Phylogenetic Tree Based on Pollen Morphology

Experimental Question Analysis

1) When we put the pollen under the SEM microscope, we found that there are many differences  between simple and compound flowers. One difference between the two is the surface of the pollen grains. The Fuchsia  (simple flower)  had a psilate (smooth) surface with fungal hyfee  entangling its triangular body. Then the Asian lily (simple flower) had a reticulate surface, that at 2000x almost looked like the outside surface of a cantaloupe  with the grooves being almost circular. Where as the Dahlia (complex flower) had an echinate (spiky) surface with little holes that look like the holes you would find with acne. Another difference between simple and complex flowers is that the simple flowers had apertures whereas the complex flowers did not. The Asian lily had a long slit like aperture called a monocopulate and the fuchsia had three circular apertures at the end of each corner on its triangular body called a tricolporate.

2) After doing the experiment, we can conclude that our hypothesis was supported by our results. We say this because the simple flowers (Asian lily and Fuchsia) had psilatel and reticulate surfaces that are relatively flat compared to the Dahlia's pollen grain surface. Since it's flat, it's easier for the pollen to spread onto other things. Those two possessing pollen that is easier to spread makes sense because if you even touch the anther of these two flowers the pollen easily comes off. The Dahlia's pollen grain being an echinate surface causes it to make it a little harder to spread the pollen as the pokes the other pollen grains. The pollen grain poking other pollen grains explains why there are holes on the surface. With that, the two flowers have more things in common than the compound flower (Dahlia) does. Another thing that the Fuchsia and Asian lily have in common are that they both have apertures, whereas the compound flower (Dahlia) does not.

3) During this experiment we have done several errors. One was that we didn't know the actual species of Dahlia and Fuchsia. Since we didn't know the actual species, the phylogenic tree and pollen table were all educated guesses. Another error was that the we didn't have some of the pollen samples on hand when doing the compound microscope portion of the experiment. This caused us to a behind a day.

Phylogenetic Tree Analysis

The phylogenetic tree created using protein sequencing matched the tree created using observations of the pollen. This confirms that the observed differences between simple and compound flowers correlate to genetic differences because there was no difference between the trees. The trees can be trusted equally because they confirm each other.

Hypothesis

         We hypothesize that the pollen for the simple flowers will have a smooth surface, whereas the compound flower will have a rough surface. Our reasoning behind this hypothesis is that the simple flowers that we are using in this experiment (Fuchsia and the Asiatic lily) have anthers that produce pollen that is easy to rub off compared to the complex flower (Dahlia) used in our experiment. Since it's easy to rub off, it makes sense that the pollen of the simple flowers have a surface that is smooth.

Phylogenetic trees

Analysis

Original Pictures of Three Flowers

Dahlia coccinea
Credit to: http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/files/Dahlia/Dahlia_coccinea_12.jpg

Lilium concolor
Credit to: http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/files/Lilium/Lilium_concolor_06jl.jpg

Fuchsia cyrtandroides
Credit to: http://www.kathleenmuncasterfuchsias.co.uk/F.cyrtandroides.jpg

Procedure

1st Station: SEM Work Time
We went through the procedure of setting up our sample for the SEM by putting our samples on the stub. And sprayed our stub with compressed air to make sure our samples were secure.

Drawing of our stub before we made the stub.

Picture of stub we used to make fiduciary marks and added pollen samples. 

Hannah spraying liquid air on our stub to remove all excess pollen from the surface.

And took pictures of our sample by zooming in our sample to 2000x and measured the size of our samples.


Leica Work Time:
At this station, we put the dried out flowers under the microscope. The pictures taken from the Leica microscope were very detailed and you could clearly see the pollen located on our three flowers. You can find these pictures on the post labeled: Flower Photos


Compound Microscope:
During this station, we created wet mounts of or samples using a growth media solution. We took pictures and drew our pollen at 400x. You can find these pictures on the post labeled: Flower With Sugar Solution Under 400x Power Microscope

Hannah taking a picture of a sample through the lens of the microscope.

Blog work time: Throughout stations 2, 3, and 7 was all spent working on our blog.