Skip to main content
Log in

The identity of Archaeopteris and Callixylon

  • Published:
Brittonia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary and Conclusions

A specimen from the late Devonian Katsberg beds of Delaware County, New York, comprising a pyritized axis determined asCallixylon and leaves determined asArchaeopteris, is described and illustrated. The leaves are probablyA. macilenta Lesquereux and the axisC. zalesskyi Arnold, but because of doubt of the specific identity of the leaves a nomenclature transfer is delayed.

Archaeopteris, the valid name for the plant represented by the organ generaArchaeopteris andCallixylon, is included withPitys andArchaeopitys in the Pityales which, together with the orders Aneurophytales and Protopityales, is assigned to the newly recognized class Progymnospermopsida. This class includes woody, pteridophytic plants bearing (where known) large compound leaves or leaf-like branch systems. In numerous characters of both external morphology and internal structure these plants are remarkably similar to two groups of gymnosperms, the Pteridospermales and Cordaitales, which are, respectively, the most primitive groups of the cycadophyte and coniferophyte lines of gymnosperm evolution. Because the Progymnospermopsida are pteridophytic they can-not be logically classified with the ovule-bearing gymnosperms, but it is very likely that they comprise the ancestral complex from which the major groups of gymnosperms evolved. Certain primitive features, especially of the Aneurophytales, suggest that the Progymnospermopsida are descended directly from some psilophyte-like ancestors.

The existence of such a group of pteridophytic plants, of possible psilophytic origin, obviously not ferns, showing unmistakeable gymnosperm characters, and which preceded any known gymnosperms in time, eliminates the necessity to consider any group of ferns, known or unknown, as ancestors of the gymnosperms. This supports the separation by Bold (1956) of the Filicineae and Gymnospermae, and in part his abandonment of Pteropsida. On the other hand it suggests that the major groups of gymnosperms (possibly excluding the Gnetales) have a common ancestry, are consequently genetically related, and should, therefore, be retained in a single inclusive taxon.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Andrews, H. N. 1940. On the stelar anatomy of pteridosperms, with particular reference to the secondary wood. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.27: 51–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, C. A. 1930. The genusCallixylon from the Upper Devonian of central and western New York. Papers Mich. Acad.11: 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1931. OnCallixylon newberryi (Dawson) Elkins et Wieland. Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Mich.3: 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1936a. Observations on fossil plants from the Devonian of eastern North America. I. Plant remains from Scaumenac Bay, Quebec. Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Mich.5: 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1936b. Observations on fossil plants from the Devonian of eastern North America. II.Archaeopteris macilenta andA. sphenophyllifolia of Lesquereux. Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Mich.5: 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1939. Observations on fossil plants from the Devonian of eastern North America. IV. Plant remains from the Catskill Delta deposits of northern Pennsylvania and southern New York. Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Mich.5: 271–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1940. Structure and relationships of some Middle Devonian plants from western New York. Am. Jour. Bot.27: 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1947. An introduction to paleobotany. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1948. Classification of gymnosperms from the viewpoint of paleobotany. Bot. Gaz.110: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1953. Origin and relationships of the cycads. Phytomorphology3: 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, C. B. 1953. A new root species of Callixylon. Am. Jour. Bot.40: 226–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1955. A technique for obtaining polished surfaces of sections of pyritized plant fossils. Bull. Torrey Club82: 286–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1957.T etraxylopteris schmidtii gen. et sp. nov., a probable pteridosperm precursor from the Devonian of New York Am. Jour. Bot.44: 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1960. Connection betweenArchaeopteris andCallixylon. Science131: 1524–1525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, E. W. 1917. The classification of vascular plants. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.3: 330–333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bold, H. C. 1956. Some aspects of the classification of the plant kingdom. Bull. Assoc. Southeast. Biol.3: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, J. M. &Chamberlain, E. J. 1910. Morphology of gymnosperms. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. W. 1871. The fossil plants of the Devonian and Upper Silurian formation of Canada. Geol. Surv. Canada, Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delevoryas, T. &Morgan, J. 1954. A new pteridosporm from Upper Pennsylvanian deposits of North America. Palaeontographica96B: 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. T. 1935. The genusPitys, Witham, emend. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh58: 279–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirmer, M. 1927. Handbuch der Paläobotanik. R. Oldenbourg, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeg, O. A. 1942. The Downtonian and Devonian flora of Spitsbergen. Norges Svalbardog Ishavs-undersøkelser83: 1–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. 1911. IsArchaeopteris a pteridosperm? Sci. Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. N. S.13: 114–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joy, K. W., Willis, A. J. &Lacey, W. S. 1956. A rapid cellulose peel technique in palaeobotany. Ann. Bot.20: 635–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidston, B. 1906. On the microsporangia of the Pteridospermeae, with remarks on their relationship to existing groups. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London198B: 413–445

    Google Scholar 

  • —, &Lang, W. H. 1923. OnPalaeopitys Milleri M’Nab. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh53: 409–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kräusel, R. &Weyland, H. 1935. Pflanzenreste aus dem Devon. IX. Ein Stamm vonEospermatopteris-Bau aus dem Mitteldevon des Kirberges, Elberfeld. Senckenbergiana17: 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1941. Pflanzenreste aus dem Devon von Nord-Amerika. II. Die Oberdevonischen Floren von Elkins, West-Virginien, und Perry, Maine, mit Berücksichtigung einiger Stücke von der Chaleur-Bai, Canada. Palaeontographica86B: 3–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leclercq, S. 1951. Étude morphologique et anatomique d’une fougère du Dévonien Supérieur. LeRhacophyton zygopteroides nov. sp. Ann. Soc. Géol. Belg.9: 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesquereux, L. 1884. Description of the coal flora of the Carboniferous formation in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. Second Geol. Surv. Penn. Vol. III, Report of Progress P. Harrisburg.

  • Nathorst, A. G. 1902a. Zur Oberdevonischen Flora der Bären-Insel. J. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akad. Handl.36 3: 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1902b. Beiträge zur Kenntnis einiger Mesozoischen Cycadophyten. K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akad. Handl.36 4: 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemejc, F. 1950. The natural systematic of plants in the light of the present palaeontological documents. Sborník Nár. musea Praze6B 3: 1–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1959. Notes on the evolution and taxonomy of the stachyospermic gymnosperms. Preslia31: 251–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, C. B. 1937. The flora of the New Albany shale. Part 2. The Calamopityeae and their relationships. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap.186E: 81–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahni, B. 1920. On the structure and affinities ofAcmopyle Pancheri, Pilger. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London210B: 253–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saporta, G. & Marion, A. F. 1885. L’évolution du règne végétal. Les phanérogames. Vol. 1. Paris.

  • Scott, D. H. 1923. Studies in fossil botany. Ed. 3, Vol. 2. A. and C. Black, Ltd., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, &Jeffrey, E. C. 1914. On fossil plants, showing structure, from the base of the Waverley shale of Kentucky. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London205B: 315–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhtajan, A. L. 1953. Phylogenetic principles of the system of higher plants. Bot. Rev.19: 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, J. 1957. On Protopitys (Göppert): with a description of a fertile specimen“Protopitys scotica” sp. nov. from the Calciferous sandstone series of Dunbartonshire. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh63: 333–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worsdell, W. C. 1906. The structure and origin of the Cycadaceae. Ann. Bot.20: 129–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalessky, M. D. 1911. Étude sur l’anatomie duDadoxylon tehihatcheffl Goeppert. Mém. Comité Géol. Russe, N. S.68: 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beck, C.B. The identity of Archaeopteris and Callixylon. Brittonia 12, 351–368 (1960). https://doi.org/10.2307/2805124

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2805124

Keywords

Navigation