Lauraceae

Classification System: APG IV

Superregnum: Eukaryota
Regnum: Plantae
Cladus: Angiosperms
Cladus: Magnoliids
Ordo: Laurales

Familia: Lauraceae
Tribus: Caryodaphnopsideae – Cassytheae – Cryptocaryeae – Hypodaphnideae – Laureae – Neocinnamomeae
Genera: Actinodaphne – Adenodaphne – Aiouea – Alseodaphne – Aniba – Apollonias – Aspidostemon – Beilschmiedia – Caryodaphnopsis – Cassytha – Chlorocardium – Cinnadenia – Cinnamomum – Cryptocarya – Dahlgrenodendron – Damburneya – Dehaasia – Dicypellium – Dodecadenia – Endiandra – Endlicheria – Eusideroxylon – Gamanthera – Hexapora – Hypodaphnis – Iteadaphne – Kubitzkia – Kuloa – Laurus – Licaria – Lindera – Litsea – Machilus – Mespilodaphne – Mezilaurus – Mocinnodaphne – Mutisiopersea – Nectandra – Neocinnamomum – Neolitsea – Nothaphoebe – Ocotea – Paraia – Parasassafras – Persea – Phoebe – Phyllostemonodaphne – Pleurothyrium – Potameia – Potoxylon – Povedadaphne – Ravensara – Rhodostemonodaphne – Sassafras – Sextonia – Sinopora – Sinosassafras – Syndiclis – Triadodaphne – Umbellularia – Urbanodendron – Williamodendron – Yasunia

Fossil-genera: †Actinostrobites – †Androglandula – †Argapaloxylon – †Bandulskaia – †Beilschmiedioxylon – †Caryodaphnopsoxylon – †Catula – †Cinnamomiphyllum – †Cinnamomophyllum – †Cinnamomoxylon – †Cryptocaryoides – †Cryptocaryoxylon – †Curtiembrexylon – †Daphnites – †Daphnogene – †Daphnophyllum – †Fundicutis – †Heliciaephyllum – †Lauraceaephyllum – †Lauraceocyticum – †Lauraceophylloderma – †Lauraceophyllum – †Laurinastrum – †Laurinoxylon – †Lauriphyllum – †Laurocalyx – †Laurocarpum – †Lauroflorum – †Laurogene – †Laurophyllites – †Laurophyllum – †Lauroxylon – †Linderophyllum – †Litsaeophyllum – †Litseopsis – †Litseoxylon – †Machilusoxylon – †Mezilaurinoxylon – †Nectandrophyllum – †Ocoteophyllum – †Ocoteoxylon – †Paraperseoxylon – †Perseophyllum – †Perseoxylon – †Persites – †Piliparicutis – †Potomacanthus – †Protoravensara – †Sassafrasoxylon – †Tetrantheroidea – †Treptostemon – †Trianthera
Name

Lauraceae Juss. Gen. Pl. 80 (1789), as "Lauri", nom. cons.

Type genus: Laurus L. Sp. Pl. 1: 369. (1753)

Synonyms

Heterotypic
Cassythaceae Bartl. ex Lindl., Nix. Pl.: 15. (1833), nom. cons.
Perseaceae Horan., Prim. Lin. Syst. Nat.: 61. (1834)

Note: See Discussion Page.
References
Primary references

Jussieu, A.L. de 1789. Genera plantarum, secundum ordines naturales disposita juxta methodum in Horto Regio Parisiensi exaratam. 498 pp. Paris: Herissant et Theophile Barrois. BHL Reference page.
Lindley, J. 1833. Nixus Plantarum. London: apud Ridgway et filios. Google Books Reference page.
Horaninow, P. 1834. Primae lineae systematis naturae, nexui naturali omnium evolutionique progressivae per nixus reascendentes superstructi. Petropoli: Typis Karoli Krajanis. BHL Reference page.

Additional references

Chanderbali, A.S., van der Werff, H. & Renner, S.S. 2001. Phylogeny and historical biogeography of Lauraceae: evidence from the chloroplast and nuclear genomes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 88(1): 104–134. DOI: 10.2307/2666133 BHL Reference page.
Huang, J.F., Li, L., van der Werff, H., Li, H.W., Rohwer, J.G., Crayn, D.M., Meng, H.H., van der Merwe, M., Conran, J.G. & Li, J. 2016. Origins and evolution of cinnamon and camphor: A phylogenetic and historical biogeographical analysis of the Cinnamomum group (Lauraceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 96: 33–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.12.007 Reference page.
Li, J., Christophel, D.C., Conran, J.G. & Li, H.W. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships within the ‘core’ Laureae (Litsea complex, Lauraceae) inferred from sequences of the chloroplast gene matK and nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS regions. Plant Systematics and Evolution 246(1-2): 19–34. DOI: 10.1007/s00606-003-0113-z Full text PDF Reference page.
Li, J., Conran, J.G., Christophel, D.C., Li, Z.M., Li, L. & Li, H.W. 2008. Phylogenetic relationships of the Litsea complex and core Laureae (Lauraceae) using ITS and ETS sequences and morphology. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 95(4): 580–599. JSTOR Reference page.
Manchester, S.R. 1994. Fruits and seeds of the Middle Eocene Nut Beds Flora, Clarno Formation, Oregon. Palaeontographica Americana 58: 1–205.
Meyer, H.W. & Manchester, S.R. 1997. The Oligocene Bridge Creek flora of the John Day Formation, Oregon. University of California Publications in the Geological Sciences 141: 1–364. ISBN 978-0-520-09816-9. Reference page.
Nishida, S. & van der Werff, H. 2007. Are cuticular characters useful in solving generic relationships of problematic species of Lauraceae? Taxon 56(4): 1229–1237. DOI: 10.2307/25065914 Reference page.
Song, Y., Yu, W.B., Tan, Y.H., Jin, J.J., Wang, B., Yang, J.B., Liu, B. & Corlett, R.T. 2020. Plastid phylogenomics improve phylogenetic resolution in the Lauraceae. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 58(4): 423-439. DOI: 10.1111/jse.12536 Paywall Reference page.
Nishida, S. & van der Werff, H. 2011. An Evaluation of Classification by Cuticular Characters of the Lauraceae: A Comparison to Molecular Phylogeny. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 98(3): 348–357. DOI: 10.3417/2010054 Reference page.
Rohwer, J.G., De Moraes, P.L.R., Rudolph, B. & Van der Werff, H. 2014. A phylogenetic analysis of the Cryptocarya group (Lauraceae), and relationships of Dahlgrenodendron, Sinopora, Triadodaphne, and Yasunia. Phytotaxa 158(2): 111–132. DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.158.2.1 Reference page.
Werff, H.v.d. 2013. Nomenclatural Notes on Cryptocarya R. Br. (Lauraceae) from Madagascar. Candollea 68(2): 303–306. DOI: 10.15553/c2012v682a14 PDF Reference page.

Links

Govaerts, R. et al. 2021. Lauraceae in Kew Science Plants of the World online. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published online. Accessed: 2021 Oct. 14. Reference page.
International Plant Names Index. 2021. Lauraceae. Published online. Accessed: Oct. 14 2021.
Stevens, P.F. 2001 onwards. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 14, July 2017 [and more or less continuously updated since]. Online. Reference page.

Vernacular names
العربية: غارية
azərbaycanca: Dəfnəkimilər
беларуская: Лаўровыя
български: Лаврови
català: Lauràcies
čeština: Vavřínovité
dansk: Laurbær-familien
Deutsch: Lorbeergewächse
Ελληνικά: Λαουρίδες
English: Laurel family
Esperanto: Laŭracoj
eesti: Loorberilised
فارسی: برگ‌بوئیان
suomi: Laakerikasvit
Nordfriisk: Loorbeerplaanten
עברית: עריים
हिन्दी: जयपत्र
hrvatski: Lovorovke
hornjoserbsce: Ławrjencowe rostliny
magyar: Babérfélék
հայերեն: Դափնազգիներ
Ido: Lauro
日本語: クスノキ科
Taqbaylit: Tareslant
қазақша: Лавр тұқымдасы
한국어: 녹나무과
kurdî: Famîleya qaran
lietuvių: Lauramediniai
македонски: Ловори
മലയാളം: ലോറേസീ
नेपाली: काउलो
Nederlands: Laurierfamilie, Laurierachtigen
norsk: Laurbærfamilien
polski: Wawrzynowate
русский: Лавровые
svenska: Lagerväxter
తెలుగు: లారేసి
ไทย: วงศ์อบเชย
Türkçe: Defnegiller
українська: Лаврові
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Lavrdoshlar
Tiếng Việt: Họ Nguyệt quế
West-Vlams: Laurierachtign
中文: 樟科

The flowering plant family Lauraceae, the laurels, includes the true laurel and its closest relatives. This family comprises about 2850 known species in about 45 genera worldwide (Christenhusz & Byng 2016 [2]). They are dicotyledons, and occur mainly in warm temperate and tropical regions, especially Southeast Asia and South America. Many are aromatic evergreen trees or shrubs, but some, such as Sassafras, are deciduous, or include both deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs, especially in tropical and temperate climates. The genus Cassytha is unique in the Lauraceae in that its members are parasitic vines. Most laurels are highly-poisonous.

Overview

The family has a worldwide distribution in tropical and warm climates. The Lauraceae are important components of tropical forests ranging from low-lying to montane. In several forested regions, Lauraceae are among the top five families in terms of the number of species present.

The Lauraceae give their name to habitats known as laurel forests, which have many trees that superficially resemble the Lauraceae, though they may belong to other plant families such as Magnoliaceae or Myrtaceae. Laurel forests of various types occur on most continents and on many major islands.

Although the taxonomy of the Lauraceae is still not settled, conservative estimates suggest some 52 genera worldwide, including 3,000 to 3,500 species.[3] Compared to other plant families, the taxonomy of Lauraceae still is poorly understood. This is partly due to its great diversity, the difficulty of identifying the species, and partly because of inadequate investment in taxonomic work.[3]

Recent monographs on small and medium-sized genera of Lauraceae (up to about 100 species) have revealed many new species.[3] Similar increases in the numbers of species recognised in other larger genera are to be expected.[3]
Description

Most of the Lauraceae are evergreen trees in habit. Exceptions include some two dozen species of Cassytha, all of which are obligately parasitic vines.

The fruits of Lauraceae are drupes, one-seeded fleshy fruit with a hard layer, the endocarp, surrounding the seed. However, the endocarp is very thin, so the fruit resemble a one-seeded berry.[4] The fruit in some species (particularly in the genera Ocotea and Oreodaphne) are partly immersed or covered in a cup-shaped or deep thick cupule, which is formed from the tube of the calyx where the peduncle joins the fruit; this gives the fruit an appearance similar to an acorn. In some Lindera species, the fruit have a hypocarpium at the base of the fruit.[citation needed]
Distribution and uses

Because the family is so ancient and was so widely distributed on the Gondwana supercontinent, modern species commonly occur in relict populations isolated by geographical barriers, for instance on islands or tropical mountains. Relict forests retain endemic fauna and flora in communities of great value in inferring the palaeontological succession and climate change that followed the breakups of the supercontinents.

Many Lauraceae contain high concentrations of essential oils, some of which are valued for spices and perfumes. Within the plants, most such substances are components of irritant or toxic sap or tissues that repel or poison many herbivorous or parasitic organisms.
Some of the essential oils are valued as fragrances, such as in the traditional laurel wreath of classical antiquity, or in cabinet making, where the fragrant woods are prized for making insect-repellant furniture chests.
Some are valued in cooking, for example, bay leaves are a popular ingredient in European, American, and Asian cuisines.
Avocados are important oil-rich fruit that are cultivated in warm climates around the world.
Many species are exploited for timber.
Some species are valued as sources of medicinal material.

These genera include some of the best-known species of particular commercial value:

Cinnamomum: cinnamon, cassia and camphor laurel
Laurus: bay laurel
Persea: avocado

Loss of habitat and overexploitation for such products has put many species in danger of extinction as a result of overcutting, extensive illegal logging, and habitat conversion.[5][6][7][8]

Conversely, some species, though commercially valuable in some countries, are regarded as aggressive invaders in other regions. For example, Cinnamomum camphora, though a valued ornamental and medicinal plant, is so invasive as to have been declared a weed in subtropical forested areas of South Africa.[9]
Ecology
Lindera melissifolia: This endangered species is native to the southeastern United States, and its demise is associated with habitat loss from extensive drainage of wetlands for agriculture and forestry.[10]

Lauraceae flowers are protogynous, often with a complex flowering system to prevent inbreeding. The fruits are an important food source for birds, on which some Palaeognathae are highly dependent.[citation needed] Other birds that rely heavily on the fruit for their diets include members of the families Cotingidae, Columbidae, Trogonidae, Turdidae, and Ramphastidae, amongst others. Birds that are specialised frugivores tend to eat the whole fruit and regurgitate seeds intact, thereby releasing the seeds in favourable situations for germination (ornithochory). Some other birds that swallow the fruit pass the seed intact through their guts.

Seed dispersal of various species in the family is also carried out by monkeys, arboreal rodents, porcupines, opossums, and fishes.[citation needed] Hydrochory occurs in Caryodaphnopsis.[11][dubious – discuss]

The leaves of some species in the Lauraceae have domatia in the axils of their veins. The domatia are home to certain mites. Other lauraceous species, members of the genus Pleurothyrium in particular, have a symbiotic relationship with ants that protect and defend the tree. Some Ocotea species are also used as nesting sites by ants, which may live in leaf pockets or in hollowed-out stems.[12]

Defense mechanisms that occur among members of the Lauraceae include irritant or toxic sap or tissues that repel or poison many herbivorous organisms.

Trees of the family predominate in the world's laurel forests[citation needed] and cloud forests,[citation needed] which occur in tropical to mild temperate regions of both northern and southern hemispheres. Other members of the family however, occur pantropically in general lowland and Afromontane forest, and in Africa for example there are species endemic to countries such as Cameroon, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Congo. Several relict species in the Lauraceae occur in temperate areas of both hemispheres. Many botanical species in other families have similar foliage to the Lauraceae due to convergent evolution, and forests of such plants are called laurel forest. These plants are adapted to high rainfall and humidity, and have leaves with a generous layer of wax, making them glossy in appearance, and a narrow, pointed-oval shape with a 'drip tip', which permits the leaves to shed water despite the humidity, allowing transpiration to continue. Scientific names similar to Daphne (e.g., Daphnidium, Daphniphyllum)[13] or "laurel" (e.g.,Laureliopsis, Skimmia laureola) indicate other plant families that resemble Lauraceae.

Some Lauraceae species have adapted to demanding conditions in semiarid climates, but they tend to depend on favorable edaphic conditions, for example, perennial aquifers, periodic groundwater flows, or periodically flooded forests in sand that contains hardly any nutrients. Various species have adapted to swampy conditions by growing pneumatophores, roots that grow upward, that project above the levels of periodic floods that drown competing plants which lack such adaptations.[14]

Paleobotanists have suggested the family originated some 174±32 million years ago (Mya), while others[15] do not believe they are older than the mid-Cretaceous. Fossil flowers attributed to this family occur in Cenomanian clays (mid-Cretaceous, 90-98 Mya) of the Eastern United States (Mauldinia mirabilis). Fossils of Lauraceae are common in the Tertiary strata of Europe and North America, but they virtually disappeared from central Europe in the Late Miocene.[16] Because of their unusual fragility, the pollens of Lauraceae do not keep well and have been found only in relatively recent strata.

Deciduous Lauraceae lose all of their leaves for part of the year depending on variations in rainfall. The leaf loss coincides with the dry season in tropical, subtropical, and arid regions.

Laurel wilt disease, caused by the virulent fungal pathogen Raffaelea lauricola, a native of southern Asia, was found in the southeast United States in 2002. The fungus spreads between hosts via a wood-boring beetle, Xyleborus glabratus, with which it has a symbiotic relationship. Several Lauraceae species are affected. The beetle and disease are believed to have arrived in the US via infected solid wood packing material, and have since spread to several states.[17]
Classification
Twig of Ocotea obtusata with unripe fruit with an appearance similar to an acorn
Cassytha filiformis fruits

Classification within the Lauraceae is not fully resolved. Multiple classification schemes based on a variety of morphological and anatomical characteristics have been proposed, but none are fully accepted. According to Judd et al. (2007),[18] the suprageneric classification proposed by van der Werff and Richter (1996)[19] is currently the authority. However, due to an array of molecular and embryological evidence that disagrees with the groupings, it is not fully accepted by the scientific community. Their classification is based on inflorescence structure and wood and bark anatomy. It divides Lauraceae into two subfamilies, Cassythoideae and Lauroideae. The Cassythoideae comprise a single genus, Cassytha, and are defined by their herbaceous, parasitic habit. The Lauroideae are then divided into three tribes: Laureae, Perseeae, and Cryptocaryeae.[citation needed]

The subfamily Cassythoideae is not fully supported. Backing has come from matK sequences of chloroplast genes[20] while a questionable placement of Cassytha has been concluded from analysis of intergenetic spacers of chloroplast and nuclear genomes.[21] Embryological studies also appear contradictory. One study by Heo et al. (1998)[22] supports the subfamily. It found that Cassytha develops an ab initio cellular-type endosperm and the rest of the family (with one exception) develops a nuclear-type endosperm. Kimoto et al. (2006)[23] suggest Cassytha should be placed in the tribe Cryptocaryeae because it shares a glandular anther tapetum and an embryo sac protruding from the nucellus with other members of the Cryptocaryeae.

The tribes Laureae and Perseeae are not well supported by any molecular or embryological studies. Sequences of the matK chloroplast gene,[20] as well as sequences of chloroplast and nuclear genomes,[21] reveal close relationships between the two tribes. Embryological evidence does not support a clear division between the two tribes, either. Genera such as Caryodaphnopsis and Aspidostemon that share embryological characteristics with one tribe and wood and bark characteristics or inflorescence characteristics with another tribe blur the division of these groups.[22] All available evidence, except for inflorescence morphology and wood and bark anatomy, fails to support separate tribes Laureae and Perseeae.

The tribe Cryptocaryeae is partially supported by molecular and embryological studies. Chloroplast and nuclear genomes support a tribal grouping that contains all the genera circumscribed by van der Weff and Richter (1996),[19] as well as three additional genera.[21] Partial support for the tribe is also attained from the matK sequences of chloroplast genes[20] as well as embryology.[24]

Challenges in Lauraceae classification

The knowledge of the species comprising the Lauraceae is incomplete. In 1991, about 25-30% of neotropical Lauraceae species had not been described.[25] In 2001, embryological studies had only been completed on individuals from 26 genera yielding a 38.9% level of knowledge, in terms of embryology, for this family.[24] Additionally, the huge amount of variation within the family poses a major challenge for developing a reliable classification.[19][25]
Phytochemistry

The adaptation of Lauraceae to new environments has followed a long evolutionary journey which has led to many specializations, including defensive or deterrent systems against other organisms.

Phytochemicals in the Lauraceae are numerous and diverse. Benzylisoquinoline alkaloids include aporphines and oxoaporphines, as well as derivatives of morphinans. Essential oils include terpenoids, benzyl benzoates, allylphenols, and propenylphenols. Lignans and neolignans are present, along with S-methyl-5-O-flavonoids, proanthocyanidins, cinnamoylamides, phenylpyrroles, styryl pyrones, polyketides (acetogenins), furanosesquiterpenes, and germacranolidous, heliangolidous, eudesmanolidous and guaianolidous sesquiterpene lactones.[citation needed]
Genera

Recent taxonomic revisions of the family include these genera:[26]

Actinodaphne
Adenodaphne
Aiouea
Alseodaphne
Alseodaphnopsis
Aniba
Aspidostemon
Beilschmiedia
Caryodaphnopsis
Cassytha
Chlorocardium
Cinnadenia
Cinnamomum
Clinostemon
Cryptocarya
Damburneya
Dehaasia
Dicypellium
Dodecadenia
Endiandra
Endlicheria
Eusideroxylon
Hexapora
Hypodaphnis
Kubitzkia
Laurus
Licaria
Lindera
Litsea
Machilus
Mespilodaphne
Mezilaurus
Nectandra
Neocinnamomum
Neolitsea
Nothaphoebe
Ocotea
Paraia
Parasassafras
Persea
Phoebe
Phyllostemonodaphne
Pleurothyrium
Potameia
Potoxylon
Pseudocryptocarya
Rhodostemonodaphne
Sassafras
Sextonia
Sinopora
Syndiclis
Triadodaphne
Umbellularia
Urbanodendron
Williamodendron
Yasunia

These genera have traditionally been considered separate within Lauraceae, but have not been included in the most recent treatments:

Apollonias
Gamanthera
Misanteca
Mocinnodaphne
Oreodaphne
Povedadaphne
Ravensara

Popular culture
Main article: Laurel wreath

A laurel wreath, a round or horseshoe-shaped wreath made of connected laurel branches and leaves, is an ancient symbol of triumph in classical Western culture originating in Greek mythology, and is associated in some countries with academic or literary achievement.
References

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2009). "An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 161 (2): 105–121. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x.
Christenhusz, M. J. M.; Byng, J. W. (2016). "The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase". Phytotaxa. 261 (3): 201–217. doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.261.3.1.
"Lauraceæ Columbianæ".
Little, S.A.; Stockey, R.A.; Penner, B. (2009). "Anatomy and development of fruits of Lauraceae from the Middle Eocene Princeton Chert". American Journal of Botany. 96 (3): 637–651. doi:10.3732/ajb.0800318. PMID 21628220. S2CID 38272445.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1998). "Ocotea argylei". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 1998: e.T32642A9720704. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.1998.RLTS.T32642A9720704.en. Retrieved 11 November 2021.
Varty, N. (1998). "Ocotea basicordatifolia". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 1998: e.T33981A9819675. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.1998.RLTS.T33981A9819675.en. Retrieved 11 November 2021.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1998). "Actinodaphne albifrons". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 1998: e.T32552A9714931. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.1998.RLTS.T32552A9714931.en. Retrieved 11 November 2021.
de Kok, R. (2020). "Actinodaphne cuspidata". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2020: e.T36328A138506068. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-1.RLTS.T36328A138506068.en. Retrieved 11 November 2021.
Henderson, L. "Alien weeds and Invasive Plants" Agricultural Research Council, Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria South Africa, ISBN 1-86849-192-7
US Fish and Wildlife Service: Species Recovery Plan: Lindera melissifolia.
"Lauraceae". Es.scribd.com. 2011-11-25. Retrieved 2014-05-10.
Stout, Jean (1979). "An Association of an Ant, a Mealy Bug, and an Understory Tree from a Costa Rican Rain Forest". Biotropica. 11 (4): 309–311. doi:10.2307/2387924. JSTOR 2387924.
Sunset Western Garden Book, 1995:606–607
Lübbe, W. A. (1991-06-01). "The Response of Ocotea bullata (Lauraceae) to Flooded Conditions". South African Forestry Journal. 157 (1): 32–37. doi:10.1080/00382167.1991.9629097. ISSN 0038-2167.
Li et al.2004
Kvaček, Zlatko; Teodoridis, Vasilis; Denk, Thomas (2020-09-01). "The Pliocene flora of Frankfurt am Main, Germany: taxonomy, palaeoenvironments and biogeographic affinities". Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments. 100 (3): 647–703. doi:10.1007/s12549-019-00391-6. ISSN 1867-1608. S2CID 207988189.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/ [bare URL PDF]
Judd, Walter, S.; Christopher Campbell; Elizabeth Kellog; Peter Stevens; Michael Donoghue (2007). Plant Systematics a Phylogenetic Approach, third edition. Massachusetts, USA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 978-0-87893-407-2.
H van der Werff; J.G. Richter (1996). "Toward an improved classification of Lauraceae". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 83 (3): 409–418. doi:10.2307/2399870. JSTOR 2399870.
Rohwer, J.G. (2000). "Toward a phylogenetic classification of the Lauraceae: evidence from matK sequences". Systematic Botany. 25 (1): 60–71. doi:10.2307/2666673. JSTOR 2666673. S2CID 86256357.
Chanderbali, A.S.,van der Werff,H. and Renner, S.S. (2001). "Phylogeny and historical biogeography of Lauraceae: Evidence from the chloroplast and nuclear genomes" (PDF). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 88 (1): 104–134. doi:10.2307/2666133. JSTOR 2666133.
Heo,K.,van der Werff, H., and Tobe, H. (1998). "Embryology and relationships of Lauraceae(Laurales)". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 126 (4): 295–322. doi:10.1006/bojl.1997.0138.
Kimoto,Y.,Utame N., and Tobe, H. (2006). "Embryology of Eusideroxylon (Cryptocaryeae, Lauraceae) and character evolution in the family". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 150 (2): 187–201. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00458.x.
Kimoto,Y.,and H. Tobe (2001). "Embryology of Laurales: a review and perspectives". Journal of Plant Research. 114 (3): 247–261. doi:10.1007/PL00013988. S2CID 31592261.
Rohwer, J. G.,H. Richter, and H. van der Werff (1991). "Two new genera of neotropical Lauraceae and critical remarks on the generic delimitation". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 78 (2): 388–4oo. doi:10.2307/2399568. JSTOR 2399568.

"Lauraceae". plantsoftheworldonline.org. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew. Retrieved 2019-07-18.