The epiphytic plants in the fossil record and its example from in situ tuff from Pennsylvanian of Radnice Basin (Czech Republic).

Abstract

Recognizing true epiphytes in the fossil record is still a major problem for palaeobotanists. Many indirect examples of evidence of epiphytic plants were previously published in palaeobotanical papers, especially from Pennsylvanian and Cenozoic times. Due to the special life strategy of epiphytes, which depends on presence of other plants for growth (so-called phorophytes), their preservation in the fossil record depends on the taphonomy of these phorophytes. Generally, the main factors for preservation of epiphytes are the type of environment in which the phorophyte grew, the habit-type of the epiphyte, the position of the epiphytes on the phorophyte, and the rapidity of burial. The ideal facies for preservation of epiphytes are in situ volcanic ash-fall deposits where plants were very quickly buried in the original place of growth. Vegetation buried in such deposits represents a single T 0 horizon that reveals the spatial distribution of plants including potential epiphytes. Examples of two such plants are described in this paper from middle Moscovian ash-fall deposits in the Radnice Basin (Czech Republic). Both are Selaginella-like plants, which are informally named Selaginella sp. 1 and Selaginella sp. 2. Selaginella sp. 1 is interpreted as an epiphyte that probably grew in the leafy distal parts of the tree-top branches of arborescent lycopsids. Selaginella sp. 2 probably represents an epiphyte that grew on the trunks of the arborescent gymnosperm Cordaites borassifolius or the lycopsid Lepidodendron (Paralycopodites) simile. The interpretation is based on a set of subjective and/or indirect evidence. Direct evidence of epiphytes in the fossil record is still lacking. This paper documents for the first time herbaceous fossil lycopsids as epiphytes, as well as epiphytes described from three-dimensional compression material. •

A quantitative comparison of dispersed spore/pollen and plant megafossil assemblages from a Middle Jurassic plant bed from Yorkshire, UK

“…9) could be related to epiphytic communities. Epiphytes are generally poorly represented in the megafloral record as the burial and subsequent fossilization of such species is unlikely compared to most other plants (Schneider and Kenrick 2001; Frahm and Newton 2005; Tstutsumi and Kato 2006; Schuettpelz and Pryer 2007, 2009; Dubuisson et al 2009; Pšenička and Opluštil 2013). In contrast, sporomorphs released from epiphytes do not experience this bias, thus diversities of epiphytic groups are comparatively unaffected in the sporomorph record.…”

Digital reconstruction of the mandible of an adultLesothosaurus diagnosticuswith insight into the tooth replacement process and diet

“…Fossil plant and palaeopalynological studies from the Elliot Formation suggest low diversity assemblages ( Bamford, 2004 ; Barbolini, 2014 ); however, limited diversity in fossil plant assemblages is not an accurate reflection of the floral biodiversity at the time but rather of the complex and limiting taphonomic filters typical of semi-arid settings and their low preservation potential for plant material (cf. Pšenička & Opluštil, 2013 ; Gastaldo & Demko, 2011 ).…”

Palaeobotanical experiences of plant diversity in deep time. 1: How well can we identify past plant diversity in the fossil record?

“…The lower part of the deposit contains in situ stumps and the groundcover vegetation, which, because the ash fell almost vertically, was mostly not winnowed out. The upper parts of the ash band, in contrast, includes remains of the upper parts of the trees, together with epiphytes and lianas, brought down by the weight of the ash sometime after the deposit had fallen (Pšenička and Opluštil 2013). A careful survey of the plant remains in different levels of the ash deposit (Fig.…”