202 ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 Acta Bot. Croat. 84 (2), 202–210, 2025 CODEN: ABCRA 25 DOI: 10.37427/botcro-2025-016 ISSN 0365-0588 eISSN 1847-8476 Leaf morphological variability of Pyrus spinosa and Crataegus monogyna and their potential hybridization Antonio Vidaković1, Zlatko Šatović2,3, Zlatko Liber3,4, Marko Jurica1, Igor Poljak1* 1 University of Zagreb, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Department of Forest Genetics, Dendrology and Botany, Svetošimunska cesta 23, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia 2 University of Zagreb, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Biodiversity, Svetošimunska cesta 25, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia 3 Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Molecular Plant Breeding, Svetošimunska cesta 25, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia 4 University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, Marulićev trg 9a, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia Abstract – This paper is aimed at investigating leaf morphological variability and possible hybridization between two species within the Rosaceae family: the one-seed hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna Jacq.) and the almond-leaved pear (Pyrus spinosa Forssk.). These two genera are taxonomically related and meet many prerequisites for successful hybridization between them, which prompted us to investigate the possibility of the presence of a long-described yet uninvestigated hybrid called ×Pyrocrataegus. The research was conducted along the Eastern Adriatic coast, where both species are widespread and often grow together in open woodlands, forest edges and abandoned agricultural areas. The examination of morphological variability was based on a morphometric analysis of seven populations using ten phenotypic traits of leaves. In general, our results showed great variability of leaf morphological traits within and between the studied populations, as well as a clear differentiation between the two species. The results of principal component analysis (PCA) showed a few intermediate individuals between the two species, indicating possible hybridization. However, as heteroblasty is present in P. spinosa, with its seedlings reported to have lobed, hawthorn- like leaves, dimorphism could also result from the reappearance of juvenile leaves on adult trees by means of rejuvena- tion. In order to draw a definitive conclusion about the existence of hybrid individuals in the next study, DNA mark- ers and a much larger sample, especially morphologically intermediate individuals per population should be included. Keywords: Croatia, hybrids, heteroblasty, morphometric analysis, morphological variability, Rosaceae Introduction With over 3000 species in more than 90 genera, the rose family (Rosaceae) is one of the most diverse angiosperm families (Zhang et al. 2017). The family includes many eco- logically and economically important species that contain the whole spectrum of beneficial properties for biodiversity, as well as for human nutrition and healthcare. Phylogenetic relationships within Rosaceae are complicated and have not been fully clarified, as homoplasy of morphological charac- ters, frequent hybridization and apomixis complicate their classification and phylogenetic reconstruction (Zhang et al. 2017). Within the family, some genera engage in interspe- cific hybridization more easily than others, like Malus Mill. (Larsen et al. 2008), Sorbus L. (Németh et al. 2020) and Pyrus L. (Bell and Hough 1986). However, hybridization in Rosaceae is not limited only to that between species within the same genus, but crosses between species from different genera are also possible (Postman 2011). Intergeneric hybridization in Rosaceae often results in highly fertile individuals that appear repeatedly in nature (Campbell et al. 2007). Among the genera with the largest number of interge- neric hybrids are Pyrus and Crataegus L. Successful hybrid- ization has been reported between Pyrus species and Sorbus (Postman 2011), Cydonia L. (Shimura et al. 1983) and Malus (Pasqualetto et al. 2022), resulting in new hybrid genera like ×Sorbopyrus C.K.Schneid. and ×Pyronia Veitch ex. Trab. In * Corresponding author e-mail: ipoljak@sumfak.unizg.hr POSSIBLE CROSS BETWEEN WILD PYRUS AND CRATAEGUS SPECIES ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 203 addition, the best-known intergeneric hybrid of Crataegus is Crataemespilus Camus, a sexual hybrid between Crataegus and Mespilus L. (Phipps 2016). These hybrid individuals usually display new, intermediate forms of vegetative and generative traits (Pasqualetto et al. 2022). However, most of these hybrids have been obtained artificially in attempts to obtain individuals with superior morphological, sensory or physiological characteristics, as hybridization is recognized as the most important source of genetic variation in fruit breeding (Van Tuyl and de Jeu 1997). When successful, intergeneric hybridization allows the introduction of chro- mosomal genomic regions of one taxon into that of another taxon through subsequent backcrossing, enabling the intro- duction of favourable traits to improve flavour, texture or disease resistance (Fischer et al. 2014). In addition to the aforementioned intergeneric hybrids, sporadic mentions of a hybrid between Pyrus and Crataegus, named ×Pyrocrataegus Rehder (Rehder 1949, McNeill et al. 2016) can be found in the literature. This proposed hybrid was described as the result of hybridization between Crataegus oxyacantha and Pyrus communis L., as well as between C. monogyna Jacq. and P. pollveria Lej (Rehder 1949). It is important to note that the author of C. oxyacantha was not noted, and therefore the exact species is not clear, as by present taxonomy it could be synonymous with any of the following accepted taxa, depending on the author: C. × polyacantha Jan, C. laevigata (Poir.) DC. or C. marshallii Eggl. Furthermore, according to the World Flora Database (WFO 2024), the taxonomic classification of P. pollveria is still unclear. Unfortunately, no further investigations were conducted on this hybrid, nor was it described in more detail in the available literature. Therefore, an intergeneric hybrid between Pyrus and Crataegus remains a botanical curiosity and is yet to be confirmed by modern taxonomi- cal methods. During field research in 2021, we observed almond- leaved pear (Pyrus spinosa Forssk.) individuals with pecu- liar, hawthorn-like leaves on a few branches, which aroused our interest in the long-described hybrid between these two genera. In this particular area, along the eastern Adriatic coast, both the almond-leaved pear and the one-seed haw- thorn (Crataegus monogyna Jacq.) can be found. These are deciduous shrubs or small trees that reach up to 10 m in height (Zamani et al. 2012, Nabavi et al. 2015). However, they differ significantly in leaf morphology. Almond-leaved pear leaves are narrowly lanceolate or elliptic in shape, up to 7 cm long and 3 cm wide. The leaf edge is entire, some- times moderately crenate. Leaves are shiny and vary in co- lour, from green to dark green, greyish- to bluish-green from below, initially hairy on both sides, later glabrous or only hairy below (Zamani et al. 2012). On the other hand, one-seed hawthorn leaves are 3-5 cm wide and long, broad- ly ovate to rhombic, deeply lobed, with pointed tips of the lobes. Lobes sometimes reach up almost to the midrib. Co- lour-wise, the leaves of common hawthorn are dark green, glabrous and shiny, lighter from below, hirsute only in the vein corners (Idžojtić 2009). Both species have up to 2 cm- long petioles. The almond-leaved pear is native to xerophyt- ic habitats of Southern and South-eastern Europe and of Asia Minor, where it grows in discontinuous bush associa- tions and open spaces, on a wide range of soil and habitat conditions (Vidaković et al. 2021). On the other hand, the one-seed hawthorn is widely spread across most of Europe and western Asia (Nabavi et al. 2015). Considering their overlapping natural distribution and occasional reproductive compatibility described in the lit- erature (Rehder 1949, McNeill et al. 2016), in this study we aimed to investigate the possibility of the presence of a long- described yet uninvestigated hybrid between Crataegus and Pyrus called ×Pyrocrataegus along the eastern Adriatic coast. In addition, the variability of their respective leaf morphologies is set to be studied, along with the population variability of both species. These data would provide valu- able insight into the diversity of leaf sizes and shapes of these species, which can provide additional knowledge about their plasticity and adaptation processes. Material and methods Plant material and morphometric analysis The plant material for morphometric analysis was col- lected in three C. monogyna (P1-P3) and four P. spinosa (P4- P7) populations (Tab. 1, Fig. 1). It is important to note that P. spinosa samples were sub- sampled from a larger study oriented towards research into genetic diversity and population genetics (Vidaković et al. 2024). The collection area encompasses the regions of Istria and Northern Dalmatia, where these two species have over- lapping natural distribution areas, and where dimorphic P. spinosa individuals were observed. At each location, 10 shrubs/trees were selected for the analysis. From each shrub/tree, 20 fully developed leaves with no signs of disease or damage were collected from the short shoots in the sun- lit part of the canopy. The leaves were collected during the vegetation period of 2022. Upon collection, leaves were her- barized, scanned using Microtek ScanMaker 9800XL scan- ner, measured using WinFolia software (WinFoliaTM 2001) and stored at the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology of the University of Zagreb. In total, 10 leaf morphological traits were measured: leaf area (LA), perimeter (P), form coefficient (FC), leaf length (LL), maximum leaf width (MLW), leaf length, measured from the leaf base to the point of maximum leaf width (PMLW), leaf blade width at 90% of leaf blade length (LW90); angle closed by the main leaf vein and the line de- fined by the leaf blade base and a point on the leaf margin, at 10% (LA10) and 25% (LA25) of leaf blade length and pet- iole length (PL). In total, 1400 leaves were measured, 800 of P. spinosa and 600 of C. monogyna. Statistical analysis Following the procedure described in Sokal and Rohlf (2012), descriptive statistical parameters for all of the stud- VIDAKOVIĆ A., ŠATOVIĆ Z., LIBER Z., JURICA M., POLJAK I. 204 ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 ied traits were calculated, including arithmetic mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variability (CV). These parameters were calculated at individual population level and in total and gave insights into morphological char- acteristics and range of variation for each population and trait. In addition, principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to assess population structure and to reveal interactions between individuals and studied mor- phometric traits. To enhance the analysis, a biplot was con- structed by first two principal components. The principal component analysis was conducted using the “MorphoTo- ols” R scripts in R v.3.2.2 (R Core Team 2016). The Euclidean distance matrix was calculated between all pairs of individuals based on the scores of the first two principal components (PC) considering 10 leaf traits. The average Euclidean distances were calculated for each popu- lation and species and used as the multivariate diversity in- dex (MDI) of a population (or species) (Poljak et al. 2024). The Kruskal-Wallis test between species was performed us- ing the STATISTICA version 13 software package (STATIS- TICA version 13, 2018). In addition, the Euclidean distance matrix was also used in the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA; Excoffier et al. 1992) to partition the total morphological variance be- tween species, among populations within species and with- Tab. 1. Populations, sampling sites, taxa, geographic coordinates, and multivariate diversity index (MDI) for seven studied popula- tions. The significance level of differences in the average values of MDI between groups according to the Kruskal-Wallis test is marked by asterisk (*). Population ID Sampling site Taxa Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Multivariate diversity index (MDI)* P1 Buje Crataegus monogyna 45.4328 13.7775 2.474 P2 Pula Crataegus monogyna 44.8756 13.9005 1.639 P3 Nin Crataegus monogyna 44.2120 15.3341 1.816 P4 Škropeti Pyrus spinosa 45.2732 13.8272 2.529 P5 Pula Pyrus spinosa 44.8756 13.9005 1.727 P6 Nin Pyrus spinosa 44.2120 15.3341 2.712 P7 Obrovac Pyrus spinosa 44.2143 15.6628 2.440 Crataegus monogyna 2.326 Pyrus spinosa 2.632 P (KW)* 0.002 Fig. 1. Geographic locations of the studied Crataegus monogyna (P1-P3) and Pyrus spinosa (P4-P7) populations. Populations: P1 – Buje; P2 – Pula; P3 – Nin; P4 – Škropeti; P5 – Pula; P6 – Nin; P7 – Obrovac. The rectangle on the map in the lower right corner indicates the research area in the SE European context. Abbreviations: SI – Slovenia, HR – Croatia. POSSIBLE CROSS BETWEEN WILD PYRUS AND CRATAEGUS SPECIES ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 205 in populations (two-way AMOVA) and to partition the total morphological variance among and within populations of each species (one-way AMOVA). The significance levels of the variance components were determined after 10.000 per- mutations. The calculations were performed in Arlequin ver. 3.5.2.2 (Excoffier and Lischer 2010). Results The results of descriptive statistics for both species are shown in Tab. 2, individually per population and in total. On average, one-seed hawthorn leaves were 1.88 cm long, 1.77 wide, with 1.10 cm long petioles. The morpho- metric trait that refers to leaf shape, i.e., form coefficient (FC) had an average value of 0.50. The most variable trait was leaf area (LA), with CV value of 35.87%, followed by petiole length (PL) with CV value of 25.36%. On the other hand, the least variable traits were the angles closed by the main leaf vein and the line defined by the leaf blade base and a point on the leaf margin, at 10% (LA10) and 25% (LA25) of leaf blade length, with CV values of 11.33 and 9.58%, respectively. On an individual population level, pop- ulation P1 (Buje) was characterized by on average the larg- est leaves, with seven out of 10 maximal values (LA, P, LL, MLW, PMLW, LW90, PL). In contrast, the largest number of minimal values was found in P2 (Pula) (LA, P, LL, MLW, LW90, LA25, PL), which characterizes this population as the one with the smallest leaves. By far the most variable population was P1 (Buje), with the highest CV values for all of the measured leaf traits except petiole length (PL), rang- ing from 10.09 (LA25) to 34.12% (LA). On the other hand, leaf traits were the least variable in P3 (Nin), with six mini- mal CV values (P, FC, MLW, LW90, LA25, PL). The average leaf of the almond-leaved pear was 3.44 cm in length, 1.39 cm in width and had a 1.12 cm-long petiole. Form coefficient has an average value of 0.63. Coefficients Tab. 2. Results of the descriptive statistical analysis for the studied populations and morphometric traits. Morphometric traits analysed: LA – leaf area (cm2); P – leaf perimeter (cm); FC – form coefficient; LL – leaf blade length (cm); MLW – maximum leaf width (cm); PMLW – leaf blade length measured from the leaf base to the point of maximum leaf width (cm); LW90 – leaf blade width at 90% of the leaf blade length (cm); LA10 – angle closed by the main leaf vein and the line defined by the leaf blade base and the point on the leaf margin, at 10% (˚); LA25 – angle closed by the main leaf vein and the line defined by the leaf blade base and the point on the leaf margin, at 25% (˚); PL – petiole length (cm). Descriptive parameters: M – arithmetic mean, SD – standard deviation and CV – coefficient of variation (%). Populations: P1-P7 as in Tab. 1. Taxa Population ID Descriptive parameters Morphometric traits analysed LA P FC LL MLW PMLW LW90 LA10 LA25 PL Crataegus monogyna P1 M 2.63 8.59 0.46 2.14 2.05 1.04 0.66 54.81 52.53 1.21 SD 0.90 1.69 0.10 0.41 0.37 0.32 0.17 7.45 5.30 0.29 CV (%) 34.12 19.64 22.40 19.10 17.87 30.58 25.47 13.60 10.09 23.94 Crataegus monogyna P2 M 1.59 6.07 0.57 1.70 1.49 0.95 0.48 61.07 49.78 0.92 SD 0.31 1.09 0.10 0.21 0.22 0.16 0.10 4.85 4.61 0.22 CV (%) 19.52 17.96 17.68 12.31 14.67 16.68 19.89 7.95 9.25 24.30 Crataegus monogyna P3 M 1.88 7.21 0.47 1.79 1.76 0.85 0.55 60.79 53.34 1.18 SD 0.42 1.22 0.08 0.24 0.20 0.19 0.10 6.04 4.74 0.24 CV (%) 22.28 16.92 17.54 13.40 11.32 21.95 18.93 9.94 8.89 20.73 Crataegus monogyna Total M 2.03 7.29 0.50 1.88 1.77 0.95 0.57 58.89 51.88 1.10 SD 0.73 1.68 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.24 0.14 6.67 4.97 0.28 CV (%) 35.87 23.02 21.23 18.54 19.75 24.94 25.55 11.33 9.58 25.36 Pyrus spinosa P4 M 4.58 9.15 0.68 3.77 1.66 1.93 0.86 39.79 33.02 1.35 SD 1.46 1.58 0.07 0.72 0.26 0.41 0.13 7.29 5.50 0.23 CV (%) 31.79 17.28 10.11 19.04 15.87 21.34 15.21 18.33 16.67 17.17 Pyrus spinosa P5 M 3.57 8.72 0.59 3.62 1.37 1.90 0.72 35.09 28.03 1.18 SD 0.84 1.14 0.06 0.50 0.19 0.22 0.16 3.61 2.78 0.31 CV (%) 23.64 13.06 9.85 13.73 13.59 11.74 22.07 10.30 9.93 26.38 Pyrus spinosa P6 M 2.70 7.50 0.59 3.14 1.16 1.57 0.58 36.11 29.03 0.92 SD 1.23 1.92 0.06 0.85 0.23 0.53 0.11 7.33 4.91 0.30 CV (%) 45.72 25.60 9.52 26.99 19.97 33.51 19.08 20.30 16.91 32.95 Pyrus spinosa P7 M 3.29 7.83 0.65 3.23 1.38 1.61 0.72 39.86 32.25 1.05 SD 1.24 1.64 0.08 0.70 0.31 0.38 0.16 4.86 4.06 0.21 CV (%) 37.50 20.92 11.78 21.74 22.52 23.70 23.01 12.20 12.60 20.50 Pyrus spinosa Total M 3.53 8.30 0.63 3.44 1.39 1.75 0.72 37.71 30.58 1.12 SD 1.35 1.67 0.07 0.73 0.30 0.42 0.17 6.15 4.76 0.31 CV (%) 38.32 20.14 11.91 21.10 21.64 23.90 23.57 16.32 15.57 27.17 VIDAKOVIĆ A., ŠATOVIĆ Z., LIBER Z., JURICA M., POLJAK I. 206 ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 of variability between the studied leaf traits ranged from 15.57 (LA25) to 38.32% (LA). The second most variable trait, as for C. monogyna, was petiole length, with CV value of 27.17%. When observing individual populations, P4 (Škropeti) had the highest values in all of the measured leaf traits except LA10. In contrast, population P6 (Nin) had eight out of 10 the lowest average values of leaf morphomet- ric traits (LA, P, FC, LL, MLW, PMLW, LW90, PL). In addi- tion, P6 (Nin) had also the most variable leaf morphology, with seven maximal CV values (LA, P, LL, PMLW, LA10, L25, PL). On the other hand, population P5 (Pula) was the least variable, with seven minimal CV values (LA, P, LL, MLW, PMLW, LA10, LA25). The multivariate diversity index (MDI) values, based on leaf morphological traits, ranged from 1.639 to 2.474 in C. monogyna, and from 1.727 to 2.712 in P. spinosa (Tab. 1). On overall individual species level, P. spinosa had a significant- ly larger MDI (2.632) than C. monogyna (2.326), as demon- strated by the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = 0.0023). The results of two-way AMOVA conducted for both species showed sta- tistically significant differences between the two species, among populations within species and within populations (Tab. 3). The analysis also revealed that within-population and between-species variabilities contributed almost equal- ly to the total variability, with 46.21% and 44.89%, respec- tively. One-way AMOVA conducted on individual species showed significant differences among populations within both species. In addition, within-population variability ac- counted for most of the total variability in both species. Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted, based on 10 morphological leaf traits. The two first princi- pal components explained 83.52% of the total variability, with additional 9.95 and 3.36% explained by the third and fourth principal components, respectively. Five traits were in a high negative correlation with the first principal com- ponent (LA, P, LL, PMLW, LW90) and two traits were in a high positive correlation with the same component (LA10, LA25). The second principal component was in a high neg- ative correlation with MLW, while the third principal com- ponent was highly positively correlated with FC (Tab. 4). The biplot constructed by the first two principal com- ponents is shown in Fig. 2. Clear separation of the two spe- cies can be observed along the first axis, where barycentres of P. spinosa are separated on the left, and those of C. monogyna on the right side of the first axis. Crataegus monogyna was characterized by generally wider leaf base angles (LA10, Tab. 3. The results of two-way (between species) and one-way (within species) analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA). df – degrees of freedom; fST – measure of differentiation among populations; *** significant at P < 0.001; ** significant at 0.001 < P < 0.01. Analysis Source of variation df % Variation fST P Between Crataegus monogyna and Pyrus spinosa Between species 1 44.89 0.449 *** Among population within species 5 8.90 0.162 *** Within populations 63 46.21 0.538 *** Within Crataegus monogyna Among populations 2 20.39 0.204 *** Within populations 27 79.61 Within Pyrus spinosa Among populations 3 13.41 0.134 ** Within populations 36 86.59 Tab. 4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between morphometric traits and scores of the first four principal components. Morphomet- ric traits’ acronyms as in Tab. 2. Trait PC – Principal Component PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 LA –0.9433 –0.2295 0.1209 –0.0556 P –0.8023 –0.5137 –0.2630 –0.0863 FC –0.3207 0.5363 0.7648 0.0647 LL –0.9728 0.1209 –0.1116 0.0283 MLW –0.1090 –0.9468 0.1315 –0.2323 PMLW –0.9673 0.1584 –0.0773 –0.0419 LW90 –0.8083 –0.2400 0.4336 –0.1344 LA10 0.8123 –0.4630 0.2536 0.0392 LA25 0.7515 –0.6198 0.1916 –0.0309 PL –0.5192 –0.6914 0.0390 0.4944 Eigenvalue 5.68 2.67 0.99 0.34 Variance (%) 56.78 26.74 9.95 3.36 Cumulative Variance (%) 56.78 83.52 93.47 96.83 POSSIBLE CROSS BETWEEN WILD PYRUS AND CRATAEGUS SPECIES ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 207 LA25), while P. spinosa was characterized by longer and wider leaves. However, a few individuals of both species ended up on the opposite side of the axis. For instance, two individuals in P1 were separated on the left side of the first axis, and they were characterized by long petioles and high perimeter value, while a few individuals in P4, P6 and P7 were sepa- rated on the right side of the first axis. These few individu- als from P. spinosa populations, with unusual, hawthorn- like leaves indicate possible hybridization between these two genera (Fig. 3). Discussion Leaf dimensions of C. monogyna obtained in this re- search were slightly lower compared to the length and width of 3-5 cm listed by Schuck (2008), and within the range of 1-6 cm stated by Fichtner and Wissemann (2021) and Khadivi et al. (2019). The petiole length of 1.10 cm fits within the ranges listed by all the above mentioned authors (1-3 cm). On the other hand, leaf dimensions of P. spinosa were in ac- cordance with previous descriptions of 2.5-7 cm long and 1-3 cm wide leaves with a petiole of 1-2 cm (Idžojtić 2009, Zamani et al. 2012, Vidaković et al. 2021). In both species, the leaf area (LA) and petiole length (PL) were the most vari- able traits, with CV values above 30% in LA and 25% in PL. Such a pattern of variability is very common among woody species (Khadivi-Khub et al. 2015, Kumar et al. 2018). In C. monoygna, the coefficients of variability in the majority of the measured leaf traits were very similar to that obtained by Khadivi et al. (2019), but significantly higher than in Khadivi-Khub et al. (2015). However, their respective studies did not include leaf area. Coefficients of variability in P. spinosa traits ranged from 11.91 to 38.32%, which is lower than the range of 18.02-45.62% obtained by Vidaković et al. (2021). According to AMOVA, the majority of total variability in both species could be attributed to within-population variability, while a much smaller percentage was associated with among-population variability. Such a distribution of variability is expected, as it was previously confirmed in Fig. 2. Biplot of the principal component analysis (PCA) based on ten leaf morphometric traits in the studied Crataegus monogyna (P1-P3) and Pyrus spinosa (P4-P7) populations. Each individual shrub/tree is indicated by a small sign, while the population barycenters are represented by larger ones. Morphometric traits’ acronyms: LA – leaf area; P – leaf perimeter; FC – form coefficient; LL – leaf blade length; MLW – maximum leaf width; PMLW – leaf blade length measured from the leaf base to the point of maximum leaf width; LW90 – leaf blade width at 90% of the leaf blade length; LA10 – angle closed by the main leaf vein and the line defined by the leaf blade base and the point on the leaf margin, at 10%; LA25 – angle closed by the main leaf vein and the line defined by the leaf blade base and the point on the leaf margin, at 25%; PL – petiole length. Populations acronyms: P1 – Buje; P2 – Pula; P3 – Nin; P4 – Škropeti; P5 – Pula; P6 – Nin; P7 – Obrovac. Fig. 3. Leaf variability of Pyrus spinosa (A), possible hybrid be- tween P. spinosa and Crataegus monogyna (B) and C. monogyna (C) from the Nin in the eastern Adriatic. VIDAKOVIĆ A., ŠATOVIĆ Z., LIBER Z., JURICA M., POLJAK I. 208 ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 many other insect-pollinated and animal-dispersed species (Vidaković et al. 2021, 2022). However, C. monogyna popu- lations were somewhat better differentiated than those of P. spinosa, which is also supported by weak genetic differen- tiation of P. spinosa populations in the area (Vidaković et al. 2024). Furthermore, significant differences in morpho- logical variability between the two species were confirmed by MDI values, which demonstrated greater morphological variability of P. spinosa. This result is supported by the greater overall variability of leaf morphological traits in P. spinosa (Vidaković et al. 2021) than in C. monogyna ( Khadivi-Khub et al. 2015, Khadivi et al. 2019). This could be the result of adaptation to microhabitat conditions, but also of phylogenetic and evolutionary processes. Namely, for P. spinosa exhibits greater morphological variability than the phylogenetically older P. pyraster (L.) Burgsd. ( Korotkova et al. 2018, Vidaković et al. 2021, 2022). This may indicate still ongoing evolutionary speciation and morphological diffe rentiation, resulting in more diverse leaf morphology. As mentioned in the Introduction section, during field research in 2021, conducted along the eastern Adriatic coast, we observed a few P. spinosa individuals with unusu- al, hawthorn-like leaves on numerous branches. Hybridiza- tion between Pyrus and Crataegus could indeed be possible, as they both belong to the tribe Maleae (Sun et al. 2024), which indicates their close taxonomic relationship. Further- more, both genera possess the basal chromosome number of 17 (Evans and Campbell 2002), which is thought to have originated from aneuploidization events approximately 50 million years ago (Considine et al. 2012), with Gillenia Mo- ench as a probable common ancestor (Sun et al. 2024). A common chromosome number, along with coordinated flowering phenology, reproductive compatibility and com- mon pollinators, is one of the main prerequisites for suc- cessful hybridization (Rieseberg and Carney 1998). Our results based on the morphological analysis of the leaves did indeed show a few intermediate individuals, in- dicating possible hybridization between the two species. Al- ternatively, the dimorphic leaves of P. spinosa individuals could be explained by the sporadic appearance of juvenile leaves in the adult stage. Namely, almond-leaved pear seed- lings were reported to have lobed, hawthorn-like leaves (Dostálek 1980), which was also observed by personal ob- servation of young plants in an ongoing outdoor seed ger- mination experiment carried out on the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology in Zagreb. Such substantial differ- ences between juvenile and subsequent or adult forms in plant species are known as heteroblasty (Zotz et al. 2011). This botanical phenomenon of distinct morphological phe- notypes in juvenile, transitional and adult stages is present in many agricultural species, as well as in some woody spe- cies like Acacia confusa Merr., A. colei Maslin et L.A.J.Thomson, Eucalyptus globulus Labill., Hedera helix L., Quercus acutissima Carruth. and Populus spp. (Manuela and Xu 2020). The reappearance of juvenile leaves in the adult stage could be explained by the process of rejuvenation. This pro- cess enables plants to reverse the adult phase characteristics and recover some juvenile traits (Zhang et al. 2020). Small RNA profiling revealed an increase in microRNA156 (miR156) during plant rejuvenation (Chen et al. 2013), which maintains juvenile traits by repressing a group of SQUAMOSA PROMOTER BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE (SPL) transcription factors (Ye et al. 2019). Additionally, miR156 is subject to epigenetic regulation (Manuela and Xu 2020), which makes epigenetics one of the main factors con- trolling plant development and rejuvenation (Zhang et al. 2020). For instance, new sprouts from the adult tree collar or water sprouts, which are very common in pears, are con- sidered to be ontogenetically juvenile, compared to their parent tree (del Tredici 2001). Among other juvenile traits that occur on such sprouts are dimorphic leaves, usually larger and more variable in shape (del Tredici 2017). In our case, this could be an alternative explanation for the occur- rence of dimorphic leaves in this P. spinosa. However, fur- ther genetic and morphometric studies should be conduct- ed in order to draw a definite conclusion about hybridization between P. spinosa and C. monogyna. Conclusions Both the almond-leaved pear and the one-seed haw- thorn are widespread in the coastal areas of Southern Eu- rope and play a vital role in local ecosystems and the main- tenance of biodiversity. This study was aimed at supplementing knowledge on the morphological variability of these two sympatric species. The results showed great variability of leaf morphological traits within and between studied populations, as well as a clear differentiation be- tween the two species. However, hawthorn populations were better differentiated than those of the almond-leaved pear, but the latter had generally more diverse leaf morphology. High variability of almond-leaved pear leaves was also man- ifested through the presence of dimorphic, hawthorn-like leaves on some individuals, which raised the suspicion of the presence of a long-described but under-investigated hy- brid between the two genera. Although the results showed several intermediate individuals, a possible explanation for dimorphic leaves on almond-leaved pear individuals, apart from hybridization, could be the reappearance of juvenile leaves on adult trees by means of rejuvenation. In order to draw a definitive conclusion about the existence of hybrid individuals, in the next study, DNA markers and a much larger sample, especially of morphologically intermediate individuals per population, should be included. Acknowledgements This paper was published on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Acta Botanica Croatica. This research was funded by the University of Zagreb financial support. POSSIBLE CROSS BETWEEN WILD PYRUS AND CRATAEGUS SPECIES ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 209 Author contribution statement A.V., Z.Š., Z.L., I.P. – conceptualization and study design; A.V., I.P. – sampling; M.J. – morphometric analysis; Z.Š., I.P. – data analysis; A.V., I.P. – writing original draft preparation; Z.Š., Z.L., M.J. – review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manu- script. References Bell, R. L., Hough, L. F., 1986: Interspecific and intergeneric hy- bridization of Pyrus. HortScience 21(1), 62–64. https://doi. org/10.21273/HORTSCI.21.1.62 Campbell, C. S., Evans, R. C., Morgan, D. R., Dickinson, T. A., Arsenault, M. P., 2007: Phylogeny of subtribe Pyrinae (for- merly the Maloideae, Rosaceae): Limited resolution of a com- plex evolutionary history. Plant Systematics and Evolution 266(1/2), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-007-0545-y Chen, Y.-T., Shen, C.-H., Lin, W.-D., Chu, H.-A., Huang, B.-L., Kuo, C.-I., Yeh, K.-W., Huang, L.-C., Chang, I.-F., 2013: Small RNAs of Sequoia sempervirens during rejuvenation and phase change. Plant Biology 15(1), 27–36. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2012.00622.x Considine, M. J., Wan, Y., D’Antuono, M. F., Zhou, Q., Han, M., Gao, H., Wang, M., 2012: Molecular genetic features of poly- ploidization and aneuploidization reveal unique patterns for genome duplication in diploid Malus. PloS One 7(1), e29449. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029449 del Tredici, P., 2001: Sprouting in temperate trees: A morpholog- ical and ecological review. The Botanical Review 67(2), 121– 140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858075 del Tredici, P., 2017: Aging and rejuvenation in trees. Arboricul- tural Consultant 50(1), 7–11. Dostálek, J., 1980: Pyrus spinosa und ihre Hybriden in Südwest- bulgarien. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 15, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853139 Evans, R. C., Campbell, C. S., 2002: The origin of the apple sub- family (Maloideae; Rosaceae) is clarified by DNA sequence data from duplicated GBSSI genes. American Journal of Bot- any 89(9), 1478–1484. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.89.9.1478 Excoffier, L., Lischer, H. E. L., 2010: Arlequin suite ver. 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses un- der Linux and Windows. Molecular Ecology Resources 10(3), 564–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E., Quattro, J. M., 1992: Analysis of mo- lecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitocondrial DNA restric- tion sites. Genetics 131(2), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1093/ genetics/131.2.479 Fichtner, A., Wissemann, V., 2021: Biological flora of the British Isles: Crataegus monogyna. Journal of Ecology, 109(1), 541– 571. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13554 Fischer, T. C., Malnoy, M., Hofmann, T., Schwab, W., Palmieri, L., Wehrens, R., Schuch, L. A., Müller, M., Schimmelpfeng, H., Velasco, R., Martens, S., 2014: F1 hybrid of cultivated ap- ple (Malus × domestica) and European pear (Pyrus commu- nis) with fertile F2 offspring. Molecular Breeding 34, 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-014-0077-4 Idžojtić, M., 2009: Dendrologija – list (Dendrology - leaf). Uni- versity of Zagreb, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Zagreb. Khadivi, A., Heidari, P., Rezaei, M., Safari-Khuzani, A., Sahebi, M., 2019: Morphological variabilities of Crataegus monogyna and C. pentagyna in northeastern areas of Iran. Industrial Crops and Products 139, 111521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.in- dcrop.2019.111531 Khadivi-Khub, A., Karimi, S., Kameli, M., 2015: Morphological diversity of naturally grown Crataegus monogyna (Rosaceae, Maloideae) in Central Iran. Brazilian Journal of Botany 38, 921–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-015-0187-1 Korotkova, N., Parolly, G., Khachatryan, A., Ghulikyan, L., Sarg- syan, H., Akopian, J., Borsch, T., Gruenstaeudl, M., 2018: To- wards resolving the evolutionary history of Caucasian pears (Pyrus, Rosaceae) - Phylogenetic relationships, divergence times and leaf trait evolution. Journal of Sytematics and Evo- lution 56(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12276 Kumar, C., Singh, S. K., Pramanick, K. K., Verma, M. K., Srivas- tav, M., Singh, R., Bharadwaj, C., Naga, K. C., 2018: Morpho- logical and biochemical diversity among the Malus species including indigenous Himalayan wild apples. Scientia Hor- ticulturae 233, 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scien- ta.2018.01.037 Larsen, A. S., Jensen, M., Kler, E. D., 2008: Crossability between wild (Malus sylvestris) and cultivated (M. ? domestica) apples. Silvae Genetica 57(3), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1515/sg- 2008-0019 Manuela, D., Xu, M., 2020: Juvenile leaves or adult leaves: Deter- minants for vegetative phase change in flowering plants. In- ternational Journal of Molecular Science 21(24), 9753. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249753 McNeill, J., Shaw, J. M. H., Wiersema, J. H., 2016: Proposal to pre- clude homonymy of generic names with names of interge- neric graft-hybrids (chimaeras). Taxon 65(5), 1198–1199. https://doi.org/10.12705/655.39 Nabavi, S. F., Habtemariam, S., Ahmed, T., Sureda, A., Daglia, M., Sobarzo-Sánchez, E., Nabavi, S. M., 2015: Polyphenolic composition of Crataegus monogyna Jacq.: From chemistry to medical applications. Nutrients 7(9), 7708–7728. https:// doi.org/10.3390/nu7095361 Németh, C., Papp, N., Nosková, J., Höhn, M., 2020: Speciation by triparental hybridization in genus Sorbus (Rosaceae). Biologia Futura 71, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-020- 00003-x Pasqualetto, G., Palmieri, L., Martens, S., Bus, V. G. M., Chagné, D., Wiedow, C., Malnoy, M. A., Gardiner, S. E., 2022: Molec- ular characterization of intergeneric hybrids between Malus and Pyrus. Horticulture Research 10(1), uhac239. https://doi. org/10.1093/hr/uhac239 Phipps, J. B., 2016: Studies in Mespilus, Crataegus, and ×Cra- taemespilus (Rosaceae), i. differentiation of Mespilus and Cra- taegus, Expansion of ×Crataemespilus, with supplementary observations on differences between the Crataegus and Amel- anchier clades. Phytotaxa 257(3), 201–229. https://doi. org/10.11646/phytotaxa.257.3.1 Poljak, I., Šatović, Z., Vidaković, A., Tumpa, K., Idžojtić, M., 2024: Population variability of rosemary willow (Salix eleag- nos Scop.) based on leaf morphometry: Evidence of small and large-leaf morphotypes. Šumarski List 148(5-6), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.31298/sl.148.5-6.1 Postman, J. D., 2011: Intergeneric hybrids in Pyrinae (=Maloide- ae) subtribe of Pyreae in family Rosaceae at USDA genebank. Acta Horticulturae 918, 937–943. https://doi.org/10.17660/ ActaHortic.2011.918.123 R Core Team, 2016: R: A language and environment for statisti- cal computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vi- enna. https://www.R-project.org/. Retrieved June 15, 2024. Rehder, A., 1949: Biobliography of cultivated trees and shrubs, hardy in the cooler temperate regions of the northern hemi- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-007-0545-y https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029449 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858075 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13554 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111531 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111531 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-015-0187-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-020-00003-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-020-00003-x https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.257.3.1 https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.257.3.1 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.918.123 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.918.123 VIDAKOVIĆ A., ŠATOVIĆ Z., LIBER Z., JURICA M., POLJAK I. 210 ACTA BOT. CROAT. 84 (2), 2025 sphere. The Arnold arboretum of Harvard University, Jamai- ca Plain, Massachusetts. Rieseberg, R. H., Carney, S. E., 1998: Tansely review No. 102 Plant hybridization. New Phytologist 140, 599–624. Schuck, D. J., 2008: Crataegus monogyna Jacq. In: Roloff, A., Weisgerber, H., Lang, U., Stimm, B. (eds.), Enzyklopädie der Holzgewdchse, 1–12. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. Shimura, I., Ito, Y., Seike, K., 1983: Intergeneric hybrid between Japanese pear and quince. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 52(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.2503/ jjshs.52.243 Sokal, R. R., Rohlf, F. J., 2012: Biometry: The principles and prac- tice of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York. Statistica (Data Analysis Software System), 2018: Statistica, ver. 13, TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto. http://www.statsoft.com. Sun, J., Zhao, D., Qiao, P., Wang, Y., Wu, P., Wang, K., Guo, L., Huang, L., Zhou, S., 2024: Phylogeny of genera in Maleae (Ro- saceae) based on chloroplast genome analysis. Frontiers in Plants Science, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1367645 Van Tuyl, J. M., de Jeu, M. J., 1997: Methods for overcoming in- terspecific crossing barriers. In: Sawhney, V. K., Shivanna, K. R. (eds.), Pollen biotechnology for crop production and improvement, 273–292. Cambridge University Press, New York. Vidaković, A., Liber, Z., Šatović, Z., Idžojtić, M., Volenec, I., Ze- gnal, I., Pintar, V., Radunić, M., Poljak, I., 2021: Phenotypic diversity of almond-leaved pear (Pyrus spinosa Forssk.) along Eastern Adriatic coast. Forests 12, 1630. https:// doi. org/10.3390/f12121630 Vidaković, A., Šatović, Z., Liber, Z., Radunić, M., Skendrović Babojelić, M., Poljak, I., 2024: Genetic diversity of Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. and P. spinosa Forssk.: evidence of in- trogression from cultivated into wild pear populations. Trees. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-024-02553-2 Vidaković, A., Šatović, Z., Tumpa, K., Idžojtić, M., Liber, Z., Pin- tar, V., Radunić, M., Runjić, T. N., Runjić, M., Rošin, J., Gaunt, D., Poljak, I., 2022: Phenotypic variation in European wild pear (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd.) populations in the North- Western part of the Balkan Peninsula. Plants 11(3), 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11030335 WFO, 2024: World Flora Online. Retrieved June 15, 2024 from https://www.worldfloraonline.org/ WinFoliaTM, 2001: WinFolia ver. PRO 2005b. Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec City. Ye, B.-B., Zhang, K., Wang, J.-W., 2019: The role of miR156 in re- juvenation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 62(5), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jipb.12855 Zamani, A., Attar, F., Maroofi, H., 2012: A synopsis of the genus Pyrus (Rosaceae) in Iran. Nordic Journal of Botany 30(3), 310–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.00989.x Zhang, S. D., Jin, J. J., Chen, S. Y., Chase, M. W., Soltis, D. E., Li, H. T., Yang, J. B., Li, D. Z., Yi, T. S., 2017: Diversification of Rosaceae since the Late Cretaceous based on plastid phyloge- nomics. New Phytologist 214(3), 1355–1367. https://doi. org/10.1111/nph.14461 Zhang, Z., Sun, Y., Li, Y., 2020: Plant rejuvenation: from pheno- types to mechanisms. Plant Cell Reports 39(10), 1249–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-020-02577-1 Zotz, G., Wilhelm, K., Becker, A., 2011: Heteroblasty – A review. The Botanical Review 77, 109–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12229-010-9062-8 https://doi.org/10.2503/jjshs.52.243 https://doi.org/10.2503/jjshs.52.243 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1367645 https://www.worldfloraonline.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12855 https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12855 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-010-9062-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-010-9062-8