Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:39:56.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXVIII.—The Structure of the Foot in certain Mosses and in Anthoceros lœvis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Nellie M. Blaikley
Nellie M. Blaikley
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Reading.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The writer recently undertook an investigation of certain aspects of the water relationships in the gametophyte of Polytrichum (2), showing that a large quantity of water ascends through the central strand of the stem and is given off in transpiration from the leafy shoot. The experiments were later extended to the sporophyte, the transpiration rate again being measured (3). While these observations were in progress, it was suggested that it would be useful at the same time to examine in detail the structure of the absorbing organ of the sporophyte, usually referred to as the “foot,” an organ which has been defined by Hy (16) as that part of the seta which is embedded throughout its life in the tissues of the gametophyte.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , 1934 , pp. 699 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

(1) Bartlett, E. M., 1928. “A Comparative Study of the Development of the Sporophyte in the Anthocerotaceæ, with especial Reference to the Genus Anthoceros,” Ann. Bot., vol. xlii, p. 409.Google Scholar
(2) Blaikley, N. M., 1932. “Absorption and Conduction of Water and Transpiration in Polytrichum commune,” Ann. Bot., vol. xlvi, p. 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3) Blaikley, N. M., 1932. “The Transpiration of the Sporophyte of Polytrichum commune,” Ann. Bot., vol. xlvi, p. 1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4) Campbell, D. H., 1928. The Structure and Development of Mosses and Ferns, 3rd ed., New York.Google Scholar
(5) Dixon, H. N., 1924. The Student's Handbook of British Mosses, 3rd ed., Eastbourne.Google Scholar
(6) Firtsch, G., 1883. “Ueber einige mechanische Einrichtungen in anatomischen Bau von Polytrichum juni-perinum,” Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges., vol. i, p. 83.Google Scholar
(7) Goebel, K., 1892. “Archegonienstudien: Die einfachste Form der Moose,” Flora, vol. lxxvi, p. 92.Google Scholar
(8) Goebel, K., 1906. “Archegonienstudien: Beiträge zur Kenntnis australischer und neusseilandischer Bryophyten,” Flora, vol. xcvi, p. 1.Google Scholar
(9) Goebel, K., 1915. Organographie der Pflanzen II, 2nd ed., Jena.Google Scholar
(10) Györffy, I., 1907. “Über die vergleichenden anatomisehen Verhältnisse von Physcomitrella patens (Hedw.) Br. et Sen., Physcomitrium pyriforme (L.) Brid., Physcomitrium sphœricum (Ludw.) Brid., und Physcomitrella Hampei, Limpr.,” Hedwigia, vol. xlvii, p. 1.Google Scholar
(11) Györffy, I., 1910. “Über Endorhizoiden von Molendoa Hornschuchiana,” Hedwigia, vol. xlix, p. 101.Google Scholar
(12) Haberlandt, G., 1886. “Beiträge zur Anatomie und Physiologie der Laubmoose,” Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot., vol. xvii, p. 359.Google Scholar
(13) Hofmeister, W., 1862. The Higher Cryptogamia, Ray Society, trans, of “Vergleichende Untersuchungen” and other papers.Google Scholar
(14) Holloway, J. E., 1917. “The Prothallus and Young Plant of Tmesipteris,” Trans. New Zealand Institute, vol. l. p. 1.Google Scholar
(15) Holloway, J. E., 1921. “Further Studies on the Prothallus, Embryo and Young Sporophyte of Tmesipteris,” Trans. New Zealand Institute, vol. liii, p. 386.Google Scholar
(16) Hy, F., 1884. “Recherches sur l'archégone et le developpement du fruit des muscinees,” Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., Ser. 6, t. 18, p. 105.Google Scholar
(17) Kühn, E., 1871. “Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Andreæaceen,” Mittheil. aus dem gesammtgebiete der Botanik von Schenck und Luerssen, vol. i, p. 1.Google Scholar
(18) Leitgeb, H., 1879. Untersuchungen über die Lebermoose, vol. v, “Die Anthoceroteen,” Graz.Google Scholar
(19) Lorch, W., 1908. “Die Polytrichaceen,” Abhdl. d. kgl. ba-yr. Akad. d. Wiss., 2 Kl., vol. xxiii, p. 445.Google Scholar
(20) Lorch, W., 1925. “Über die Saugzellen im Fuss und in der Vaginula bei den Laubmoosen,” Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges., vol. xliii, p. 120.Google Scholar
(21) Lorch, W., 1925. “Über die Haustorialschläuche am Fusse der Laubmoose,” Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges., vol. xliii, p. 262.Google Scholar
(22) Lorch, W., 1931. “Anatomie der Laubmoose,” Handb. d. Pflanzenanatomie, Abt. ii, Teil 2, “Bryophyten.” Bd. vii/i, Berlin.Google Scholar
(23) Müller, N. J., 1867. “Entwickelungsgeschichte der Kapsel von Ephemerum,” Pringsh. Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot., vol. vi, p. 237.Google Scholar
(24) Rosander, H. A., 1906. Studier öfver bladmossornas Organisation: Mössa, Vaginula, och Sporogon, Uppsala.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(25) Schimper, W. P., 1858. Versuch einer Entwickelungsgeschichte der Torfmoose, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
(26) Vaizey, J. R., 1888. “On the Anatomy and Development of the Sporogonium of the Mosses,” Jour. Linn. Soc., vol. xxiv, p. 262.Google Scholar
(27) Vaizey, J. R., 1890. “On the Morphology of the Sporophyte of Splachnum luteum,” Ann. Bot., vol. v, p. 1.Google Scholar
(28) Valentine, W., 1837. “Observations on the Development of the Theca and on the Sexes of Mosses,” Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. xvii, p. 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(29) Waldner, M., 1887. Die Entwickelung der Sporogone von Andreœa und Sphagnum, Leipzig.Google Scholar