Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:49:40.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXI.—Levicaulis arranensis, gen. et sp. nov., A Lycopsid Axis from the Lower Carboniferous of Scotland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Charles B. Beck
Charles B. Beck*
Affiliation:
Cornell-Glasgow Exchange Fellow, University of Glasgow.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

A Large number of structurally preserved lycopsid axes from the Lower Carboniferous of Scotland are described and designated as a new genus and species. A comparison of this genus with other lycopsids is followed by a discussion of the development of the secondary cortex, and several other interesting structural features.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , 1959 , pp. 445 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1959

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.)

Footnotes

*

Now at the Department of Botany, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.

*

This paper was assisted in publication by a grant from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.

References

References to Literature

Arnold, C. A., 1940. “Lepidodendron johnsonii, sp. nov., from the Lower Pennsylvanian of central Colorado”, Contr. Mus. Geol. Univ. Mich., 6, 21–51.Google Scholar
Barghoorn, E. S., and R. A., Scott, 1958. “Degredation of the plant cell wall and its relation to certain structural features of the Lepidodendrales”, Amer. J. Bot., in press.Google Scholar
Calder, M. G., 1933 a. “Notes on the Kidston Collection of fossil plant slides. II. The anatomy of the axis of Bothrodendron mundum Williamson sp.”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 57, 665–673.Google Scholar
Calder, M. G., 1933 b. “Notes on the Kidston Collection of fossil plant slides. I. The anatomy of the axis of Lepidodendron brownii Unger sp., with special reference to the relationship between this stem and Lepidostrobus brownii Unger sp.”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 57, 547–555.Google Scholar
Calder, M. G., 1934. “Notes on the Kidston Collection of fossil plant slides. VI. On the structure of two lepidodendroid stems from the Carboniferous flora of Berwickshire”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 58, 118–124.Google Scholar
Evers, R. A., 1951. “A new Lepidodendron from Illinois”, Amer. J. Bot., 38, 731–737.Google Scholar
Felix, C. J., 1952. “A study of the arborescent lycopods of south-eastern Kansas”, Ann. Mo. Bot. Gdn., 29, 263–288.Google Scholar
Fry, W. L., 1954. “A study of the Carboniferous lycopod, Paurodendron, gen. nov.”, Amer. J. Bot., 41, 415–428Google Scholar
Haughton, S., 1859. “On Cyclostigma, a new genus of fossil plants from the Old Ked Sandstone of Kiltorcan, Co. Kilkenny, etc.”, J. Roy. Dublin Soc., 2, 1–14.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., 1889. “Additional notes on some British Carboniferous lycopods”, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 4, 60–67.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., 1907. “Note on a Lepidodendron from Pettycur (Lepidodendron pettycurense)”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., 27, 207–209.Google Scholar
Kisch, M. H., 1913. “The physiological anatomy of the periderm of fossil Lycopodiales”, Ann. Bot., 27, 281–320.Google Scholar
Lindley, J., and Hutton, W., 1833. The Fossil Flora of Great Britain, Vol. II, pp. 80, 81. London.Google Scholar
Pannel, E., 1942. “Contributions to our knowledge of American Carboniferous floras. IV. A new species of Lepidodendron”, Ann. Mo. Bot. Gdn., 29, 245–274.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1920. Studies in Fossil Botany, Vol. I. London.Google Scholar
Solms-Laubach, H. Grafen Zu, 1896. “Ueber die seinerzeit von Unger beschriebenen strukturbietenden Pflanzenreste des Unterculm von Saalfeld in Thüringen”, Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., 23, 1–100.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., 58, 313–337.Google Scholar
Walton, J., 1953. An Introduction to the Study of Fossil Plants, 2nd Ed.London.Google Scholar
Watson, D. M. S., 1908. “The cone of Bothrodendron mundum (Will.)”, Mem. Proc. Manchr. Lit. Phil. Soc., 52, 1–16.Google Scholar
Weiss, E., 1893. “Die Sigillarien der preussischen Steinkohlen und Rotliegenden Gebiete. II. Die Gruppe der Subsigillarien”, Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., 2, 1–255.Google Scholar
Wesley, A., and Kuyper, B., 1951. “Electron-microscope observations on the xylem elements of a fossil plant”, Nature, Lond., 168, 137–140.Google Scholar
Williamson, W. C., 1869. “On the structure and affinities of some exogenous stems from the Coal Measures”, Mon. Microscop. J., 2, 66–72.Google Scholar
Williamson, W. C., 1889. “On the organization of the fossil plants of the Coal-Measures. Part XVI”, Phil. Trans., 180, 195–214.Google Scholar