Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:51:03.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXIV.—On the Structure and Affinities of Diplolabis römeri (Solms)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

W. T. Gordon
W. T. Gordon
Affiliation:
Falconer Fellow of Edinburgh University, Lecturer in Palæontology, Edinburgh University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Probably the commonest type of foliage among the impressions of Carboniferous plants is one which simulates that of our living ferns. These palæozoic fronds were originally believed to belong to the true ferns, but recently some of them have been taken from this group and included in the Pteridospermeæ. There remain, however, a large number of fronds the true affinities of which are yet doubtful. Thus, though there are still a considerable number of species which belong to the ferns, the number of doubtful examples and of those now definitely known to be pteridospermous far exceeds the number of those attributed to the Filices. Indeed, we cannot now consider the latter group to have been dominant during the Carboniferous epoch.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , 1911 , pp. 711 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1911

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

(1)Arber, E. A. N. “On the Past History of Ferns,” Ann. Bot., vol. xx., July 1906.Google Scholar
(2)Bertrand, P., Études sur la fronde des Zygoptéridées, Lille, 1909.Google Scholar
(3)Bower, F. O., On the Origin of a Land Flora, London, 1908.Google Scholar
(4)Corda, , Beiträge zur Flora der Vorwelt, 1845.Google Scholar
(5)Cotta, B., Die Dendrolithen, 1832.Google Scholar
(6)Kidston, E., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the fossil Osmundaceæ,” Parts i, to iii., Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlv., pt. iii., p. 759, 1907; vol. xlvi., pt. ii., p. 213, 1908; vol. xlvi., pt. iii., p. 651, 1909.Google Scholar
Kidston, E., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the Origin of the adaxially curved Leaf trace in the Filicales” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin. vol. xxviii. pt. iv.Google Scholar
(7)Pelourde, F., “Le Flicheia esnostensis, nov. gen., n. sp.,” Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire naturelle d'Autun, xxi., 1908.Google Scholar
Pelourde, F., “Recherches comparatives sur la structure des fougères fossiles et vivantes,” Ann. des Sciences naturelles (neuvième série), p. 115, 1909.Google Scholar
(8)Renault, B., “Etude sur quelques végétaux silicifiés d'Autun,” Ann. des Sciences naturelles, ii. série, Botanique, xii., 1869.Google Scholar
Renault, B., “Bassin houiller et permien d'Autun et d'Épinac : Flore Fossile,” fascicule iv., 1896, Gîtes minéraux de la Frawe.Google Scholar
(9)Unger, Richter u., “Beitrag zur Palæontologie des Thüringer Waldes,” Denkschr. d. K. K. Akademie zu Wien, Math, naturw. Cl., Band xi., 1856.Google Scholar
(10)Scort, D. H., Studies in Fossil Botany, 2nd edit., vol. i., 1908.Google Scholar
(11)Solms-Laubach, H. Graf zu, “Ueber d. in d. Kalks, d. Kulm v. Glätzisch-Falkenberg in S. erhalt, Strukturb. Pflanzenreste,” Botan. Zeitung, vol. 1., 1892.Google Scholar
(12)Stenzel, G., “Die Gattung Tubicaulis Cotta,” Mitth. aus dem Kgl min. geol. Museum in Dresden, Heft 8, 1889.Google Scholar
(13)Stopes, Miss M. C., “A New Fern from tlie Coal Measures: Tubicaulis Sutcliffii, sp. nov.,” Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc., vol. 1., pt. iii., 1906.Google Scholar
(14)Tansley, A. G., “Lectures on the Evolution of the Filicinean Vascular System,” New Phytologist, 1907.Google Scholar
(15)Williamson, W. C., “On the Organisation of the Fossil Plants of the Coal Measures,” Phil. Trans Roy. Soc., 1874.Google Scholar