Conclusion

Using the protein rbcL (rubisco), we compared the sequences of our three species. This proved our hypothesis right:

Here is a redrawn version of the tree uniprot produced:

According to uniprot's data, our samples' evolutionary history is not in accordance with our hypothesis. As you can see, the evolutionary history between our species shows Millet and Iris sharing a more recent common ancestor than with Snapdragon. This conclusion goes against both our hypothesis and our data.

As seen in our  the pollen of Iris and Snapdragon share many similarities: in shape, in surface texture, and in their lack of apertures, so it seems as though they would be more closely related. After plotting the protein sequence, we are confused by our result. Whichever conclusion is correct, the answer to our question seems to stay the same; our species' pollen did not differ due to it being annual or perennial. If our hypothesis is true, our annual Snapdragon is more similar to our perennial Iris, than to the other annual, Snapdragon. And if uniprot's tree is correct, Millet is more similar to Iris than to Snapdragon. 

*Going into our experiment, we were unsure of the specific common name of our specimens, so we can not be sure if our protein sequences are from the correct plants.*