and is generally highly variable, even at low taxonomic ranks [81,84]. Such traits could not be included in our analysis, as most of them would not have been applicable throughout the order. Our dataset is more representative of floral organization and construction, with some exceptions: the most variable characters in the perianth are the union of sepals and of petals (electronic supplementary material, figure S5), typically linked to pollination, allowing for the formation of corolla tubes and a canalized access to floral rewards [85], channelling pollinator movements so that they touch stamens and stigmas [77].

**Data accessibility.** The dataset supporting this article has been uploaded as part of the supplementary material (electronic supplementary material, table S2).

**Authors' contributions.** M.C., F.J. and J.S. designed the research; M.C., S.L., M.v.B., F.J., H.S. and J.S. generated the dataset; M.C. and S.G. analysed the data; M.C., S.L. and J.S. wrote the paper. In addition, all authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and gave final approval for publication.

**Competing interests.** We have no competing interests.

**Funding.** This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF P 250077-B16).

**Acknowledgements.** We thank S. Sontag for helping with literature search, T. Palme for creating the three-dimensional pdf figure, D. Breedlove, P. Herendeen, D. L. Nickrent, T. Rodd and A. Weissenhofer for pictures, W. L. Crepet and K. C. Nixon for the authorization to reproduce pictures, and U. Schachner for proofreading. We thank A. Dellinger, E. Reyes, Y. Städler, B. Kezzim, A. van Holt and L. Carrive for data entry. In addition, we are thankful to L. Mander and an anonymous reviewer for their critical and helpful comments and suggestions.
References

1. Harder LD, Barrett SCH. 2006 *Ecology and evolution of flowers*. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

2. Vamosi JC, Vamosi MV. 2010 Key innovations within a geographical context in flowering plants: towards resolving Darwin's abominable mystery. *Ecol. Lett.* **13**, 1270–1279. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01521.x)

3. van der Niet T, Johnson SD. 2012 Phylogenetic evidence for pollinator-driven diversification of angiosperms. *Trends Ecol. Evol.* **27**, 353–361. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.02.002)

4. Barrett SCH. 2013 The evolution of plant reproductive systems: how often are transitions irreversible? *Proc. R. Soc. B* **280**, 20130913. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.0913)

5. Endress PK. 2010 Flower structure and trends of evolution in eudicots and their major subclades. *Ann. Missouri Bot.* **97**, 541–583. (doi:10.3417/2009139)

6. Friis EM, Pedersen KR, Crane PR. 2010 Diversity in obscurity, fossil flowers and the early history of angiosperms. *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B* **365**, 369–382. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0227)

7. Endress PK. 2011 Evolutionary diversification of the flowers in angiosperms. *Am. J. Bot.* **98**, 370–396. (doi:10.3732/ajb.1000299)

8. Friis EM, Crane PR, Pederson KR. 2011 *Early flowers and angiosperm evolution*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

9. Soltis PS, Soltis DE. 2014 Chapter 4. Flower diversity and angiosperm diversification. In *Flower development, methods and protocols, methods in molecular biology*, vol. 1110 (eds JL Riechmann, F Wellmer), pp. 85–102. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.

10. Ronse de Craene L. 2016 Meristic changes in flowering plants: how flowers play with numbers. *Flora* **221**, 22–37. (doi:10.1016/j.flora.2015.08.005)

11. O'Meara BC et al. 2016 Non-equilibrium dynamics and floral trait interactions shape extant angiosperm diversity. *Proc. R. Soc. B* **283**, 20152304. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2304)

12. Stebbins GL. 1951 Natural selection and the differentiation of angiosperm families. *Evolution* **5**, 299–324. (doi:10.2307/2405676)

13. Chartier M, Jabbour F, Gerber S, Mitteröcker P, Sauquet H, von Balthazar M, Städler Y, Crane PR, Schönenberger J. 2014 The floral morphospace—a modern comparative approach to study angiosperm evolution. *New Phytol.* **204**, 841–853. (doi:10.1111/nph.12969)

14. Briggs DE, Fortey RA, Wills MA. 1992 Morphological disparity in the Cambrian. *Science* **256**, 1670–1673. (doi:10.1126/science.256.5064.1670)

15. Foote M. 1997 The evolution of morphological diversity. *Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.* **28**, 129–152. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.129)

16. Stone JR. 1997 The spirit of D'Arcy Thompson dwells in empirical morphospace. *Math. Biosci.* **142**, 13–30. (doi:10.1016/S0025-5564(96)00186-1)

17. Erwin DH. 2007 Disparity, morphological pattern and developmental context. *Paleontology* **50**, 57–73. (doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00614.x)

18. Raup DM, Michelson A. 1965 Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. *Science* **147**, 1294–1295. (doi:10.1126/science.147.3663.1294)

19. Foote M. 1994 Morphological disparity in Ordovician–Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. *Paleobiology* **20**, 320–344. (doi:10.1017/S009483730001280X)

20. Lupia R. 1999 Discordant morphological disparity and taxonomic diversity during the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation: North American pollen record. *Paleobiology* **25**, 1–28. (doi:10.1017/S009483730002131X)

21. Brusatte SL, Butler RJ, Prieto-Márquez A, Norell MA. 2012 Dinosaur morphological diversity and the end-Cretaceous extinction. *Nat. Commun.* **3**, 804. (doi:10.1038/ncomms1815)

22. Monteiro LR, Nogueira MR. 2010 Adaptive radiations, ecological specialization, and the evolutionary integration of complex morphological structures. *Evolution* **64**, 724–744. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00857.x)

23. Stubbs TL, Pierce SE, Rayfield EJ, Anderson PSL. 2013 Morphological and biomechanical disparity of crocodile-line archosaurs following the end-Triassic extinction. *Proc. R. Soc. B* **280**, 20131940. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1940)

24. Fabre AC, Bickford D, Segall M, Herrel A. 2016 The impact of diet, habitat use, and behaviour on head shape evolution in homalopsid snakes. *Biol. J. Linn. Soc.* **118**, 634–647. (doi:10.1111/bij.12753)

25. Hunt G, Hopkins MJ, Lidgard S. 2015 Simple versus complex models of trait evolution and stasis as a response to environmental change. *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA* **112**, 4885–4890. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1403662111)

26. Endress PK. 2001 Origins of flower morphology. *J. Exp. Zool.* **291**, 105–115. (doi:10.1002/jez.1063)

27. Endress PK, Matthews ML. 2006 Elaborate petals and staminodes in eudicots: Diversity, function, and evolution. *Org. Divers. Evol.* **6**, 257–293. (doi:10.1016/j.ode.2005.09.005)

28. Coen ES, Meyerowitz EM. 1991 The war of the whorls: genetic interactions controlling flower development. *Nature* **353**, 31–37. (doi:10.1038/353031a0)

29. Chanderbali AS, Berger BA, Howarth DG, Soltis PS, Soltis DE. 2016 Evolving ideas on the origin and evolution of flowers: new perspectives in the genomic era. *Genetics* **202**, 1255–1265. (doi:10.1534/genetics.115.182964)

30. Diggle PK. 2014 Modularity and intra-floral integration in metameric organisms: plants are more than the sum of their parts. *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B* **369**, 20130253. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0253)

31. Smith SD. 2016 Pleiotropy and the evolution of floral integration. *New Phytol.* **209**, 80–85. (doi:10.1111/nph.13583)

32. Endress PK. 2014 Multicarpellate gynoecia in angiosperms: occurrence, development, organization and architectural constraints. *Bot. J. Linn. Soc.* **174**, 1–43. (doi:10.1111/boj.12099)

33. Magallón S, Gómez-Acevedo S, Sánchez-Reyes LL, Hernández-Hernández T. 2015 A metacalibrated time-tree documents the early rise of flowering plant phylogenetic diversity. *New Phytol.* **207**, 437–453. (doi:10.1111/nph.13264)

34. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. 2016 An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. *Bot. J. Lin. Soc.* **81**, 1–20. (doi:10.1046/j.1095-8339.2003.t01-1-00158.x)

35. Schönenberger J, Anderberg AA, Sytsma KJ. 2005 Molecular phylogenetics and patterns of floral evolution in the Ericales. *Int. J. Plant Sci.* **166**, 265–288. (doi:10.1086/427198)

36. Crepet WL, Nixon KC, Daghlian CP. 2013 Fossil Ericales from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. *Int. J. Plant. Sci.* **174**, 572–584. (doi:10.1086/668689)

37. Nixon KC, Crepet WL. 1993 Late Cretaceous fossil flowers of ericalean affinity. *Am. J. Bot.* **80**, 616–623.

38. Schönenberger J, Friis EM. 2001 Fossil flowers of ericalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of Southern Sweden. *Am. J. Bot.* **88**, 467–480. (doi:10.2307/2657112)

39. Martínez-Millán M, Crepet WL, Nixon KC. 2009 *Pentapetalum trifasciculandricus* gen. et sp. nov., a thealean fossil flower from the Raritan Formation, New Jersey, USA (Turonian, Late Cretaceous). *Am. J. Bot.* **96**, 933–949. (doi:10.3732/ajb.0800347)

40. Schönenberger J, von Balthazar M, Takahashi M, Xiao X, Crane PR, Herendeen PS. 2012 *Glandulocalyx upatoiensis*, a fossil flower of Ericales (Actinidiaceae/Clethraceae) from the Late Cretaceous (Santonian) of Georgia, USA. *Ann. Bot.* **109**, 921–936. (doi:10.1093/aob/mcs009)

41. Stevens PF. 2001 onwards. *Angiosperm Phylogeny Website*. Version 12, July 2012. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/welcome.html (accessed 1 January 2014).

42. Kubitzki K. 2004 *The families and genera of vascular plants. Volume 6. Flowering plants, Dicotyledons, Celastrales, Oxalidales, Rosales, Cornales, Ericales*. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

43. Davis CC, Webb CO, Wurdack KJ, Jaramillo CA, Donoghue MJ. 2005 Explosive radiation of Malpighiales supports a mid-Cretaceous origin of modern tropical rain forests. *Am. Nat.* **165**, E36–E65. (doi:10.1086/428296)

44. Schönenberger J, von Balthazar M, Sytsma KJ. 2010 Diversity and evolution of floral structure among early diverging lineages in the Ericales. *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B* **365**, 437–448. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0247)
45. Schönenberger J. 2009 Comparative floral structure and systematics of Fouquieriaceae and Polemoniaceae (Ericales). *Int. J. Plant Sci.* **170**, 1132–1167. (doi:10.1086/605875)

46. von Balthazar M, Schönenberger J. 2013 Comparative floral structure and systematics in the balsaminoid clade including Balsaminaceae, Marcgraviaceae and Tetrameristaceae (Ericales). *Bot. J. Linn. Soc.* **173**, 325–386. (doi:10.1111/boj.12097)

47. Löfstrand SD, Schönenberger J. 2015 Molecular phylogenetics and floral evolution in the sarracioid clade (Actinidiaceae, Roridulaceae and Sarraciaceae) of Ericales. *Taxon* **64**, 1209–1224. (doi:10.12705/646.6)

48. Schönenberger J. 2005 Rise from the ashes—the reconstruction of charcoal fossil flowers. *Trend Plant Sci.* **10**, 436–443. (doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2005.07.006)

49. Cronquist A. 1981 *An integrated system of classification of flowering plants*. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

50. *The Plant List*. 2013 Version 1.1. http://www.theplantlist.org/ (accessed 1st January 2014).

51. Kron KA, Judd WS, Stevens PF, Crayn DM, Anderberg AA, Gadek PA, Quinn CJ, Luteyn JL. 2002 Phylogenetic classification of Ericaceae: molecular and morphological evidence. *Bot. Rev.* **68**, 335–423. (doi:10.1663/0006-8101(2002)068[0335:PCOEMA]2.0.C0;2)

52. Martins L, Oberprieler C, Hellwig FH. 2003 A phylogenetic analysis of Primulaceae s.l. based on internal transcribed spacer (ITS) DNA sequence data. *Plant Syst. Evol.* **237**, 75–85. (doi:10.1007/s00606-002-0258-1)

53. Swenson U, Anderberg AA. 2005 Phylogeny, character evolution, and classification of Sapotaceae (Ericales). *Cladistics* **21**, 101–130. (doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00056.x)

54. Sauquet H. 2016 *PROTEUS, A database for recording morphological data and creating NEXUS matrices*. Vs 1.26. http://eflower.myspecies.info/proteus

55. R Core Team. 2016 *R: A language and environment for statistical computing*. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org.

56. Foote M. 1999 Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic crinoids. *Paleobiology* **25**, 1–115. (doi:10.1017/S0094837300020236)

57. Yang J, Ortega-Hernández J, Gerber S, Butterfield NJ, Hou JB, Lan T, Zhang XG. 2015 A superarmored lobopodian from the Cambrian of China and early disparity in the evolution of *Onychophora*. *Proc. R. Soc. B* **112**, 8678–8683. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1505596112)

58. Foote M. 1992 Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoa echinoderms. *Proc. Natl*

Acad. Sci. USA **89**, 7325–7329. (doi:10.1073/pnas.89.16.7325)

59. Foote M. 1992 Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. *Paleobiology* **18**, 1–16. (doi:10.1017/S0094837300012185)

60. Ciampaglio CN, Kemp M, McShea DW. 2001 Detecting changes in morphospace occupation patterns in the fossil record: characterization and analysis of measures of disparity. *Paleobiology* **27**, 695–715. (doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2001)027<0695:DCIMOP>2.0.CO;2)

61. Foote M. 1993 Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity. *Paleobiology* **19**, 403–419. (doi:10.1017/S0094837300014056)

62. Anderson MJ. 2001 A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. *Aust. Ecol.* **26**, 32–46. (doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x)

63. Klingenberg CP. 2009 Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of landmarks: tools for evaluating a priori hypotheses. *Evol. Dev.* **11**, 405–421. (doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2009.00347.x)

64. Friis EM. 1985 *Actinocalyx* gen. nov., sympetalous angiosperm flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of southern Sweden. *Rev. Paleobot. Palynol.* **45**, 171–183. (doi:10.1016/0034-6667(85)90001-6)

65. Keller JA, Herendeen PS, Crane PR. 1996 Fossil flowers of the Actinidiaceae from the Campanian (Late Cretaceous) of Georgia. *Am. J. Bot.* **83**, 528–541. (doi:10.2307/2446221)

66. Löfstrand SD, Schönenberger J. 2015 Comparative floral structure and systematics in the sarracioid clade (Actinidiaceae, Roridulaceae and Sarraciaceae) of Ericales. *Bot. J. Linn. Soc.* **178**, 1–46. (doi:10.1111/boj.12266)

67. Anderberg AA, Rydin C, Källersjö M. 2002 Phylogenetic relationships in the order Ericales s.l.: analyses of molecular data from five genes from the plastid and mitochondrial genomes. *Am. J. Bot.* **89**, 677–687. (doi:10.3732/ajb.89.4.677)

68. Bradshaw HD Jr, Wilbert M, Otto KG. 1995 Genetic mapping of floral traits associated with reproductive isolation in monkeyflowers (*Mimulus*). *Nature* **376**, 31. (doi:10.1038/376762a0)

69. Rieseberg LH, Willis JH. 2007 Plant speciation. *Science* **317**, 910–914. (doi:10.1126/science.1137729)

70. Mander L. 2016 A combinatorial approach to angiosperm pollen morphology. *Proc. R. Soc. B* **283**, 20162033. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2033)

71. Mori SA, Orchard JE, Prance GT. 1980 Intrafloral pollen distribution in the New World Lecythidaceae, subfamily Lecythidoideae. *Science* **209**, 400–403. (doi:10.1126/science.209.4454.400)

72. Knudsen JT, Mori SA. 1996 Floral scents and pollination in Neotropical Lecythidaceae. *Biotropica* **28**, 42–60. (doi:10.2307/2388770)

73. de Moraes de Potascheff C, Mori SA, Lombardi JA. 2013 Pollination ecology of the Cerrado species *Eschweilera nana* (Lecythidaceae subfam. Lecythidoideae). *Brittonia* **66**, 191–206. (doi:10.1007/s12228-013-9314-0)

74. Nathan PT, Karuppudurai T, Raghuram H, Marimuthu G. 2009 Bat foraging strategies and pollination of *Madhuca latifolia* (Sapotaceae) in southern India. *Acta Chiropterol.* **11**, 435–441. (doi:10.3161/150811009X485675)

75. Janssens SB, Knox EB, Huysmans S, Smets EF, Merckx VS. 2009 Rapid radiation of *Impatiens* (Balsaminaceae) during Pliocene and Pleistocene: result of a global climate change. *Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.* **52**, 806–824. (doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.04.013)

76. Yu SX, Janssens SB, Zhu XY, Lidén M, Gao TG, Wang W. 2015 Phylogeny of *Impatiens* (Balsaminaceae): integrating molecular and morphological evidence into a new classification. *Cladistics* **32**, 179–197. (doi:10.1111/cla.12119)

77. Sargent RD. 2004 Floral symmetry affects speciation rates in angiosperms. *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B* **271**, 603–608. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2644)

78. Citerne H, Jabbour F, Nadot S, Damerval C. 2010 The evolution of floral symmetry. *Adv. Bot. Res.* **54**, 85–137. (doi:10.1016/S0065-2296(10)54003-5)

79. Whittall JB, Hodges SA. 2007 Pollinator shifts drive increasingly long nectar spurs in columbine flowers. *Nature* **447**, 706–709. (doi:10.1038/nature05857)

80. Oyston JW, Hughes M, Gerber S, Wills MA. 2016 Why should we investigate the morphological disparity of plant clades? *Ann. Bot.* **117**, 859–879. (doi:10.1093/aob/mcv135)

81. Endress PK. 1996 *Diversity and evolutionary biology of tropical flowers*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

82. Löfstrand SD, von Balthazar M, Schönenberger J. 2016 Early floral development and androecium organization in the sarracioid clade (Actinidiaceae, Roridulaceae and Sarraciaceae) of Ericales. *Bot. J. Linn. Soc.* **180**, 295–318. (doi:10.1111/boj.12382)

83. Armbruster WS, Debevec EM, Willson MF. 2002 Evolution of syncarpiny in angiosperms: theoretical and phylogenetic analyses of the effects of carpel fusion on offspring quantity and quality. *J. Evol. Biol.* **15**, 657–672. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00414.x)

84. Schaefer HM, Ruxton GD. 2011 *Plant–animal communication*. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

85. Ornelas JF, Ordano M, De-Nova AJ, Quintero ME, Garland T. 2007 Phylogenetic analysis of interspecific variation in nectar of hummingbird-visited plants. *J. Evol. Biol.* **20**, 1904–1917. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01374.x)