Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:08:23.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXVIII.—New Stelar Facts, and their Bearing on Stelar Theories for the Ferns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

John M'Lean Thompson
John M'Lean Thompson
Affiliation:
Lecturer on Plant Morphology, Glasgow University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For over thirty years problems of stelar structure in the Ferns have claimed the attention of anatomists. By common consent protostely has been recognised as a primitive state. It is seen in all phyla of primitive vascular plants, except the semi-aquatic Equisetales, it figures universally in the juvenile plants of the Filicales, and is maintained in the adult stems of a number of their primitive genera.

But as to the origin of pith, inner phloëm, and inner endodermis, and the steps by which during descent the primitive protostely has in many instances been replaced in the adult by other more complex stelar states, there is no general agreement. On the one hand, the pith, inner phloëm, and inner endodermis have been regarded as purely intrastelar tissues directly referable in origin both in individual plants and descent to the procambial mass of the growing point of the stem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , 1921 , pp. 715 - 735
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1921

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)Bertrand, Paul, “L'étude anatomique des Fougères anciennes et les problèmes qu'elle soulève,” Progressus Rei Botanicæ, Jena, 1913.Google Scholar
(2)Boodle, L. A., “On the Anatomy of the Hymenophyllaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xiv, London, 1900.Google Scholar
(3)Boodle, L. A., “On the Anatomy of the Schizæaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xv, London, 1901.Google Scholar
(4)Boodle, L. A., “On the Anatomy of the Gleicheniaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xv, London, 1901.Google Scholar
(5)Boodle, L. A., “Further Observations on Schizæa,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xvii, London, 1903.Google Scholar
(6)Boodle, L. A., and Hiley, W. E., “On the Vascular Structure of some Species of Gleichenia,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxiii, London, 1909.Google Scholar
(7)Bower, F. O., The Origin of a Land-Flora, London, 1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Bower, F. O., “Plagiogyria,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxiv, London, 1910.Google Scholar
(9)Bower, F. O., “On the Primary Xylem, and the Origin of Medullation in the Ophioglossaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxv, London, 1911.Google Scholar
(10)Bower, F. O., “Medullation in the Pteridophyta,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxv, London, 1911.Google Scholar
(11)Bower, F. O., “The Pteroideæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxxii, London, 1918.Google Scholar
(12)Brebner, G., “On the Anatomy of Danæa and other Marattiaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xvi, London, 1902.Google Scholar
(13)Britton, N. L., and Taylor, N., “Life History of Schizæa pusilla,” Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, vol. xxviii, 1901.Google Scholar
(14)Campbell, D. H., “The Development of the Ostrich Fern,” Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 1887.Google Scholar
(15)Campbell, D. H., The Eusporangiatæ, Washington, 1911.Google Scholar
(16)Chandler, S. E., “On the Arrangement of the Vascular Strands in the ‘Seedlings’ of Certain Leptosporangiate Ferns,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xix, London, 1905.Google Scholar
(17)Charles, G. M., “On the Anatomy of the Sporeling of Marattia alata,” Botanical Gazette, vol. xlii, Chicago, 1911.Google Scholar
(18)Conard, H. S., “The Structure and Life-History of the Hay-Scented Fern,” Carnegie Institution Publication, Washington, 1908.Google Scholar
(19)Coulter, J. M., “Vascular Anatomy and the Reproductive Structures,” American Naturalist, vol. xliii, 1909.Google Scholar
(20)Farmer, J. B., and Freeman, W. G., “On the Structure and Affinity of Helminthostachys Zeylanica,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xiii, London, 1899.Google Scholar
(21)Farmer, J. B., and Hill, T. G., “On the Arrangement and Structure of the Vascular Strands in Angiopteris evecta and some other Marattiaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xvi, London, 1902.Google Scholar
(22)Faull, J. H., “The Anatomy of the Osmundaceæ,” Botanical Gazette, vol. xxxii, Chicago, 1901; and University of Toronto Studies, Biological Series, No. 2, 1902.Google Scholar
(23)Faull, J. H., “The Stele of Osmunda cinnamomea,” Trans. Canadian Institute, vol. viii, 1909.Google Scholar
(24)Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “Observations on the Anatomy of Solenostelic Ferns: I, Loxsoma,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xv, London, 1901.Google Scholar
(25)Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “Observations on the Anatomy of Solenostelic Ferns: II, Loxsoma,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xvii, London, 1903.Google Scholar
(26)Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the Possible Existence of a Fern-Stem having the Form of a Lattice-work Tube,” New Phytologist, vol. iv, 1905.Google Scholar
(27)Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “Some Remarks on the Anatomy of the Osmundaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxv, London, 1911.Google Scholar
(28)Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On a ‘Mixed-Pith’ in an Anomalous Stem of Osmunda regalis,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxviii, London, 1914.Google Scholar
(29)Iossa, M., Le Développement de l'Appareil Conducteur dans les Rhizomes des Osmundacées et Gleichéniacées, Geneva, 1914.Google Scholar
(30)Jeffrey, E. C., “The Morphology of the Central Cylinder in Vascular Plants,” Trans., Section K, Report of British Association for the Advancement of Science, Toronto, 1897, London, 1898.Google Scholar
(31)Jeffrey, E. C., “Gametophyte of Botrychium virginianum,” Trans. Canadian Institute, vol. iv, 1898.Google Scholar
(32)Jeffrey, E. C., “The Morphology of the Central Cylinder in the Angiosperms,” Trans. Canadian Institute, vol. vi, 1900.Google Scholar
(33)Jeffrey, E. C., “The Structure and Development of the Stem in the Pteridophyta and Gymnosperms,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. cxcv, London, 1902.Google Scholar
(34)Jeffrey, E. C., “Morphology and Phylogeny,” Science, N.S., vol. xxiii, 1906.Google Scholar
(35)Jeffrey, E. C., “Are there Foliar Gaps in the Lycopsida?” Botanical Gazette, vol. xxxix, 1908.Google Scholar
(36)Jeffrey, E. C., “The Pteropsida,” Botanical Gazette, vol. xli, 1910.Google Scholar
(37)Jeffrey, E. C., The Anatomy of Woody-Plants, Chicago Press, 1917.Google Scholar
(38)Kidston, R., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the Fossil Osmundaceæ,” pt. 1, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlv, 1907.Google Scholar
(39)Kidston, R., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the Fossil Osmundaceæ,” pt. 2, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlvi, 1908.Google Scholar
(40)Kidston, R., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the Fossil Osmundaceæ,” pt. 3, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlvi, 1909.Google Scholar
(41)Kidston, R., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the Fossil Osmundaceæ,” pt. 4, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlvii, 1910.Google Scholar
(42)Kidston, R., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., “On the Fossil Osmundaceæ,” pt. 5, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. 1, 1914.Google Scholar
(43)Lang, W. H., “On the Prothalli of Ophioglossum pendulum and Helminthostachys Zeylanica,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xvi, London, 1902.Google Scholar
(44)Lang, W. H., “On the Interpretation of the Vascular Anatomy of the Ophioglossaceæ,” Mem. and Proc. Manchester Literary and Philosophical Soc., vol. lvi, pt. 2, 1912.Google Scholar
(45)Lang, W. H., “Studies in the Morphology and Anatomy of the Ophioglossaceæ,” pt. 1, Ann. of Bot., vol. xxvii, London, 1913.Google Scholar
(46)Lang, W. H., “Studies in the Morphology and Anatomy of the Ophioglossaceæ,” pt. 2, Ann. of Bot., vol. xxviii, London, 1914.Google Scholar
(47)Lang, W. H., “Studies in the Morphology and Anatomy of the Ophioglossaceæ,” pt. 3, Ann. of Bot., vol. xxix, London, 1915.Google Scholar
(48)Sablon, Leclerc Du, “Recherches anatomiques sur la formation de la tige de Fougères,” Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot., sér. vii, vol. xi, Paris, 1890.Google Scholar
(49)Poirault, G., “Recherches anatomiques sur le Cryptogames Vasculaires,” Ann. des Sci. Nat Bot., sér. vii, vol. xvii, Paris, 1893.Google Scholar
(50)Prantl, , Unters. z. Morph. d. Gefässkryptogamen: II, “Schizæaceen,” 1881.Google Scholar
(51)Russow, , “Vergleich. Unters. d. Leitbündel-Kryptogamen,” Mém. de l'Acad. des Sci. de St-Pétersbourg, xix, 1872.Google Scholar
(52)Schoute, J. C., Die Stelär Theorie, Jena, 1903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(53)Seward, A. C., “On the Structure and Affinity of Matonia pectinata,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. cxci, London, 1899.Google Scholar
(54)Seward, A. C., and. Ford, S. O., “The Anatomy of Todea, with Notes on the Geological History and Affinities of the Osmundaceæ,” Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot., ser. ii, vol. vi, London, 1903.Google Scholar
(55)Sinnott, E. W., “Foliar Gaps in the Osmundaceæ,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xxiv, London, 1910.Google Scholar
(56)Strasburger, E., “Bau. u. Verrichtungen d. Leitungsbahuen,” Hist. Beitr., iii, 1891.Google Scholar
(57)Tansley, A. G., “Lectures on the Evolution of the Filicinean Vascular System,” New Phytologist, Reprint, No. 2, London, 1908.Google Scholar
(58)Tansley, A. G., and Chick, E., “On the Structure of Schizæa malaecana,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xvii, London, 1903.Google Scholar
(59)Tansley, A. G., and Lulham, R. B., “On a New Type of Fern Stele, and its Probable Phylogenetic Relations,” Ann. of Bot., vol. xvi, London, 1902.Google Scholar
(60)Thomas, E. N., “Some Points in the Anatomy of Acrostichum aureum,” New Phytologist, vol. iv, London, 1905.Google Scholar
(61)Thompson, J. M., “The Anatomy and Affinity of Platyzoma microphyllum,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. li, 1916.Google Scholar
(62)Thompson, J. M., “The Morphology of the Stele of Platyzoma microphyllum,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lii, 1918.Google Scholar
(63)Zenetti, P., “Das Leitungssystem im Stamm von Osmunda regalis und dessen Uebergang an den Blattstiel,” Botanische Zeitung, Jahrg. 53, Leipzig, 1895.Google Scholar