Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of comparative morphology and anatomy in interpreting the systematics of fossil gymnosperms

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is an analysis of the systematics and phylogeny of gymnosperms as recently proposed by Meyen (Bot. Rev.50(1): 1–111. 1984). Attention is focused on the philosophical approach and on the fundamental concepts that frame the systematic scheme. Morphological interpretations are examined in relation to the concept of homology, and criteria employed for the recognition of whole plants from fossil evidence are evaluated. An examination of fossils from Upper Devonian and Lower Carboniferous strata reveals that only the ovules and ovulate fructifications constitute unequivocal evidence for gymnosperms in these strata. Such examination also reveals that they all can be interpreted as conforming to the same basic structure. If true, there is no evidence for more than one major group of gymnosperms in Devonian and Lower Carboniferous strata. Although many conclusions of Meyen are not accepted, his work plays a valuable role in focusing attention on important, unresolved questions of gymnosperm systematics, and provides a poignant stimulus for the proposal of alternative hypotheses.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Aufsatz ist eine Analyse der Systematik und Phylogenie hinsichtlich Gymnospermen und wurde kürzlich von Meyen in “The Botanical Review” vorgeschlagen. Schwerpunkt wurde auf den philosophischen Ansatz und die fundamentalen Begriffe gelegt, welche die Grundlagen fuer die systematische Methode bilden. Morphologische Erklaerungen sind in Bezug auf Homologie untersucht, wobei Kriterien fuer die Erkennung vollstaendiger Fossil Pflanzen gewertet werden. Eine Untersuchung der Fossilien aus der Ober-Devonischen und Nieder-Steinkohlenschicht offenbart, dass nur die Ovulen und ovulaten Fruchtbildungen eindeutigen Beweis fuer Gymnospermen in dieser Schicht liefern. Ausserdem zeigt sich, dass alle den selben grundlegenden Strukturen entsprechen. Wenn diese Annahme richtig ist, dann gibt es keinen Beweis, dass es mehr als eine Hauptgruppe der Gymnospermen in der Devonischen und Nieder-Steinkohlenschichte gab. Obwohl viele Hypothesen von Meyen nicht allgemeine Zustimmung finden, seine Arbeit spielt eine wertvolle Rolle in der Verschaerfung wichtiger ungeloester Fragen bezueglich Gymnospermen Systematik und liefert einen heftigen Antrieb fuer Vorschlaege zu alternativen Hypothesen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Banks, H. P. 1968. The early history of land plants. Pages 73–107in E. T. Drake (ed.), Evolution and environment: A symposium presented on the one hundredth anniversary of the foundation of Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, C. B. 1960. The identity ofArchaeopteris andCallixylon. Brittonia12: 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, J. M. andC. J. Chamberlain. 1917. Morphology of gymnosperms. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMichele, W. A. 1979. Arborescent lycopods of Pennsylvanian age coals:Lepidophloios. Palaeontographica171B: 57–77, pl. 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, D. A. andT. Delevoryas. 1967. Studies of Paleozoic ferns:Sermaya gen. nov. and its bearing on filicalean evolution in the Paleozoic. Palaeontographica120B: 169–180, pl. 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtier, J. 1981. Structures foliaires de fougeres et pteridospermales du Carbonifere Inferieur et leur signification evolutive. Palaeontographica180B: 1–38, pl.1-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, W. H., G. W. Rothwell andS. E. Scheckler. 1981. The earliest seeds. Nature293: 462–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. R. andP. R. Crane. 1981. Evolutionary cladistics and the origin of angiosperms. Pages 269–361in K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday (eds.), Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, A. H. andG. W. Rothwell. 1981. Paleobotany: Perspectives in 1980. Paleobiology7: 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, A. G. 1975. Further observations on some Lower Carboniferous seeds and cupules. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh69: 267–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1977. Observations on Carboniferous seeds ofMitrospermum, Conostoma andLagenostoma. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh70: 37–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mapes, G. andG. W. Rothwell. 1984. Permineralized ovulate cones ofLebachia from Late Paleozoic limestones of Kansas. Palaeontology27: 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, L. C., W. S. Lacey andR. C. Lucas. 1980. Cupulate seedsof Hydrasperma Long from Berwickshire and East Lothian in Scotland and County Kerry in Ireland. J. Linn. Soc. Bot.81: 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeuse, A. D. J. 1966. Fundamentals of phytomorphology. Ronald Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyen, S. V. 1982. Gymnosperm fructifications and their evolution as evidenced by paleobotany. Zhurn. Obshch. Biol.43: 303–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1984. Basic features of gymnosperm systematics and phylogeny as evidenced by the fossil record. Bot. Rev.50: 1–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettitt, J. M. andC. B. Beck. 1968.Archaeosperma arnoldii—A cupulate seed from the Upper Devonian of North America. Contr. Mus. Paleontol. Univ. Michigan22: 139–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, T. L. 1979. Reproduction of heterosporous arborescent lycopods in the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian of Euramerica. Rev. Paleobot. Palynol.27: 239–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, G. W. 1971. Additional observations onConostoma anglo-germanicum andC. oblongum from the Lower Pennsylvanian of North America. Palaeontographica131B: 167–178, pl. 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1980. Permineralized parts of putative primitive gymnosperms. Botany 80, Bot. Soc. Amer., Misc. Ser. Pub.158: 98.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1983. Functional morphology in ovule development, and the evolution of gymnospermous reproduction. Amer. J. Bot.70(No. 5, Pt. 2): 77.

    Google Scholar 

  • — andD. M. Erwin. 1985. The rhizomorph ofPaurodendron; implications for homologies among the rooting organs of Lycopsida. Amer. J. Bot.72: 86–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seward, A. C. 1917. Fossil plants, vol. III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, W. E., D. C. Wight andC. B. Beck. 1984. Possible alternatives for the origin of Sphenopsida. Syst. Bot.9: 102–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H. H. 1932. The old morphology and the new. Proc. Linn. Soc. London145: 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany, Ohio University, 45701, Athens, Ohio

    Gar W. Rothwell

Authors
  1. Gar W. Rothwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rothwell, G.W. The role of comparative morphology and anatomy in interpreting the systematics of fossil gymnosperms. Bot. Rev 51, 319–327 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861078

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861078

Keywords

Search

Navigation