Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:07:55.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIV.—Some Lower Carboniferous Fructifications from Berwickshire, together with a Theoretical Account of the Evolution of Ovules, Cupules, and Carpels*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Albert G. Long
Albert G. Long
Affiliation:
Berwickshire High School, Duns.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Two new species of petrified seeds Eosperma edromense, and Anasperma burnense gen. et sp. nov. are described from the Cementstone Group of Berwickshire. Anasperma shows that the anatropous condition existed among Palæozoic ovules; it has a single integument with two lateral apical lobes.

Rachides of Stauropteris berwickensis sp. nov. and associated megasporangia are also described.

An account is given of the theory of the telomic origin of the first ovular integument. The second (outer) integument in Angiosperm ovules may therefore have evolved after the establishment of anatropy, either from the first integument or as an overgrowth of the chalaza. Evidence is cited to support the theory that Angiosperm carpels have evolved from dorsiventral bivalved cupules.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 66 , Issue 14 , 1966 , pp. 345 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1966

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

Andrews, H. N., 1940. “A New Cupule from the Lower Carboniferous of Scotland”, Bull. Torrey Bot. Cl., 67, 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, H. N., 1961. Studies in Palœobotany. New York.Google Scholar
Arber, A., 1925. Monocotyledons. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Arnold, C. A., 1947. An Introduction to Palœobotany. New York.Google Scholar
Bailey, I. W., and Nast, C. G., 1943. “The Comparative Morphology of the Winteraceæ, II Carpels”, J. Arnold Arbor, 24, 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, I. W., and Swamy, B. G. L., 1949. “The Morphology and Relationship of Austrobaileya”, J. Arnold Arbor, 30, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, P. D. W., 1959. “On Eosperma oxroadense gen. et sp. nov.: a new Lower Carboniferous Seed from East Lothian”, Ann. Bot., 23, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, P. D. W., 1960. “Calathospermum fimbriatum sp. nov., a Lower Carboniferous Pteridosperm Cupule from Scotland”, Palaeontology, 3, 265–275.Google Scholar
Benson, M., 1904. “Telangium scotti, a new Species of Telangium showing Structure”, Ann. Bot., 18, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, M., 1914. “Sphœrostoma ovale, a Lower Carboniferous Ovule from Pettycur, Scotland”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 50, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bower, F. O., 1919. Botany of the Living Plant. London.Google Scholar
Brown, R., 1866 (1840). “On the Relative Position of the Divisions of the Stigma and Parietal Placentation in the Compound Ovarium of Plants”, Misc. Works of Robt. Brown, 1, 555. Ray Society.Google Scholar
Camp, W. H., and Hubbard, M. M., 1963. “On the Origins of the Ovule and Cupule in Lyginopterid Pteridosperms”, Amer. J. Bot., 50, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candolle, A. P. de, 1813. Théorie Elementaire de la Botanique. Montpellier.Google Scholar
Candolle, A. P. de, 1827. Organographie Végétale. Paris.Google Scholar
Chaloner, W. G., 1958. “Isolated Megaspore Tetrads of Stauropteris burntislandica”, Ann. Bot., 22, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaloner, W. G., and Pettitt, J. M., 1964. “A Seed Megaspore from the Devonian of Canada”, Palœontology, 7, 29–36.Google Scholar
Dunal, M. F., 1817. Monographie de la famille des Anonacées, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eames, A. J., 1930. “The Vascular Anatomy of the Flower with Refutation of the Theory of Carpel Polymorphism”, Amer. J. Bot., 18, 147–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eames, A. J., 1961. Morphology of the Angiosperms. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esau, K., 1962. Plant Anatomy. New York.Google Scholar
Foster, A. S., and Gifford, E. M., 1959. Comparative Morphology of Vascular Plants. San Francisco.Google Scholar
Fraser, M. S., 1937. “A Study of the Vascular Supply to the Carpels in the Follicle-bearing Ranunculaceæ”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 59, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goethe, J. W. von, 1790. Versuch die Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu Erklaren. Gotha. Eng. Transl. by Arber, A., Chron. Bot., 10, No. 2, 1946.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. T., 1941. “On Salpingostoma dasu: A New Carboniferous Seed from East Lothian”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 59, 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, A., 1880. Structural Botany. Sixth Ed. London.Google Scholar
Hall, J. W., 1954. “The Genus Stephanospermum in American Coal Balls”, Bot. Gaz., 115, 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskins, J. H., and Cross, A. T., 1946. “Studies in the Trigonocarpales. Part 1. Pachytesta vera, a New Species from the Des Moines Series of Iowa”, Amer. Midl. Nat., 36, 207–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. W., 1937. “A Study of the Style and Stigma, with Reference to the Nature of the Carpel”, Amer. J. Bot., 24, 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. G., 1939. Introduction to Floral Mechanism. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kershaw, E. M., 1912. “The Ovule of Bowenia spectabilis”, Ann. Bot., 26, 625–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leisman, G. A., and Roth, J., 1963. “A Reconsideration of Stephanospermum”, Bot. Gaz., 124, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. G., 1960 a. “On the Structure of Calymmatotheca kidstoni Calder (emended) and Genomosperma latens gen. et sp. nov. from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Berwickshire”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 64, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. G., 1960 b. “Stamnostoma huttonense gen. et sp. nov. a Pteridosperm Seed and Cupule from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Berwickshire”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 64, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. G., 1960 c. “On the Structure of Samaropsis scotica Calder (emended) and Eurystoma angulare gen. et sp. nov., Petrified Seeds from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Berwickshire”. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 64, 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. G., 1961 a. “On the Structure of Deltasperma fouldenense gen. et sp. nov. and Camptosperma berniciense gen. et sp. nov., petrified Seeds from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Berwickshire”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 64, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. G., 1961 b. “Some Pteridosperm Seeds from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Berwickshire”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 64, 401–419.Google Scholar
Long, A. G., 1961 c. “Tristichia ovensi gen. et sp. nov., a Protostelic Lower Carboniferous Pteridosperm from Berwickshire and East Lothian”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 64, 477–488.Google Scholar
Long, A. G., 1965. “On the Cupule Structure of Eurystoma angulare”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 66, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, R. C., and Ivimey-Cook, W. R., 1956. Textbook of Theoretical Botany. Vol. II. London.Google Scholar
Mamay, S. H., 1954. “Two New Plant Genera of Pennsylvanian Age from Kansas Coal Balls”, Prof. Pap., U.S. Geol. Surv., 254D, 81–95.Google Scholar
Matte, M., 1904. L'appareil libero-ligneux des Cycadacées. Caen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeuse, A. D. J., 1963. “From Ovule to Ovary: A Contribution to the Phylogeny of the Megasporangium”, Acta Biotheor., Leiden, 16, 127–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirbel, C. F. Brisseau-, 1815. Elémens de Physiologie Végétale et de Botanique. Vol. I, p. 328. Paris.Google Scholar
Oliver, F. W., 1909. “On Physostoma elegans Will.”, Ann. Bot., 23, 73–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, F. W., and Scott, D. H., 1904. “On the Structure of the Palæozoic Seed Lagenostoma lomaxi”, Phil. Trans. B, 197, 193–247.Google Scholar
Renault, B., 1885. Cours de botanique fossile. 4. Paris.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. G., 1924. “Female Gametophyte of Microcycas”, Bot. Gaz., 77, 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, E. J., 1914. “On the Structure and Relationship of Trigonocarpus shorensis”, Ann. Bot., 28, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, E. R., 1925–1934 a. “On Carpel Polymorphism. I-VI”, Ann. Bot., 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48.Google Scholar
Saunders, E. R., 1928–1931 b. “Illustrations of Carpel Polymorphism. I-VII”, New Phytol., 27, 28, 29, 30.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., and Maslen, A. J., 1907. “The Structure of the Palæozoic Seeds Trigonocarpus Parkinsoni Brongt. and T. Oliveri sp. nov.”, Ann. Bot., 21, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R., 1908. “On Bensonites fusiformis sp. nov., a Fossil Associated with Stauropteris burntislandica P. Bertrand”, Ann. Bot., 22, 683–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seward, A. C., 1917. Fossil Plants. 3. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Smith, D. L., 1959. “Geminitheca scotica gen. et sp. nov.; A Pteridosperm from the Lower Carboniferous of Dunbartonshire”, Ann. Bot., 23, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. L., 1964. “The Evolution of the Ovule”, Biol. Rev., 39, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, W. N., 1951. “A New Pachytesta from the Berryville Locality of Southeastern Illinois”, Amer. Midl. Nat., 46, 717–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, W. N., 1954. “The Structure and Affinities of Pachytesta illinoense comb, nov.”, Amer. J. Bot., 41, 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopes, M. C., 1904. “Beiträge zur Kentnnis der Fortplanzungsorgane der Cycadeen”, Flora, 93, 435–482.Google Scholar
Stopes, M. C., 1905. “On the Double Nature of the Cycadean Integument”, Ann. Bot., 19, 561–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surange, K. R., 1952. “The Morphology of Stauropteris burntislandica P. Bertrand and its Megasporangium Bensonites fusiformis R. Scott”, Phil. Trans., B, 237, 73–91.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. H., 1931. “The Early Evolution of the Angiosperms”, Ann. Bot., 45, 646.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. H., 1933. “On Some Pteridospermous Plants from the Mesozoic Rocks of S. Africa”, Phil. Trans., B, 222, 193.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. H., 1934. “The Nature and Origin of the Stigma”, New Phytol., 33, 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. McL., 1929. “A Study in Advancing Sterility with Special Reference to the Leguminous Gynoecium”, Publ. Hartley Bot. Labs. L'pool Univ., 6.Google Scholar
Walton, J., 1931. “Contributions to the Knowledge of Lower Carboniferous Plants. III”, Phil. Trans., B, 219, 347.Google Scholar
Walton, J., 1949. “Calathospermum scoticum—An Ovuliferous Fructification of Lower Carboniferous Age from Dunbartonshire”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 61, 719–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, J., 1953. “The Evolution of the Ovule in the Pteridosperms”, Advanc. Sci., 10, 223–230.Google Scholar
Walton, J., 1957. “On Protopitys Goppert: with a Description of a Fertile Specimen P. scotica sp. nov.”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 63, 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, J., 1958. An Introduction to the Study of Fossil Plants. Revised 2nd ed., 142, 143. London.Google Scholar
Worsdell, W. C., 1904. “The Structure and Morphology of the Ovule : An Historical Sketch”, Ann. Bot., 18, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar