Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:41:03.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conifer pollen cones from the Cretaceous of Arkansas: Implications for diversity and reproduction in the Cheirolepidiaceae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Brian J. Axsmith ,
Michael Krings  and
Katherine Waselkov
Brian J. Axsmith
Affiliation:
1Department of Biological Sciences, LSCB 124, University of South Alabama, Mobile 36688,
Michael Krings
Affiliation:
2Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontology und Geologie—Funktioneinheit Paläontology—Richard-Wagner-Straße 10, 80333 Münchin
Katherine Waselkov
Affiliation:
1Department of Biological Sciences, LSCB 124, University of South Alabama, Mobile 36688,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cheirolepidiaceous conifer pollen cones (Classostrobus arkansensis new species) from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian/Albian) Holly Creek Formation of Arkansas, some still attached to Pseudofrenelopsis parceramosa Fontaine, shoots, bear helically arranged, semipeltate to dorsiventral microsporophylls with abaxially situated pollen masses. The in situ Classopollis Pflug, 1953 pollen and orbicule outer sculpturing consists of short spinules. The abaxial epidermis of the microsporophyll head consists of a stomatiferous central region of isodiametric cells bearing hollow papillae with rounded apices and a nonstomatiferous marginal area of elongate, nonpapillate cells. The head abaxial cuticles are thin relative to those of the shoot internodes. A cutinized hypodermis is lacking. Previously described pollen cones of Classostrobus comptonensis (Alvin et al., 1994) from the English Wealden (Barremian) are also associated with P. parceramosa shoots; however, they differ substantially from the Arkansas cones in possessing peltate microsporophylls with the abaxial surfaces bearing conical papillae, a cutinized hypodermis, and cuticles as thick as those of the shoot internodes. Therefore, at least two morphologically distinct pollen cones were produced on ultimate shoots conforming to P. parceramosa as presently circumscribed. Most cheirolepidiaceous conifers possess extremely thick cuticles on the abaxial surface of the microsporophyll head, which may suggest an unusual pollination biology entailing the production of fewer, relatively long-lived pollen cones. However, the thin cuticles and relatively abundant material of Classostrobus arkansensis n. sp. are more consistent with the typical coniferous pollination system, which includes production of numerous, ephemeral cones. Apparently, the Cheirolepidiaceae possessed a diversity of reproductive strategies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , March 2004 , pp. 402 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Alvin, K. L. 1983. Reconstruction of a Lower Cretaceous conifer. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 86:169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvin, K. L., Fraser, C. J., and Spicer, R. A. 1981. Anatomy and palaeoecology of Pseudofrenelopsis and associated conifers in the English Wealden. Palaeontology, 24:759–778.Google Scholar
Alvin, K. L., Spicer, R. A., and Watson, J. 1978. A Classopollis-containing male cone associated with Pseudofrenelopsis. Palaeontology, 21:847–856.Google Scholar
Alvin, K. L., Spicer, R. A., and Watson, J. 1994. A new coniferous male cone from the English Wealden and a discussion of pollination in the Cheirolepidiaceae. Palaeontology, 37:173–180.Google Scholar
Clement-Westerhof, J. A., and Van Konijnenburg-Van Cittert, J. H. A. 1991. Hirmeriella munsteri: new data on the fertile organs leading to a revised concept Cheirolepidiaeae [sic]. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 68:147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darling, B. K., and Lock, B. E. 1984. The surface formations of the Trinity Group in southwestern Arkansas, and a proposed revision of stratigraphic rank for the three lower units. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 34:321–327.Google Scholar
Feistmantel, K. 1881. Der Hangendflötzung im Schlan-Rakonitzer Steinkohlenbecken, Arch. Naturwiss. Landesdürchforsch. Böhmen (Prag), 4(6):1–112.Google Scholar
Hlustik, A. 1987. Frenelopsidaceae fam. nov., a group of highly specialized Classopollis-producing conifers. Acta Palaeobotanica, 27:3–20.Google Scholar
Hlustik, A., and Konzalova, M. 1976. Polliniferous cones of Frenelopsis alata (K. Feistm.) Knobloch from the Cenomanian of Czechoslovakia. Vestnik Ustredniho ustavu geologickeho, 51:37–46.Google Scholar
Kerp, H. 1990. The study of gymnosperms by means of cuticular analysis. Palaios, 5:548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvacek, J. 2000. Frenelopsis alata and its microsporangiate and ovuliferous reproductive structures from the Cenomanian of Bohemia (Czech Republic, Central Europe). Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 112:51–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. Impensis Laurentii Salvii (Facsim. ed. 1957–1959, London). 2 Volumes.Google Scholar
Pflug, H. D. 1953. Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des angiospermiden Pollens in der Erdgeschichte. Palaeontographica, 95B:60–171.Google Scholar
Pittman, J. G. 1984. Geology of the De Queen Formation of Arkansas. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 34:201–209.Google Scholar
Pocock, S. J., Vasanthy, G., and Venkatachala, B. S. 1990. Pollen of circumpolles—An enigma or morphotrends showing evolutionary adaptation. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 65:179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pons, D. 1979. Les organes reproducteurs de Frenelopsis alata (K. Fesitm) Knobloch, Cheirolepidiaceae du Cénomanian de L'Anjou, France. 104e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Bordeaux, fasc. I:209–231.Google Scholar
Pons, D., and Broutin, J. 1978. Les organes reproducteurs de Frenelopsis oligostomata,(Crétacé, Portugal). 103e Congrès national des sociétés savantes, Nancy, fasc. II:139–159.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V. 1995. Conifers from the Puddledock locality (Potomac Group, Early Cretaceous) in eastern North America. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 89:257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. A. 1988. Pseudofrenelopsis in the Lower Cretaceous of Southwestern Arkansas. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 50 p.Google Scholar
Takhtajan, A. L. 1963. Gymnosperms and angiosperms. Osnovy Paleontologii, 15:1–743. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Taylor, T. N., and Alvin, K. L. 1984. Ultrastructure and development of Mesozoic pollen: Classopollis. American Journal of Botany, 71:575–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upchurch, G. R., and Doyle, J. A. 1981. Palaeoecology of the conifers Frenelopsis and Pseudofrenelopsis (Cheirolepidiaceae) from the Cretaceous Potomac Group of Maryland and Virginia, p. 167–202. In Romans, R. C. (ed.), Geobotany. Volume 2. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. 1977. Some Lower Cretaceous conifers of the Cheirolepidiaceae from the U.S.A. and England. Palaeontology, 20:715–749.Google Scholar
Watson, J. 1988. The Cheirolepidiaceae, p. 382–447. In Beck, C. B. (ed.), Origin and Evolution of Gymnosperms. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Zhou, Z. 1983. A heterophyllous cheirolepidiaceous conifer from the Cretaceous of East China. Palaeonotology, 26:789–811.Google Scholar