Blockquote
Only Monocots are not Graftable right? Altho there’s a recent study proving that monocots are graftable at a Seedling level.
I ask because Monocots & Dicots have vascular bundles arranged differently, which affects how graftable they are. How are the Vascular bundles arranged in Magnoliids?
I do not know about graftability - this is aplicable sience, therefore I have little interest in it :)
I imagine in the lab, it should be possible? But not sure.
the vascular bundles of Magnoliids are similar to eudicots (the woody species have a cambium and are very similar to eudicots).Basal dicots and gymnosperms have wood that is also vaguely similar to eudicots, however, there are important differences (they lack true vessel elements (xylem), instead they have tracheids (precursor to true vessel elements)); but generally they function in a similar way to eudicots (it seems the best way to be woodyis to have a circular layer of tissue that adds bark on one and wood on the other side, so it appears as they have organised vessels).
For pruning, wood structure does not matter as mauch as the ability to meristematise specialised tisuue (meristems are clumps of undifferentiated cells at the growing tips of plant organs); generally, we can artificially make any lump of living plant tisuue grow an entire plant (we force it to meristematise), but in nature, species differ wildly in ability to resprout (i.e. meristematise or by having long lived dormant meristems).
Gymnosperms: Juniperus communis can resprout and grow coppiced, Abies alba cannot; Monocots: Yuccas can and will grow new growth points, but must palms (Arecaceae) will not, eudicots: Quercus pubescens like to grow coppiced (resprots after cutting), Q. robur usually does not, and those to spp. are not only in the same genus, but so closely related they form hybrid swarms).
Resprouting is an adaptation, and does not have so much to do with phylogenetic placement.
For Pines, the Pine I am most familiar with does not resprout (Pinus sylvestris)
Blockquote
and why are Gymnosperm “Flowers” Called cones when they serve the exact same purpose as flowers?
This also pends on definitions of what a flower is; it can absolutely be exapnded to include gymnosperm cones.
But generally, flower is a determinate shoot, terminating with leaves (anthers, carpels or both) that produce gametophytes, and they develop into a fruit* containing seeds.
Gymnosperm cones are neither determinate, nor do they terminate in fertile leaves, and they do not develop into a fruit containing seeds (juniper berries are whole cones, as if the whole apple flower would turn into an apple, but otherwise gymnosperm seed sit unprotected on a carpel . a pine nut is not a nut, but a pine seed, and you can just shake or tease it out, without separating layers of tissue - in true fruits you have to cut it if you want to get to the seed, unless it does it itself).
but; you could also say a flower is a short fertile shoot containing leaves involved in reproduction; that would expand the flower definition to cones, but also to lycopod strobili, and certain moss structures, as well as liverwort perianths/male spikes. This definition is not commonly used, but there are arguments for it in some contexts.
- fruit is seed(s) contained within maternal tissues (carpels) - the simplest ones are called follicles, and when mature, they split open to reveal the seeds. A pod is a special type of follicle of the legume family -a bean is a pod - the single bean is a seed, and is wholly a new plant, while the bean pod is from the mother. All other angiosperm fruits are variation on the theme (i-e a nut is when a “pod” contains a single seed, and the pod walls become woody, berry when the follicles fuse together and become fleshy, etc.)
Those are cotyledons on the picture, yes.