Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 31(2): 265-273, 2024 (December) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/bjpt.v31i2.78752
© 2024 Bangladesh Association of Plant Taxonomists
TAXONOMY, KARYOMORPHOLOGY AND POLLEN VIABILITY OF
HYMENOCALLIS LITTORALIS (JACQ.) SALISB. (AMARYLLIDACEAE)
SUMONA AFROZ1,2, KAZI NAHIDA BEGUM3, SUSMITA SAHA3,
MD. ABUL HASSAN1 AND M. OLIUR RAHMAN1*
1Department of Botany, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
2National Museum, Shahbag, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
3Department of Botany, Jagannath University, Dhaka 1100, Bangladesh
Keywords: Hymenocallis littoralis (Jacq.) Salisb.; Pollen–pistil interaction; New chromosome
number; Karyotype; Ideogram.
Abstract
The present study offers the taxonomy, karyomorphology, and pollen-pistil
interactions in the bulbous species Hymenocallis littoralis (Jacq.) Salisb. of the family
Amaryllidaceae. The genus Hymenocallis is closely allied to Pancratium, however,
differs from the later by filament, number and shape of ovule, and seed characteristics.
Detailed descriptions and illustrations of H. littoralis are provided, alongside information
on its habitat, distribution, examined specimens, and economic significance. A new
somatic chromosome number of 2n = 50 is reported for H. littoralis, and this count was
not found to be consistent with any of the earlier reports, offering additional insights into
its chromosomal characteristics. Furthermore, the study reveals a high pollen viability of
95% in H. littoralis.
Introduction
The genus Hymenocallis, belonging to the Amaryllidaceae family, comprises approximately
70 species (Tapia-Campos et al., 2012), and is valued for both its horticultural appeal and
medicinal properties (Ogden, 2007). According to Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG IV, 2016),
this genus falls into the family Amaryllidaceae, though Cronquist (1981) placed it into the family
Liliaceae. Initially, the members of Hymenocallis were considered the American representatives of
the Old World genus Pancratium L. (Sealy, 1954; Meerow et al., 2002). However, Salisbury
(1812) established Hymenocallis as a distinct genus, on the basis of distinct differences in seed
characteristics: Pancratium produces black, dry, compressed seeds with a phytomelan layer, while
Hymenocallis has nearly ovoid, green, fleshy, and often viviparous seeds. Along with the genera
Ismene Salisb. and Leptochiton Sealy, Hymenocallis forms the tribe Hymenocallideae (Meerow et
al., 2002). Commonly known as ‘spider lilies’ these plants are distinguished by their unique
staminal membrane enveloped by long, slender tepals. In Bangladesh, the genus Hymenocallis is
represented by a single species, H. littoralis, which is rarely found in Mymensingh, Chattogram
and Sylhet districts. Apart from horticultural and ornamental value, Hymenocallis littoralis has
been reported to possess antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties (Noormi et al., 2012;
Karthikeyan et al., 2016).
Karyomorphology plays a pivotal role in plant taxonomy, offering insights into evolutionary
relationships, genetic diversity and classification. Recent studies underscore the significance of
karyomorphological and cytogenetic data in species delimitation, phylogenetic reconstruction,
taxonomic revision, conservation, and genomic studies. Karyomorphological studies aids in
differentiating closely related species and defining species boundaries based on chromosomal
*Corresponding author. oliur.bot@du.ac.bd
266 AFROZ et al.
characteristics (Martins et al., 2020). Karyotype data contribute to taxonomic revisions and the
establishment of robust classification systems by providing additional characters for systematic
analysis leading to more accurate taxonomic classifications (De Moraes et al., 2021).
Karyomorphological studies also provide insights into genomic evolution processes such as
genome duplication, chromosome rearrangements, and genome size changes (Nkongolo and
Mehes-Smith, 2012; Sun et al., 2020).
The pollen-pistil interaction encompasses a series of events that determines whether the
gametes are recognized and accepted or rejected (Dumas and Guade, 1981). In cases of compatible
pollination, pollen grains attach to the stigma, undergo hydration, germinate, and develop pollen
tubes that penetrate the stigma’s cell layers. These tubes then extend within the transmitting tissue
of style, eventually reaching the ovary for fertilization. In contrast, incompatible pollination can
lead to the arrest of pollen tube growth. The tissues of the pistil are believed to provide both
chemical and physical support, along with directional guidance, to facilitate pollen tube
development (Knox, 1984).
Despite the ecological and economic importance of Hymenocallis littoralis, it has not
undergone taxonomic revision, nor has it been investigated from cytological and palynological
perspectives in Bangladesh. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a comprehensive taxonomic
analysis of H. littoralis, examine its pollen and pollen-pistil interaction, and investigate cytological
parameters of the species for the first time in Bangladesh.
Materials and Methods
Taxonomic identity
The plant specimen collected from Sonargaon, Narayanganj and grown in the Botanical
Garden of the University of Dhaka was examined critically. In order to ascertain its identity, floral
parts were studied in detail using light microscope, and the relevant literatures were consulted to
ascertain its identity (Dassanayake and Clayton, 2000; Karthikeyan et al., 1989). The voucher
specimen has been housed at Dhaka University Salar Khan Herbarium (DUSH).
Cytological investigation
Root tips were collected from H. littoralis, planted in the Botanical Gardens of the University
of Dhaka as well as in the Jagannath University, Dhaka. The roots were pretreated with a 1:1
solution of paradichlorobenzene (PDB) and 0.002 M 8-hydroxyquinoline for 3 h and 30 min at
room temperature. Subsequently, they were fixed in 45% acetic acid for 15 min at 4°C.
Afterwards, the roots were hydrolyzed in a solution of 1 N HCl and 45% acetic acid (2:1) for 15
min at 60 C. The root tips were then stained and squashed in 1% aceto-orcein solution (Das et al.,
2020). Chromosomes were observed under an Optica electron microscope and photographs were
captured with a Euromex camera.
Pollen viability and pollen-pistil interaction
Freshly opened flowers were used for controlled pollinations. Suitable flower buds were
emasculated one day prior to pollinations in case of both self- and cross-pollinations. Pollinations
occurred between 7:30 to 10:00 am, with self-pollinations involving the removal of open-
pollinated flowers the day before to ensure fresh buds. Self-pollination involved touching freshly
dehisced anthers onto the stigma using fine forceps. In cross-pollination, conventional methods
were used, with emasculation before anthesis to prevent contamination. Anthers were carefully
removed with pointed forceps and rubbed against the stigma of emasculated flowers. Identification
tags were tied around peduncles to track pollinated buds (Ram et al., 2006). To investigate pollen-
pistil interaction, the pollinated pistils were collected at 12-, 24-, and 48 h intervals post-
TAXONOMY AND KARYOMORPHOLOGY OF HYMENOCALLIS LITTORALIS 267
pollination, and were fixed in aceto-alcohol solution (1:3 v/v). After washing the pistils with
distilled water to remove the fixative, they were treated with 1N NaOH and incubated for 12 min
at 55°C to soften them. Following cooling, the pistils were washed with distilled water again to
remove any NaOH residues, and then stained with 0.1% decolorized aniline blue for 8-10 min
(Patil et al., 2013). The stained pistils were mounted in a 50% aqueous glycerol and observed
under a Nikon (Optiphot) microscope which is equipped with epi-fluorescence UV illumination
using the UV-2A and BV-2A filters. Pollen grains, germinated and non-germinated, were counted
from 10 pollinated pistils for each pollination type.
Results and Discussion
Taxonomic account
Hymenocallis littoralis (Jacq.) Salisb., Trans. Hort. Soc. Lond. 1: 338 (1812). Pancratium
littorale Jacq., Select. Stirp. Amer. Hist.: 99 (1763). Hymenocallis adnata Herbert, Amaryll.: 215
(1837). Hymenocallis tenuiflora Herbert, Amaryll.: 215 (1837). Pancratium illyricum auct. non L.:
Blanco, Fl. Filip. ed. 3: 316 (1877). Pancratium maritimum auct. non L.: Blanco, Fl. Filip. ed. 3:
316 (1877). (Fig. 1).
Bengali name: Bok phul.
Bulbous perennial herb; bulbs about 4-5 cm in diameter, with cylindric neck. Leaves up to 90
cm long and 7 cm across, radical, linear, distichous. Scapes compressed, attain up to 80 cm in
length; bracts hyaline, linear or lanceolate. Inflorescence umbellate, 6-12 flowered umbels;
flowers white. Perianth 6-lobed, with a tube up to 14 cm long and approximately 0.5 cm across,
light green; lobes can reach to 14 cm long, white. Stamens 6, with a white staminal cup,
approximately 4 cm in length; filament around 6 cm long; anthers versatile, linear, approximately
2 cm long. Ovary 3-chambered, approximately 1.6 cm long and 0.6 cm across, inferior; ovules 4-5
in every chamber; style around 10 cm long; stigma 3-lobed. Fruit a subglobose capsule, triangular.
Seeds angular, black. Flowering period: June-August.
Specimens examined: Dhaka: Dhaka University Botanical Garden, 20.02.1980, Mahbuba
Halim 740 (DACB). Narayanganj: Sonargaon, Amgaon, 25.08.2011, Sumona 69; Bhola: Char
Kukri Mukri, 02.07.2014, Sumona 89 (DUSH).
Habitat: H. littoralis grows in well-drained soils.
Distribution: H. littoralis is native to America. Though cultivated, this species has become
naturalized in tropical regions of Africa and Asia, Malaysia and Pacific Islands.
Uses: H. littoralis is valued for its ornamental and medicinal properties. This species
possesses strong anti-inflammatory activities (Zhang et al., 2022).
Propagation: By bulbs.
Taxonomic notes: Hymenocallis is closely allied to the genus Pancratium, however, the
former differs from the later by filament, number and shape of ovule and seed characters. In
Hymenocallis, filament is straight, whereas in many Pancratium, free staminal filament is
incurved from the corona. Ovule is globose and less than 10 in number per locule in the former but
flattened and numerous per locule in the later. In Hymenocallis, seeds are hard, while they are
fleshy in Pancratium (Table 1).
Cytological investigation
Chromosomal characteristics of Hymenocallis littoralis including the length, arm ratio,
centromeric index, relative length and centromeric type of mitotic metaphase chromosomes are
summarized in Table 2. In H. littoralis, orcein staining revealed homogenously stained interphase
nuclei (Fig. 2A), categorized as the “Diffused Type” according to Tanaka (1971). Similarly, the
268 AFROZ et al.
prophase chromosomes exhibited uniform staining along their length (Fig. 2B), classified as the
“Continuous Type” based on classification of Tanaka (1971).
Fig. 1. Hymenocallis littoralis: (A). Habit in nature, (B). Habit sketch (×0.05). (C). L. S. of flower (×0.15),
(D) T. S. of ovary (×2).
Table 1. A comparative account of Hymenocallis with its closely allied genus Pancratium.
Characters Hymenocallis Salisb. Pancratium Dill ex Linn.
Filament Straight Incurved from the corona
Number of ovules Less than 10 per locule More than 15 per locule
Shape of ovules Globose Flattened
Seed Black or brown, hard Green, fleshy
TAXONOMY AND KARYOMORPHOLOGY OF HYMENOCALLIS LITTORALIS 269
Fig. 2. Different stages of chromosomes of Hymenocallis littoralis after orcein staining. A. Interphase nuclei;
B. Prophase chromosomes; C. Metaphase chromosomes (Bar=10 μm).
Typically, specimens showing the “Diffused Type” in interphase nuclei, also display the
“Continuous Type” in prophase chromosomes, as observed in H. littoralis. This indicates a
homogeneous distribution of diffused heterochromatin at the interphase stage, which continues
uniformly along the prophase chromosomes. This pattern aligns with the general characteristics of
orcein staining in both interphase nuclei and prophase chromosomes. This study reveals that H.
littoralis has a somatic chromosome number of 2n = 50 (Fig. 2C, Table 2).
The somatic chromosome number of H. littoralis has been reported to vary in previous
studies, with 2n=44 (Sharma and Bal, 1956) and 2n=46 (Sato, 1938, 1942; Raina and Khoshoo,
1971). Recently, Tanee et al. (2018) reported different chromosome numbers of 2n=44, 46, 48, 49
and 68 in H. littoralis using conventional staining techniques. In contrast, our study reveals a new
chromosome number of 2n=50 for H. littoralis, marking the first report of this chromosomal
count. This finding differs from all previous studies (Sato, 1942; Sharma and Bal, 1956; Tanee et
al., 2018), suggesting potential intraspecific chromosomal variation in H. littoralis. Such
variations could result from numerical chromosomal aberrations, including euploidy and
secondary modifications of polyploidy within species of this genus. Alternatively, these variations
might arise from distinct cytotypes or the presence of some B-chromosome, indicating that the
genus Hymenocallis holds significant interest for future cytogenetic studies. The total length of
diploid chromosome complement in H. littoralis was measured at 291.94 μm (Table 2). This
species was found to have 42 metacentric chromosomes, 6 sub-metacentric chromosomes and 2
sub-telocentric chromosomes, as classified by Levan et al. (1964) (Figs. 3 & 4; Table 2).
Fig. 3. Karyotypes of Hymenocallis littoralis (Bar=10 μm).
270 AFROZ et al.
Fig. 4. Ideograms of Hymenocallis littoralis (Bar=10 μm).
The relative length of each individual chromosome varied from 0.02-0.07, while the length of
individual chromosome ranged from 2.64-10.80 μm (Table 2). The presence of metacentric, sub-
metacentric and sub-telocentric chromosomes indicate that H. littoralis has asymmetric
karyotypes. According to Stebbins (1971), asymmetric karyotypes are considered as advanced
character. Thus, H. littoralis can be considered as evolutionarily advanced based on its
chromosomal architecture.
Pollen-pistil interaction
The study revealed Hymenocallis littoralis exhibited 95% pollen viability; however, despite
this high viability, no fruit set was observed throughout the investigation. Pollen grains failed to
germinate, and there was an absence of pollen tubes in all types of pollination experiments,
including self-, cross-, and open pollination experiments (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Pollen grains and pollen-pistil interaction of H. littoralis; A&B. Pollen grains; C&D. Self-pollination;
E&F. Cross-pollination. Bar=100 μm.
TAXONOMY AND KARYOMORPHOLOGY OF HYMENOCALLIS LITTORALIS 271
Table 2. Chromosomal characteristics of Hymenocallis littoralis.
Chromosome
Pair Long arm
(µm) Short arm
(µm) Total
length Arm
ratio Relative
length Centromeric
index Centromeric
type
I 5.87 4.93 10.80 1.19 0.07 45.65 m
5.77 4.88 10.65 1.18 0.07 45.82 m
II 5.63 4.81 10.44 1.17 0.07 46.07 m
5.47 4.79 10.26 1.14 0.07 46.69 m
III 4.98 4.81 9.79 1.04 0.07 49.13 m
5.00 4.64 9.64 1.08 0.07 48.13 m
IV 5.81 1.76 7.57 3.30 0.05 23.25 st
5.81 1.76 7.57 3.30 0.05 23.25 st
V 3.99 3.57 7.56 1.12 0.05 47.22 m
4.06 3.26 7.32 1.25 0.05 44.54 m
VI 4.08 3.14 7.22 1.30 0.05 43.49 m
3.97 3.19 7.16 1.24 0.05 44.55 m
VII 4.08 3.05 7.13 1.34 0.05 42.78 m
3.99 3.05 7.04 1.31 0.05 43.32 m
VIII 3.52 3.5 7.02 1.01 0.05 49.86 m
3.52 3.43 6.95 1.03 0.05 49.35 m
IX 3.83 2.67 6.5 1.43 0.04 41.08 m
3.75 2.65 6.40 1.42 0.04 41.41 m
X 4.44 1.73 6.17 2.57 0.04 28.04 sm
4.51 1.64 6.15 2.75 0.04 26.67 sm
XI 3.19 2.89 6.08 1.10 0.04 47.53 m
3.14 2.87 6.01 1.09 0.04 47.75 m
XII 2.95 2.63 5.58 1.12 0.04 47.13 m
2.95 2.58 5.53 1.14 0.04 46.65 m
XIII 2.76 2.42 5.18 1.14 0.04 46.72 m
2.75 2.42 5.17 1.14 0.04 46.81 m
XIV 2.65 2.35 5.00 1.13 0.03 47.00 m
2.53 2.42 4.95 1.05 0.03 48.89 m
XV 2.72 2.18 4.90 1.25 0.03 44.49 m
2.70 2.20 4.90 1.23 0.03 44.90 m
XVI 2.56 2.3 4.86 1.11 0.03 47.33 m
2.58 2.27 4.85 1.14 0.03 46.80 m
XVII 3.07 1.71 4.78 1.80 0.03 35.77 sm
3.05 1.71 4.76 1.78 0.03 35.92 sm
XVIII 2.87 1.62 4.49 1.77 0.03 36.08 sm
2.82 1.62 4.44 1.74 0.03 36.49 sm
XIX 2.42 2.02 4.44 1.20 0.03 45.50 m
2.40 2.04 4.44 1.18 0.03 45.95 m
XX 2.35 1.86 4.21 1.26 0.03 44.18 m
2.35 1.86 4.21 1.26 0.03 44.18 m
XXI 2.02 1.93 3.95 1.05 0.03 48.86 m
1.95 1.93 3.88 1.01 0.03 49.74 m
XXII 1.94 1.93 3.87 1.01 0.03 49.87 m
1.93 1.90 3.83 1.02 0.03 49.61 m
XXIII 1.93 1.73 3.66 1.12 0.02 47.27 m
1.88 1.73 3.61 1.09 0.02 47.92 m
XXIV 1.50 1.42 2.92 1.06 0.02 48.63 m
1.50 1.30 2.80 1.15 0.02 46.43 m
XXV 1.36 1.30 2.66 1.05 0.02 48.87 m
1.34 1.30 2.64 1.03 0.02 49.24 m
GT= 291.94
m=metacentric. sm=sub-metacentric, st=sub-telocentric
272 AFROZ et al.
This may be attributed to pre-fertilization incompatibility in H. littoralis, potentially
explaining the lack of fruit formation. In contrast, a few other species within the Liliaceae family,
such as Allium tuberosum Rottler ex Spreng, show significant pollen germination and pollen tube
development within 24-30 h after both self- and cross-pollination. During open pollination, certain
pistils exhibit pollen with fully developed tubes, indicating successful fertilization pathways, while
others lack pollen tubes altogether, suggesting variability in pollination success.
In the Amaryllidaceae family, studies on Narcissus triandrus and Hippeastrum advenum have
shown that self-pollination results in fewer seeds compared to cross-pollination (Saavedra et al.,
1996; Sage et al., 1999). However, Zephyranthes atamasco, another member of this family,
produces an equal number of seeds through both self- and cross-pollination (Broyles and Wyatt,
1991). The female pistil plays a vital role by providing essential nutrients and guidance cues that
facilitate pollen tube growth across different cellular environments. Simultaneously, it acts as a
barrier, preventing incompatible pollen from accessing the ovules, including that from other
species (Swanson et al., 2004). Hiscock et al. (2002) found that stigma types, particularly the
presence of dry versus wet stigmas, influences cross-compatibility and self-incompatibility in
Senecio squalidus (Asteraceae), which partially aligns with our findings. Our study suggests that
the absence of a wet-type stigma and essential nutrients likely contributed to the failure of pollen
tube formation in Hymenocallis littoralis. However, a more detailed investigation into the pollen
morphology and viability of this species is needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of its
reproductive mechanisms and compatibility.
References
APG (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group) IV. 2016. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group
classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 181(1): 1–20.
Broyles, S.B. and Wyatt, R. 1991. The breeding system of Zephyranthes atamasco (Amaryllidaceae). Bull.
Torrey Bot. Club 118:137–140.
Cronquist, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press,
New York, pp. 1–1262.
Dash, C.K., Rahman, M.O. and Sultana, S.S. 2020. Karyological investigation on three Zephyranthes species
and its taxonomic significance. Cytologia 85(2): 163–168.
Dassanayake, M.D. and Clayton, W.D. 2000 (Eds.) A Revised Handbook to the Flora of Ceylon, Vol. 14.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 327 pp.
De Moraes, A.P., de Souza, S.C. and Forni-Martins, E.R. 2021. Karyotype evolution and taxonomic
reassessment of Stachytarpheta Jacq. (Verbenaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 307(1): 1–16.
Dumas, C. and Guade, T. 1981. Stigma pollen recognition and pollen hydration. Phytomorphol. 31: 191–201.
Hiscock, S.J., Hoedemaekers, K., Friedman, W.E. and Dickinson, H.G. 2002. The stigma surface and pollen-
stigma interactions in Senecio squalidus L. (Asteraceae) following cross (compatible) and self
(incompatible) pollinations. Int. J. Plant Sci. 163(1): 1–16.
Karthikeyan, S., Jain, S.K., Nayar, M.P. and Sanjappa, M. 1989. Florae Indicae Enumeratio:
Monocotyledonae: 1–435. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.
Karthikeyan, R., Koushik, O.S., Babu, P.S. and Chunduru, J. 2016. Anti-Inflammatory activity of ethanolic
extract of flowers Hymenocallis littoralis (Jacq.) Salisb. by HRBC membrane stabilization method.
Transl. Biomed. 7(2): 60.
Knox, R.B. 1984. Pollen pistil interactions. In: Cellular interactions. Encycl. Plant Physiol. 17: 508–608.
Levan, A., Fredga, K. and Sandberg, A.A. 1964. Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes.
Hereditas 52: 201–220.
Martins, A.R., Forni-Martins, E.R. and Pereira, L.D. 2020. Karyomorphology as a tool in the study of cryptic
species in Solanum L. section Pachyphylla. Plant Syst. Evol. 306(4): 1–11.
TAXONOMY AND KARYOMORPHOLOGY OF HYMENOCALLIS LITTORALIS 273
Meerow, A.W., Guy, C.L., Li, Q.B. and Clayton, J.R. 2002. Phylogeny of the tribe Hymenocallideae
(Amaryllidaceae) based on morphology and molecular characters. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 89: 400–413.
Nkongolo, K.K. and Mehes-Smith, M. 2012. Karyotype evolution in the Pinaceae: implication with
molecular phylogeny. Genome 55: 735–753.
Noormi, R., Sumathy, V., Murugaiyah, V. and Subramaniam, S. 2012. Screening of potential antimicrobial
activity from Hymenocallis littoralis (Jacq.) Salisb. Pharmacology Online 1: 93–98.
Ogden, S. 2007. Garden Bulbs for the South. Timber Press, Portland.
Patil, P., Malik, S.K., Negi, K.S., John, J., Yadav, S., Chaudhari, G. and Bhat, K.V. 2013. Pollen germination
characteristics, pollen–pistil interaction and reproductive behaviour in interspecific crosses among
Abelmoschus esculentus Moench and its wild relatives. Grana 52(1): 1–14.
Raina, S.N. and Khoshoo, T.N. 1971. Cytogenetics of tropical bulbous ornamentals V. Chromosomal
variation and evolution in Hymenocallis. La Cellule 68(3): 239–259.
Ram, S.G., Sundaravelpandian, K., Kumar. M., Vinod, K.K., Bapu, J.R.K. and Raveendran, T.S 2006.
Pollen–pistil interaction in the inter-specific crosses of Sesamum sp. Euphytica 152: 379–385.
Saavedra, F., Arroyo, M.T.K. and Hoffmann, A.J. 1996. The breeding system of Hyppeastrum advenum
(Ker-Gawl.) Herb. (Amaryllidaceae), an endemic bulbous geophyte of the mediterranean-type climate
region in central Chile. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 118: 1–8.
Sage, T.L., Strumas, F., Cole, W.W. and Barrett, S.C.H. 1999. Differential ovule development following self-
and cross-pollination: the basis of self-sterility in Narcissus triandrus (Amaryllidaceae). Amer. J. Bot.
86: 855–870.
Salisbury, J. 1812. Hymenocallis. Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 338.
Sato, D. 1938. Karyotype alteration and phylogeny IV. Karyotypes in Amaryllidaceae with special reference
to the SAT-chromosomes. Cytologia 9: 203–242.
Sato, D. 1942. Karyotype alteration and phylogeny in Liliaceae and allied families. Jap. J. Bot. 12: 57–161.
Sealy, J.R. 1954. Review of the genus Hymenocallis. Kew Bull. 2: 201–240.
Sharma, A.K. and Bal, A.K. 1956. A cytological study of a few genera of Amaryllidaceae with a view to find
out the basis of their phylogeny. Cytologia 21: 329–352.
Stebbins, G.L. 1971. Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. Addison-Wesley publishing company, Menlo
Park. 208 pp.
Sun, W., Wang, H., Wu, R., Sun, H. and Li, Z. 2020. Karyomorphology of three endemic plants
(Brassicaceae: Euclidieae and Arabideae) from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and its significance. Plant
Diversity 42: 135e141
Swanson, R., Edlund, A.F. and Preuss, D. 2004. Species specificity in pollen-pistil interactions. Annu. Rev.
Genet. 38: 793-818.
Tanaka, R. 1971. Type of resting nuclei in Orchidaceae. Bot. Mag. 84: 118–122.
Tanee, T., Sudmoon, R. Siripiyasing, P., Suwannakud, K.S., Monkheang, P. and Chaveerach, A. 2018. New
karyotype information of Hymenocallis littoralis, Amaryllidaceae. Cytologia 83(4): 437–440.
Tapia-Campos, E., Rodriguez-Dominguez, J.M., Revuelta-Arreola, M., Tuyl, J.M.V. and Barba-Gonzalez, R.
2012. Mexican geophytes II, The genera Hymenocallis, Sprekelia and Zephyranthus. Floricul. Ornam.
Biotech. 6: 129–139.
Zhang, J. Sayakoummane, S. Kim, S.A., Lee, J.S., Choung. E.S., Kim, E.S., Lee, S.-G., Yum. J., Lee, B.H.,
Lee, S., Kim, J.H. and Cho, J.Y. 2022. Hymenocallis littoralis ameliorates inflammatory responses in
LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 cells and HCl/EtOH-induced gastric mucosal injury via targeting the MAPK
pathway. J. Ethnopharmacol. 295: 115400.
(Manuscript received on 17 March 2024; revised on 20 November 2024)
