Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:20:52.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXII.—Further Observations on the Genus Lyginorachis Kidston

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Mary G. Calder
Mary G. Calder
Affiliation:
Botanical Department, University of Glasgow.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The genus Lyginorachis was proposed by Kidston (1923, pp. 18–19) to accommodate isolated petioles which, whilst their structure was similar in some respects to that in the petiole of Lyginopteris, could not be finally identified with the latter genus. Two species of Lyginorachis have been described (Scott, 1923, pp. 57-60; Crookall, 1931, pp. 27-34, pls. i-iii). Both came from Scottish Lower Carboniferous rocks; the one, Lyginorachis papilio Kidston and Scott, from the Cementstone Group (Calciferous Sandstone Series) at Norham Bridge on the Tweed, and the other, Lyginorachis Taitiana Kidston and Crookall, from the Auldton Limestone (Carboniferous Limestone Series) near Lesmahagow, Lanarkshire. Crookall also described a smaller and simpler petiole (loc. cit., pl. ii, fig. 3) as Lyginorachis sp., from the Cementstone Group at the Langton Burn, near Duns, Berwickshire.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , 1935 , pp. 549 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1935

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

Bower, F. O., 1923. The Ferns, vol. i. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Crookall, R., 1931. “The Genus Lyginorachis Kidston,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. li, pt. i, No. 6.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. T., 1935. “The Genus Pitys, Witham, emend.,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lviii, pt. ii, No. 12.Google Scholar
Hirmer, M., 1933. “Zur Kenntnis der Strukturbietenden Pflanzenreste des Jungeren Palæozoikums,” Palœontographica (Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Vorzeit), Bd. lxxviii, Abt. B, pp. 57–113, Taf. viii–xiv.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., 1923. “Fossil Plants of the Carboniferous Rocks of Great Britain,” Mem. Geol. Surv. of Great Britain: Palœontology, vol. ii, pts. i, iii, iv.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1923. Studies in Fossil Botany, vol. ii, 3rd ed. London.Google Scholar
Walton, J., 1935. “Scottish Lower Carboniferous Plants: the Fossil Hollow Trees of Arran and their branches (Lepidophloios Wünschianus Carruthers),” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lviii, pt. ii, No. 13.Google Scholar
Williamson, W. C., 1890. “On the Organization of the Fossil Plants of the Coal Measures,” pt. xvii, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. clxxxi.Google Scholar
Williamson, W. C., and Scott, D. H., 1895. “Further Observations on the Fossil Plants of the Coal Measures,” pt. iii, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. clxxxvi.Google Scholar