Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T08:57:19.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XII.—The Genus Pitys, Witham, emend

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

W. T. Gordon
W. T. Gordon
Affiliation:
Professor of Geology, University of London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few plants of Carboniferous age have appealed so strongly to the scientific observer as the huge woody trunks of a coniferous type that have been discovered from time to time in beds of that system. The appeal has come from different points of view at different times; thus these trees were hailed by Witham (1831, pp. 1–2), Lindley and Hutton (1831, p. xiii), and Hugh Miller (1849, p. 186) as evidence of the existence of higher coniferous plants in abundance during a period to which the current consensus of scientific opinion had assigned only members of the lower plant families, or would admit only an infrequent occurrence of higher forms. These remains were therefore important in discussions concerning the development of plant life, and were cited by Hugh Miller (1849, p. 185) in his attempt to combat the then embryonic ideas of evolution—the recrudescence of Lamarckian ideas—current under the name of “the development hypothesis.” Miller, however, recognised one significant point, namely, that they represented a land flora as distinct from one occupying a water habitat (1849, p. 202).

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , 1935 , pp. 279 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1935

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, Agnes, 1918. “The Phyllode Theory of the Monocotyledonous Leaf,” Ann. Bot., vol. xxxii.Google Scholar
Arnold, Chester A., 1929. “The Genus Callixylon,” Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters, vol. xi.Google Scholar
Arnold, Chester A., 1931. “On Callixylon Newberryi (Dawson) Elkins et Wieland,” Museum of Paleont., Univ. of Mich., vol. iii.Google Scholar
Göppert, H. R., 1881. “Revision meiner Arbeiten über die Stämme der fossilen Coniferen,” Bot. Centralbl., Bd. v.Google Scholar
Gray, Asa., 1887. The Botanical Text-Book.Google Scholar
Johnson, T., 1912. “Heterangium hibernicum,” Sci. Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc., vol. xiii.Google Scholar
Johnson, T., 1917. “Spermolithes devonicus and other Pteridosperms from the Upper Devonian Beds at Kiltorcan,” Sci. Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc., vol. xv.Google Scholar
Kidston, R., and Lang, W. H., 1923. “On Palæopitys Milleri, M'Nab,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. liii.Google Scholar
Krausel, R., und Weyland, H., 1929. “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Devonflora III,” Abhandl. der Senckenberg. naturf. Gesell., Bd. xli.Google Scholar
Kubart, B., 1914. “Über die Cycadofilicineen Heterangium und Lyginodendron,” Österreichische bot. Zeit., Bd. lxiv.Google Scholar
Lindley, J., and Hutton, W., 1831. Fossil Flora of Great Britain.Google Scholar
Maslen, A. J., 1911. “Structure of Mesoxylon Sutcliffii,” Ann. Bot., vol. xxv.Google Scholar
Miller, Hugh, 1849. Footprints of the Creator.Google Scholar
Renault, B., 1896. “Note sur le genre Metacordaïte,” Soc. d'Hist. Nat. d'Autun.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1902. “Primary Structure of certain Palæozoic Stems,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xl.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1917. “The Heterangiums of the British Coal Measures,” Linn. Soc. Journal, vol. xliv.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1924. “Fossil Plants of the Calamopitys Type,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. liii.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., 1933. “Archæopitys Eastmanii,” Ann. Bot., vol. xlvii.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., B, vol. ccv.Google Scholar
Seward, A. C., 1897. “A contribution to our knowledge of Lyginodendron,” Ann. Bot., vol. xi.Google Scholar
Seward, A. C., and Ford, Sibille O., 1906. “The Araucarieæ Recent and Fossil,” Phil. Trans., B, vol. cxcviii.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. B., 1914. “On the Comparative Anatomy and Affinities of the Araucarineæ,” Phil. Trans., B, vol. cciv.Google Scholar
Walkom, A. B., 1928. “Fossil Plants from the Upper Palæozoic Rocks of New South Wales,” Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales, vol. liii, p. 260, pl. xxii, figs. 1–3.Google Scholar
White, D., 1908. Report on the Fossil Flora of the Coal Measures of Brazil, p. 467, pl. xii, fig. 2.Google Scholar
Witham, H. T. M., 1831 (a). “Description of a Fossil Tree discovered at the Quarry of Craigleith,” Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, vol. i, p. 294.Google Scholar
Witham, H. T. M., 1831 (b). Observations on Fossil Vegetables, Blackwood, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Witham, H. T. M., 1833. The Internal Structure of Fossil Vegetables, A. and C. Black, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Zalessky, M. D., 1909. “Communication préliminaire sur un nouveau Dadoxylon … provenant du dévonien supérieur du bassin du Donetz,” Bull, de l'Acad. Imp. des Sci., St Pétersbourg.Google Scholar
Zalessky, M. D., 1911 (a). “Étude sur l'anatomie du Dadoxylon Tchihatcheffi,” Mémoires du Comité Geologique, Livr. lxviii, St Pétersbourg.Google Scholar
Zalessky, M. D., 1911 (b). “Note préliminaire sur le Cœnoxylon Scotti,” Études Paléobotaniques, St Pétersbourg.Google Scholar