Geobotany pp 77-93 | Cite as

Toward an Understanding of the Reproductive Biology of Fossil Plants

  • Thomas N. Taylor

Abstract

During the last several years there has been an increased emphasis in several areas of paleobotany that have focused on the reproductive biology of fossil plants. Several factors have played an important role in stimulating research along these lines. The present paper demonstrates several examples by which the reproductive parameters of fossil plants may be investigated. The total analysis of fossil plant reproductive systems not only provides an additional dimension for comparative studies with closely related extant forms, but moreover allows an opportunity to investigate and more accurately define heretofore abstract concepts concerning the evolution of certain reproductive systems.

Keywords

Pollen Tube Reproductive Biology Fossil Plant Neck Cell Seed Fern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Brack, S. D.I970. On a new structurally preserved arborescent lycopsid fructification from the Lower Pennsylvanian of North America. Amer. J. Bot. 57: 317–330.Google Scholar
  2. Delevoryas, T. 1964. Ontogenetic studies of fossil plants. Phytomorphology 14: 299–314.Google Scholar
  3. Delevoryas, T. 1967. Further remarks on the ontogeny of certain Carboniferous plants. Phytomorphology 17: 330–336.Google Scholar
  4. Galtier, J. 1964. Sur le gametophyte femelle des Lepidodendracees. C. R. Acad. Sci. 258: 2625–2628.Google Scholar
  5. Hanes, S. D. 1975. Structurally preserved Lepidodendracean cones from the Pennsylvanian of North America. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio University, 112 p.Google Scholar
  6. Millay, M. A. and D. A. Eggert. 1974. Microgametophyte development in the Paleozoic seed fern family Callistophytaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 61: 1067–1075.Google Scholar
  7. Miller, C. N. and J. T. Brown. 1972. Paleozoic seeds with embryos. Science 179: 184–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Niklas, K. J. 1976. Chemical examination of some non-vascular Paleozoic plants. Brittonia 28: 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Phillips, T. L., M. J. Avcin, and J. M. Schopf. 1975. Gametophyte and young sporophyte development in Lepidocarpon. Bot. Soc. Amer. Abstr., p. 23 Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  10. Rothwell, G. W. 1972. Evidence of pollen tubes in Paleozoic pteridosperms. Science 175: 772–774.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmid, R. S., M.Wolniak, and V. J. Vreeland. 1976. Electron microscopy and immunochemistry of Prototaxites. Bot. Soc. Amer. Abstr., p. 31, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  12. Stewart, W. N. 1954. A new Pachytesta from the Berryville locality of southeastern Illinois. Amer. Midl. Nat. 46: 717–742.Google Scholar
  13. Stockey, R. A. 1975. Seeds and embryos of Araucaria mirabilis. Amer. J. Bot. 62: 856–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Taylor, T. N. 1976. Fossil ubisch bodies. Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc. 95: 133–136.Google Scholar
  15. Taylor, T. N. , M. A. Millay (in press). The ultrastructure and reproductive significance of Lasiostrobus microspores. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas N. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations