1996
DOI: 10.2307/2419613
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Rhizomorphic Lycopsids: A Case-Study in Paleobotanical Classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
99
0
1

Year Published

1996
1996
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

5
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
99
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Such anatomy is similar to that of, and phylogenetically links it with, Lepidophloios (DiMichele, 1979) and Hizemodendron Bateman and DiMichele (1991) in the Lepidodendraceae (sensu Bateman et al, 1992;DiMichele and Bateman, 1996 Description.-Leaf cushions are typical of this species and are the key characters for identification. These are higher than wide, serpentine in shape, with the tails strongly curved and confluent with leaf cushions above and below (Plate II,(2)(3).…”
mentioning
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Such anatomy is similar to that of, and phylogenetically links it with, Lepidophloios (DiMichele, 1979) and Hizemodendron Bateman and DiMichele (1991) in the Lepidodendraceae (sensu Bateman et al, 1992;DiMichele and Bateman, 1996 Description.-Leaf cushions are typical of this species and are the key characters for identification. These are higher than wide, serpentine in shape, with the tails strongly curved and confluent with leaf cushions above and below (Plate II,(2)(3).…”
mentioning
confidence: 61%
“…This latter genus, by virtue of its bisporangiate cones, would also reside in the family Flemingitaceae of Thomas and Brack-Hanes (1984). DiMichele and Bateman (1996) placed it in the parataxon Ulodendrineae, and suggested a close relationship between Paralycopodites and Ulodendron sensu Thomas (1967). Álvarez-Vázquez and Wagner (in press) refer Ulodendron sensu Thomas (1967) to Bergeria.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is difficult to detect species differences with confidence due to the very different forms of preservation between coal balls and adpressions (compressions and impressions; see Shute and Cleal 1986) and, hence, the different character suites on which much of the taxonomy is based. Direct comparisons are possible and have been made in some instances (e.g., pteridosperm foliage species [Oestry-Stidd 1979;Mickle and Rothwell 1982;Beeler 1983;Reihman and Schabilion 1985;Cleal and Shute 2012;Raymond et al 2013], lycopsid stem taxa [Bateman et al 1992;DiMichele and Bateman 1996]). However, comparisons at a broader level show consistent differences in quantitative aspects of composition, such as the more common occurrence of the lycopsid Sigillaria or the greater dominance of pteridosperms (King et al 2011;Wagner and Castro 2011) in mineral substrate wetlands than in peat swamps.…”
Section: Roof Shales Versus Peat-forming Florasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…i) more or less spherical microsporangia, and possibly ii) distal dehiscence (reversal to plesiomorphic condition from radial dehiscence), iii) 4 megaspores per sporangium, iv) suspension of stele in cavity by trabeculate endodermal cells, and v) echinate microspores (Kenrick and Crane 1997). i) cambium, ii) pseudobipolar growth involving rhizomorphic root system, and iii) monarch xylem strand in root (Bateman et al 1992, DiMichele andBateman 1996). i) circinate growth, ii) two-rowed sporangia!…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%