Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:36:36.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

XXVII.—Further Contributions to our Knowledge of the Fossil Schizæaceæ; Genus Senftenbergia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Norman W. Radforth
Affiliation:
Royal Society of Canada Research Fellow, Department of Botany, University of Glasgow.

Extract

Until recently the taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships of some of the Carboniferous plants in the two genera, Dactylotheca and Senftenbergia, could not be defined with any clear degree of certainty. The main reason for this was that workers who had investigated these types had failed to reveal some of their most important structural features. In the past, therefore, it has been impossible with the information available to make adequate comparisons of the types included in these genera. In a previous paper the writer (1938) showed that one at least of the three species of Dactylotheca really belonged to the genus Senftenbergia, and demonstrated that it possessed several Schizæaceous characteristics indicating its alliance with the living ferns of that family. In the present work, an analysis of the structural features of the two remaining species of Dactylotheca, and of one species of Senftenbergia has been made. These three plants are Dactylotheca Sturi Sterzel pro. var., Dactylotheca parallela Kidston, and Senftenbergia pennœformis Brongniart. The experiments on the compressions of D. parallela, however, indicate quite clearly that the plant does not belong to either the genus Dactylotheca or Senftenbergia. Its fructifications were found to be of the nature of synangia and were exannulate. Of these two features, the former removes it from Dactylotheca, and the latter prevents it from being classed within Senftenbergia. For this reason D. parallela cannot be included in the Schizæaceæ, and, therefore, the analysis of its structural features is not recorded in this paper.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1939

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

Bertrand, P., 1934. “Observations sur la classification des vrais Pecopteris,” C.R. Acad. Sci., vol. cxcix, pp. 438439.Google Scholar
Bower, F. O., 1923. The Ferns, vol. i, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hartung, W., 1938. “Flora und Alterstellung des Karbons von Hainichen-Ebersdorf und Borna bei Chemnitz,” Abhandl. Sachs. Geol. Landesamt, Heft 18.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D., and Cohn-Vossen, S., 1932. Anshauliche Geometrie, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidston, R., 1924. “Fossil Plants of the Carboniferous Rocks of Great Britain,” Mem. Geol. Surv. of Great Britain: Palæontology, vol. ii, pt. v.Google Scholar
Radforth, N. W., 1938. “An Analysis and Comparison of the Structural Features of Dactylotheca plumosa Artis sp. and Senftenbergia ophiodermatica Goppert sp.Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lix, pp. 385396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stur, D., 1877. “Die Culmflora der Ostrauer und Waldenburger Schichten,” Abhandl. K. K. Geol. Reichsanst., vol. viii, Heft 2.Google Scholar
Walton, J., 1928. “Recent Developments in Palæobotanical Technique,” Congrès de Stratigraphie Carbonifère, Heerlen.Google Scholar