Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:54:34.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I.—On Homœomorphy among Fossil Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

E. A. Newell Arber
E. A. Newell Arber
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge; University Demonstrator in Palæobotany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Students of palæobotany, when concerned with casts and impressions of fossil plants as distinguished from petrifactions, have often to face difficulties in the course of their examination of such remains, some of which are peculiar to this branch of palæontology. Even when a large number of specimens of any particular type of foliage, or other organs, are available for comparison, it is often difficult to decide how far one set of casts and impressions can be regarded as distinct from another. Authorities differ in their ideas of the aggregate of differences necessary to constitute genera and species. This difficulty, although common to the systematist in the study of recent plants, is greatly intensified when dealing with fossils, on account of the fragmentary nature of the evidence.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 10 , Issue 9 , September 1903 , pp. 385 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1903

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

page 385 note 1 Zeiller: “Éléments de Paléobotanique,” 1900, p. 108.

page 386 note 1 Zeiller, , Bull. Soc. géol. France, ser. in, vol. xxiv (1896);Google Scholar Seward, , Q.J.G.S., vol. liii (1897), p. 318Google Scholar; Arber, , Q.J.G.S., vol. lviii (1902), p. 9.Google Scholar

page 386 note 2 Etheridge, , Jun.: Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, ser. II, vol. ix (1894), pp. 240–1.Google Scholar

page 386 note 3 Arber, ibid., p. 21; Kurtz, , Q.J.G.S., vol. lix (1903), pp. 26 and 28.Google Scholar

page 386 note 4 Seward, : Q.J.G.S., vol. lix (1903), p. 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 386 note 5 Zeiller, : Compt. rendu Acad. Sci., t. cxxxiv (1902), pp. 887–891.Google Scholar

page 386 note 6 Buckman, S. S., “The Bajocian of the Mid-Cotteswolds,” Appendix, ‘Note on certain Brachiopoda’: Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. li (1895), p. 456.Google Scholar

page 387 note 1 Buckman, S. S., “Homœomorphy among Jurassic Brachiopoda”: Proc. Cotteswold Naturalists’ Field Club, vol. xiii (1901), p. 231.Google Scholar

page 387 note 2 Buckman: ibid.., pp. 232–3.

page 387 note 3 Nicholson, & Marr, , “Notes on the Phylogeny of the Graptolites”: Geol. Mag., N.S., Dec. IV, Vol. II (1895), p. 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 387 note 4 ibid.., p. 537.

page 388 note 1 For a short account of these biological groups see Henslow, Natural Science, vol. xv (1899).

page 388 note 2 Seward: “Fossil Plants,” vol. i, chapter v.

page 388 note 3 Buckman: ibid.., p. 232.