Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:14:23.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

X.—On Some Undescribed Species from the Lower Carboniferous Flora of Berwickshire; together with a Note on the Genus Stenomyelon Kidston

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Mary G. Calder
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The publication by Kidston and Gwynne-Vaughan ïn 1912 of a memoir on Stenomyelon tuedianum Kidston marked the beginning of a proposed series, which was never continued by them, on the Carboniferous Flora of Berwickshire, based upon material collected during 1900 and 1901 from rocks of the Calciferous Sandstone Series (Cementstone Group) at various localities in Berwickshire while Kidston was working with Mr A. Macconochie of the Geological Survey. Brief notes on this material, with identifications of some of the plants found in compression form, were contributed by Kidston to the “Summary of the Progress of the Geological Survey” (Kidston, 1901, 1902 a), where he commented upon the interest and importance of the material; but beyond recording the occurrence of petrified specimens, no further description of these was given at the time. An incomplete list of anatomical species identified from this Berwickshire material was also given by Kidston at a later date (Kidston, 1923, p. 19). Some of the petrifactions, in addition to the Stenomyelon tuedianum already referred to (Kidston and Gwynne-Vaughan, loc. cit.), have been described by various writers, mostly from specimens in the Kidston Collection of Fossil Plant Slides in the Botany Department of Glasgow University, where the majority of the sections is to be found.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , 1938 , pp. 309 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1938

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

Arber, A., 1910. “On the structure of the Palæozoic seed Mitrospermum compressum (Williamson),” Ann. Bot., vol. xxiv, p. 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, M., 1914. “Sphœrostoma ovale (Conostoma ovale et intermedium Williamson), a Lower Carboniferous ovule from Pettycur, Fifeshire, Scotland,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. 1, pt. 1, no. 1.Google Scholar
Bertrand, C. E., 1907. “Les caractéristiques du genre Taxospermum de Brongniart,” “Les caractéristiques du genre Diplotesta de Brongniart,” “Les caractéristiques du genre Leptocaryon de Brongniart,” “Les caractéristiques du genre Rhabdocarpus, etc.,” Bull. Soc. Bot. France, 4e sér., vol. vii, pp. 213, 389, 452, 654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, C. E., 1908. “Les caractéristiques du Cycadinocarpus augustodunensis de B. Renault,” “Les caractéristiques du genre Cardiocarpus, etc.,” “La spécification des Cardiocarpus de la collection B. Renault,” Bull. Soc. Bot. France, 4e sér., vol. viii, pp. 326, 391, 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, P., 1911 a. “Structure des stipes d'Asterochlaena laxa Stenzel,” Mém. Soc. Geol. Nord, vol. vii, 1.Google Scholar
Bertrand, P., 1911 b. “L'étude anatomique des Fougères anciennes et les problèmes qu'elle soulève,” Progressus rei Botanicae, vol. iv, pp. 182–302.Google Scholar
Brongniart, A., 1881. Recherches sur les graines fossiles silcifiées. Paris.Google Scholar
Browne, Lady I., 1935. “Some views on the morphology and phylogeny of the leafy vascular sporophyte,” Bot. Rev., vol. i, pp. 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, M. G., 1934. “Notes on the Kidston Collection of Fossil Plant Slides: No. VI, On the structure of two Lepidodendroid stems from the Carboniferous Flora of Berwickshire,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lviii, pp. 118–124.Google Scholar
Crookall, R., 1931. “The genus Lyginorachis Kidston,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. li, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
Göppert, H. R., 1864–1865. Die Fossile Flora der Permischen Formation. Cassel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirmer, M., 1927. Handbuch der Paläobotanik, vol. i. München und Berlin.Google Scholar
Holden, H. S., 1930. “On the structure and affinities of Ankyropteris corrugata,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. ccxviii, pp. 79–114.Google Scholar
Jongmans, W. J., 1930. “On the fructification of Sphenopteris höeninghausi and its relations with Lyginodendron oldhamium and Crossotheca schatzlarensis,” Geol. Bur. Nederlandsche Mijngebied, pp. 77–81.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., 1901. “Notes on Carboniferous Plants from Berwickshire,” Summ. of Progress of Geological Survey for 1900 (Mem. Geol. Surv.), pp. 174–175.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., 1902 a. “Report on Fossil Plants from the Calciferous Sandstones of the Berwickshire Border,” Summ. of Progress of Geological Survey for 1901 (Mem. Geol. Surv.), pp. 179–180.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., 1902 b. “The Flora of the Carboniferous Period; Pt. II,” Proc. Yorks. Geol. Poly. Soc., vol. xiv, pp. 344–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidston, R., 1923. “Fossil Plants of the Carboniferous Rocks of Great Britain,” Mem. Geol. Surv. of Great Britain: Palæontology, vol. ii, pt. 1.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., and Gwynne-Vaughan, D. T., 1912. “On the Carboniferous Flora of Berwickshire. Pt. I. Stenomyelon tuedianum Kidston,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlviii, pp. 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kräusel, R., und Weyland, H., 1929. “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Devonflora,” Abh. Sencken. Naturforsch. Ges., vol. xli, lief. 7.Google Scholar
Nathorst, A. G., 1914. Zur Fossilen Flora der Polarländer, 1 teil, lief. 4. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Oliver, F. W., and Scott, D. H., 1904. “On the structure of the Palæozoic seed Lagenostoma Lomaxi, etc.,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. cxcvii, pp. 193–247, pls. iv–x.Google Scholar
Prankerd, T. L., 1912. “On the structure of the Palæozoic seed Lagenostoma ovoides Williamson,” Journ. Linn. Soc., Botany, vol. xl, pp. 461–490, pls. xxii–xxiv.Google Scholar
Read, C. B., 1936. “The Flora of the New Albany Shale. Pt. 2, The Calamopityeæ and their relationships,” U.S. Dept. Int., Geol. Surv., Prof. Paper 186 E, Shorter contributions to general geology, pp. 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1902. “On the primary structure of certain Palæozoic stems with the Dadoxylon type of wood,” Trans Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xl, pp. 331–365.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1923. Studies in Fossil Botany. Pt. II. 3rd ed. London.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1924. “Fossil Plants of the Calamopitys type, from the Carboniferous Rocks of Scotland,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. liii, pp. 569–596.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., and Jeffrey, E. C., 1914. “On fossil plants, showing structure, from the base of the Waverley Shale of Kentucky,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. ccv, pp. 315–373, pls. xxvii–xxxix.Google Scholar
Seward, A. C., 1917. Fossil Plants. vol. iii. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Solms-Laubach, H. Grafen Zu, 1896. “Ueber die seinerzeit von Unger beschriebenen strukturbietenden Pflanzenreste des Unterculm von Saalfeld in Thüringen,” Abh. König. Preuss. geol. Landesanslalt, N.F., heft 23, pp. 1–100, Taf. i–v.Google Scholar
Stur, D., 1877. Die Culm-Flora. Heft II. Wien.Google Scholar
Unger, F., 1856. In Richter und Unger, 1856, “Beitrag zur Paläontologie des Thüringer Waldes”; 2 Theil, “Schiefer und Sandsteinflora,” Denkschr. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. xi, p. 139.Google Scholar