Fossil plants, Vol. 1 : $b [A text-book] for students of botany and geologySeward, A. C. (Albert Charles)
Science
Fossil plants, Vol. 1 : $b [A text-book] for students of botany and geology
Seward, A. C. (Albert Charles)
Paleobotany
The generic name _Huttonia_, suggested by Sternberg[747] in 1837,
is applied to cones which closely resemble _Macrostachya_ in habit,
but differ—so far as our scanty knowledge enables us to judge—in the
arrangement of the members. The student must refer to Weiss[748],
Solms-Laubach[749] and other writers[750] for a further account of
these types, and of another rare and little-known form of cone, called
by Weiss Cingularia[751].
Macrostachyan cones have been found attached to stems of _Calamites_
which are included in the sub-genus _Calamitina_ (p. 367). The larger
size of _Macrostachya_ as a distinguishing feature is not always a
safe test; some cones which belong to _Palaeostachya_ [_e.g._ _P.
arborescens_ Sternb.] and _Calamostachys_ (_e.g._ _C. Solmsi_) are much
thicker and larger than the majority of species of these two genera.
It would appear from the examples selected to illustrate the
connection between strobili and vegetative shoots, that the
_Annularia_ type of branch usually bears cones which conform to the
genus _Calamostachys_ (_Stachannularia_); while the Asterophyllitean
branches—_Calamocladus_—are associated with _Palaeostachya_ and
_Macrostachya_. But this rule is not constant, and we are not in
a position to speak of cones of a particular type as necessarily
characteristic of definite types of Calamitean shoots.
• • • • •
Although it is admitted by the great majority of Palaeobotanists that
the Calamites were all true Vascular Cryptogams, the older view that
some members of the Calamarieae are gymnospermous has not been given up
by Renault[752]. This observer has recently described some seeds which
he believes were borne by Calamitean stems; he admits, however, that
no undoubted female cones of _Calamodendron_ have so far been found.
In view of the unsatisfactory evidence on which Renault’s opinion is
based, we need not further discuss the questions which he raises.
[The following specimens in the Williamson Cabinet in the British
Museum, may be found useful in illustration of the structure of
_Calamites_.
_Stems._ (i. _Arthropitys._) _Young twigs and small branches_ 1, 2,
6, 10, 14, 19, 116*, 1002, 1007, 1020.
_Older stems_ (_transverse sections_) 15–17, 62, 77–87, 115 _a_,
117*, 118*, 120, 122*–124*, 1933 A, 1934, 1941.
(_Tangential sections_) 20, 24, 26, 37, 38, 49, 90, 91, 130, 138,
1937, 1943.
(_Radial sections_) 20, 20 A, 21, 22, 48, 65–68, 83–91, 137*,
138*, 1937.
(ii. _Arthrodendron)_ 36, 37, 38, 52, 54.
_Roots._ 1335, 1347, 1350, 1356.
_Strobili._ i. _Calamostachys Binneyana._ 991, 996, 997, 1000, 1003,
1005, 1007, 1008, 1011, 1013, 1016, 1017, 1022, 1023, 1037 A,
1043.
ii. _C. Casheana._ 1024, 1025, 1587, 1588.
iii. _Palaeostachya vera._ 110, 1564, 1567, 1569, 1579, 1583.]
III. Pith-casts of Calamites.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account