Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision of the Proteaceae macrofossil record from Patagonia, Argentina

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Proteaceae are restricted to the Southern Hemisphere, and of the seven tribes of the subfamily Grevilleoideae, only three (Macadamieae, Oriteae, and Embothrieae) have living members in Argentina. Megafossil genera of Proteaceae recorded from Patagonia includeLomatia, Embothrium, Orites, andRoupala. In this report, we evaluate and revise fossil Argentine Proteaceae on the basis of type material and new specimens. The new collections come from the Tufolitas Laguna del Hunco (early Eocene, Chubut Province), the Ventana (middle Eocene, Río Negro Province), and the Río Ñirihuau (late Oligocene-early Miocene, Río Negro Province) formations, Patagonia, Argentina. We confirm the presence ofLomatia preferruginea Berry,L. occidentalis (Berry) Frenguelli,L. patagonica Frenguelli,Roupala patagonica Durango de Cabrera et Romero, andOrites bivascularis Romero, Dibbern et Gandolfo. Fossils assigned toEmbothrium precoccineum Berry andE. pregrandiflorum Berry are doubtful, and new material is necessary to confirm the presence of this genus in the fossil record of Patagonia. A putative new fossil species of Proteaceae is presented as Proteaceae gen. et sp. indet. Fossil Proteaceae are compared with modern genera, and an identification key for the fossil leaf species is presented. Doubtful historical records of Proteaceae fossils for the Antarctic Peninsula region and Patagonia are also discussed. Based on this revision, the three tribes of Proteaceae found today in Argentina were already present in Patagonia by the early Eocene, where they probably arrived via the Australia-Antarctica-South America connection.

Resumen

La familia Proteaceae está restringida al Hemisferio Sur, y en Argentina sólo tres (Macadamieae, Oriteae y Embothrieae) de las siete tribus de la subfamilia Grevilleoideae están representadas. En Patagonia, megafósiles asignados a Proteaceae incluyen los génerosLomatia, Embothrium, Orites yRoupala. En este trabajo, se evalúan y revisan todos los registros fósiles de Proteaceae para Argentina basados en el material tipo y en nuevos especímenes. Las nuevas colecciones fueron realizadas en las formaciones Tufolitas Laguna del Hunco (Eoceno Temprano, Provincia del Chubut), Ventana (Eoceno Medio, Provincia de Río Negro) y Río Ñirihuau (Oligoceno Tardío-Mioceno Temprano, Provincia de Río Negro), Patagonia, Argentina. Se confirma la presencia deLomatia preferruginea Berry,L. occidentalis (Berry) Frenguelli,L. patagonica Frenguelli, Roupala patagonica Durango de Cabrera et Romero, andOrites bivascularis Romero, Dibbern et Gandolfo. Los fósiles asignados aEmbothrium precoccineum Berry andE. pregrandiflorum Berry son dudosos, y nuevo material es necesario para confirmar la presencia de este género en el registro fósil de Patagonia. Una posible nueva especie fósil es presentada como Proteaceae gen. et sp. indet. Los fósiles asignados a Proteaceae son comparados con géneros modernos, y se proporciona una clave para la identification de las especies fósiles. Los registros fósiles históricos dudosos de Proteaceae para la región de la Península Antártica y Patagonia son también discutidos. Basados en esta revisión, las tres tribus de Proteaceae que se hallan hoy en Argentina se encontraban ya presentes en Patagonia durante el Eoceno temprano, donde probablemente arribaron vía la conección Australia-Antártida-Sudamérica.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Ancibor, E. 1989. Determinatión xilológica de una raíz petrificada de Proteaceae de la Formation Río Turbio (Eoceno), Santa Cruz, Argentina. Ameghiniana 25: 289–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragón, E. &M. M. Mazzoni. 1997. Geología y estratigrafía del complejo volcánico piroclástico del Río Chubut medio (Eoceno), Chubut, Argentina. Revista Asoc. Geol. Argent. 52: 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1984. Geología, paleoambientes y paleobotánica de yacimientos Terciarios del occidente de Río Negro, Neuquén y Chubut. Actas 9th Argent. Geol. Congr., Bariloche, 4: 475–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archangelsky, S. 1974. Sobre la edad de la tafoflora de la Laguna del Hunco, Provincia de Chubut. Ameghiniana 11: 413–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arguijo, M. H. &E. J. Romero. 1981. Análisis bioestratigráfico de formaciones portadoras de tafofloras terciarias. Actas 7th Argent. Geol. Congr., San Luis, 4: 691–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Askin, R. A. &A. M. Baldoni. 1998. The Santonian through Paleogene record of Proteaceae in the southern South America-Antarctic Peninsula Region. Austral. Syst. Bot. 11: 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, E. W. 1925. A Miocene flora from Patagonia. Johns Hopkins Univ. Stud. Geol. 6: 183–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1932. Fossil plants from Chubut territory collected by the Scarrit Patagonian Expedition. Amer. Mus. Novit. 536: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1938. Tertiary flora from the Río Pichileufú, Argentina. Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 12: 1–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, R. J. &R. S. Hill. 1988. Early TertiaryLomatia (Proteaceae) macrofossils from Tasmania, Australia. Rev. Paleobot. Palynol. 56: 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1997. Early Tertiary macrofossils of Proteaceae from Tasmania. Austral. Syst. Bot. 10: 533–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1994.Banksieaephyllum taylorii (Proteaceae) from the Late Paleocene of New South Wales and its relevance to the origin of Australia’s scleromorphic flora. Austral. Syst. Bot. 7: 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christophel, D. C. 1980. Occurrence ofCasuarina megafossils in the Tertiary of southeastern Australia. Austral. J. Bot. 28: 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1984. Early Tertiary Proteaceae: the first floral evidence for the Musgraveinae. Austral. J. Bot. 32: 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1987. A megafossil flora from the Eocene of Golden Grove South Australia. Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Austral. 111: 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1992. An Eocene megafossil flora from Nelly Creek, South Australia. Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Austral. 116: 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronquist, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dettmann, M. E. 1989. Antarctica: Cretaceous cradle of austral temperate rainforests? Pp. 89–105in J. A. Crame (ed.), Origins and evolution of the Antarctic biota. Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 47.

  • 1991. Pollen evidence for late Cretaceous differentiation of Proteaceae in southern polar forests. Canad. J. Bot. 69: 901–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • . 1996. Pollen of proteaceous-type from latest Cretaceous sediments, southeastern Australia. Alcheringa 20: 103–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • . 1998. The early history of the Proteaceae in Australia: the pollen record. Austral. Syst. Bot. 11: 401–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilcher, L. J. 1974. Approaches to the identification of angiosperm leaf remains. Bot. Rev. 40: 1–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitri, M. J. 1974. La Flora arbórea del Parque National Iguazú. Anales de Parques Nacionales. Tomo 12. Servicio de Parques Nacionales, Buenos Aires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dizeo de Strittmatter, C. G. 1973. Una nueva técnica de diafanización. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 15: 126–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doktor, M., A. Gazdzicki, A. Jerzmanska &E. Zastawniak, E. Zastawniak 1996. A plant and fish assemblage from the Eocene La Meseta Formation of Seymour Island (Antarctic Peninsula) and its environmental implicationsin A. Gazdzicki (ed.) Palaeontological results of the Polish Antarctic Expeditions Part II”. Palaeontol Polon. 55: 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, A. W. 1995. Proteaceae-Affinities. Pp. 6–20in P. McCarthy (ed.), Flora of Australia Vol 16. CSIRO-ABRS. Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durango de Cabrera J. &E. J. Romero. 1988.Roupala patagonica n. sp. de Laguna del Hunco (Paleoceno), Provincia Chubut, Argentina. 5th Argent. Congr. Paleontol. Biostratigr. Abstr. 3: 121–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusén, P. 1907. Über die Tertiäre Flora der Magellansländern. Pp. 84–108in O. Nordenskjold (ed.), Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Schwedischen Expedition nach den Magellansländern 1895–1897. Band I: Geologie, Geographie und Anthropologie. Norstedt & Söner, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1916. Über die tertiäre Flora der Seymour-Insel. Pp. 1–27in O. Nordenskjold (ed.), Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Schwedischen Südpolar Expedition 1901–1903, Geologie und Paläontologie. Norstedt & Söner, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, A. S. 1953. Techniques for the study of venation patterns in the leaves of angiosperms. Proc. 7th Int. Bot. Congr., Stockholm, p. 586–587.

  • Frenguelli, J. 1943. Proteáceas del Cenozoico de Patagonia. Notas Mus. La Plata 8: 201–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • George A. S. &B. P. M. Hyland. 1995.Orites. Pp. 346–352in P. McCarthy (ed.), Flora of Australia Vol 16. CSIRO-ABRS, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, C. C., M. A. Gandolfo &N. R. Cúneo. 2004. Leaf architecture and epidermal characters of the Argentinean species of Proteaceae. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 165: 521–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González Díaz, E. 1979. La edad de la Formación Ventana en el área al norte y al este del Lago Nahuel Huapi. Revista Asoc. Geol. Argent. 34: 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunckel Luer, H. 1957. Proteaceas fósiles de la Patagonia. Univ. Católica Chile, Revista Univ. 42: 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, G. J. 1990. Proteaceae. Pp. 1–71in G. J. Harden (ed.), Flora of New South Wales. Vol 2. Royal Botanical Gardens, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, L. J. 1974. Gasificación de la arquitectura de las hojas de dicotiledóneas. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 16: 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: vegetative morphology. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62: 538–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. S. &D. C. Christophel. 1988. Tertiary leaves of the tribe Banksieae (Proteaceae) from southeastern Australia. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 97: 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1995. The fossil record of Australian Proteaceae. Pp. 21–30in P. McCarthy (ed.), Flora of Australia, vol 16. CSIRO-ABRS, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoot, S. B. &A. R. Douglas. 1998. Phylogeny of the Proteaceae based onatpB andatpB-rbcL intergenic spacer region sequences. Austral. Syst. Bot. 11: 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hünicken, M. 1966. Flora Terciaria de los estratos de Río Turbio, Santa Cruz. (Niveles plantíferos del arroyo Santa Flavia). Revista Fac. Ci. Exact. 56: 141–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. A. S. &B. G. Briggs. 1963. Evolution in the Proteaceae. Austral. J. Bot. 11:21–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • . 1975. On the Proteaceae—the evolution and classification of a southern family. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 70: 83–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • . 1981. Three old southern families Myrtaceae, Proteaceae and Restoniaceae. Pp. 429–469in A. Keast (ed.), Ecological biogeography of Australia. Junk, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, G. J. 1995. Early-middle Pleistocene leaves of extinct and extant Proteaceae from western Tasmania, Australia. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 118: 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1991. Late Pleistocene vegetation and climate near Melaleuca Inlet, south-western Tasmania. Austral. J. Bot. 39: 315–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1998. The macrofossil record of Proteaceae in Tasmania: a review with new species. Austral. Syst. Bot. 11: 465–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leaf Architecture Working Group. 1999. Manual of leaf architecture: morphological description and categorization of dicotyledonous and net-veined monocotyledonous angiosperms. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legname, P. R. 1982. Arboles indígenas del noroeste Argentino (Salta, Jujuy, Tucumán. Santiago del Estero y Catamarca). Opera Lilloana 34: 1–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H. 1994. Early Tertiary fossil hill flora from Fildes Peninsula of King George Island, Antarctica. Stratigraphy and Palaeontology of Fildes Pensinsula, King George Island, Antarctica, State Antarctic Committee, Beijing. Monograph 3: 133–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malumián, N. 1999. La sedimentación y el volcanismo terciarios en la Patagonia extraandina. Pp. 557–578in R. Caminos, Subsecretaría de Minería de la Nación, Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino e Instituto de Geología y Recursos Minerales (eds.), Geología Argentina, Anales 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, M. M., K. Kawashita, S. Harrison &E. Aragón. 1991. Edades radimétricas Eocenas en el borde occidental del Macizo Norpatagónico. Revista Asoc. Geol. Argent. 46: 150–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, P. M. 1995. Eleagnaceae, Proteaceae 1. Flora of Australia Vol 16. CSIRO-ABRS, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, K. J. &J. K. Scott. 1983. A new species ofBanksia (Proteaceae) from the Eocene Merlinleigh Sandstone of the Kennedy Range, Western Australia. Alcheringa 7: 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menendez, C. A. 1971. Floras terciarias de la Argentina. Ameghiniana 8: 357–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlando, H. A. 1964. The fossil flora of the surroundings of Ardley Peninsula (Ardley Island) 25 de Mayo Island (King George Island), South Shetland Islands. Pp. 629–636in R. J. Adie (ed.), Antarctic Geology. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pole, M. S. 1993. Early Miocene flora of the Manuherikia Group, New Zealand. Miscellaneous 9: leaves and reproductive structures. J. Roy. Soc. New Zealand 23: 345–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1994. An Eocene macroflora from the Taratu Formation at Livingstone, North Otago, New Zealand. Austral. J. Bot. 42: 341–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1997. Paleocene plant macrofossils from Kakahu, south Canterbury, New Zealand. J. Roy. Soc. New Zealand 27: 371–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1998. The Proteaceae record in New Zealand. Austral. Syst. Bot. 11: 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1993. The Oligocene Brewick Quarry flora—rainforest in a drying environment. Austral. Syst. Bot. 6: 399–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prance, G. T. &V. Plana. 1998. The American Proteaceae. Austral. Syst. Bot. 11: 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. H. &D. I. Axelrod. 1974. Angiosperm biogeography and past continental movements. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 61: 539–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, E. J. 1978. Paleoecología y paleofitogeografía de las tafofloras del Cenofítico de Argentina y áreas vecinas. Ameghiniana 15: 209–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1986. Fossil evidence regarding the evolution ofNothofagus Blume. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 73: 276–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • --,M. C. Dibbern & M. A. Gandolfo. 1988. Revisión deLomatia bivascularis (Berry) Frenguelli (Proteaceae) del yacimiento de la Laguna del Hunco (Paleoceno), Pcia. del Chubut. Actas 4th Argent. Congr. Palaeontol. Biostratigr. pp. 125–130.

  • Scholtz, A. 1985. The palynology of the upper lacustrine sediments of the Arnot Pipe, Banke, Namaqualand. Ann. S. African Mus. 95: 1–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleumer, H. 1954. Proteaceae americanae. Bot. Jahrb. 76:139–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1984. Proteaceae. Pp. 20–27in M. N. Correa (ed.), Flora Patagónica. Vol 4: Dicotiledonaes dialipétalas (Salicaceae a Cruciferae). Colección Científica del INTA, Argentina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P. F. 2001 onwards. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 7, May 2006 [and more or less continuously updated since] http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html.

  • Torres, F. 1998. Comparative foliar anatomy of South American Proteaceae. Austral. J. Bot. 46: 357–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troncoso, A. A. 1986. Nuevas órgano-especies en la tafoflora terciaria inferior de Península Fildes, Isla Rey Jorge, Antártica. Sér. Ci. Inst. Antart. Chileno 40: 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • --& E. Romero. 1998. Evolución de las comunidades florísticas en el extremo sur de Sudamérica durante el Cenofítico. Pp. 149–172in R. Fortunato & N. Bacigalupo (eds), Proc. VI Congreso Latinoamericano de Botánica, Mar del Plata 1994. Missouri Bot. Gard. Press.

  • Vadala, A. J. & D. R. Greenwood. 2001. Australian Paleogene vegetation and environments: evidence for palaeo-Gondwanic elements in the fossil records of Lauraceae and Proteaceae. Pp. 196–221in I. Metcalfe, J.M.B. Smith & I. Davidson (eds.), Faunal and floral migrations and evolution in SE Asia-Australasia. Swets & Zeitlinger Publ., Lisse.

  • Weberling, F. 1999. Movimiento de los continentes y separación e intercambio de sus floras. Sociedad Argentina de Botánica, Buenos Aires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, P. H. &M. D. Crisp. 1994. Cladistic biogeography of waratahs (Proteaceae: Embothrieae) and their allies across the Pacific. Austral. Syst. Bot. 7: 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 2006. A new suprageneric classification of the Proteaceae, with an annotated checklist of genera. Telopea 11: 314–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilf, P., N. R. Cúneo, K. R. Johnson, J. F. Hicks, S. L. Wing &J. D. Obradovich. 2003. High plant diversity in Eocene South America: evidence from Patagonia. Science 300: 122–125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 2005. Eocene Plant Diversity at Laguna del Hunco and Río Pichileufú, Patagonia, Argentina. Amer. Naturalist 165: 634–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, J. W. &M. Fagg. 1991. Banksias, Waratahs and Grevilleas, and all other plants in the Australian Proteaceae family. Ed. 2. Angus and Robertson, North Ride.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xifreda, C. C. & A. M. Sanso. 2001. Proteaceaein Instituto Darwinion, Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la República Argentina—Dicotiledoneae.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Museo Paleontológico Egidio Feruglio, CONICET, Av. Fontana 140, CP 9100, Trelew, Chubut, Argentina

    Cynthia C. Gonzalez & Nestor R. Cúneo

  2. L.H. Bailey Hortorium, Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, 14853, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Maria A. Gandolfo

  3. Depto. Ecología, Genética y Evolución, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Int. Güiraldes 2620, C1428EHA, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Maria C. Zamaloa

  4. Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, 16802, University Park, PA, USA

    Peter Wilf

  5. Department of Earth Sciences, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 80205, Denver, CO, USA

    Kirk R. Johnson

Authors
  1. Cynthia C. Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria A. Gandolfo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria C. Zamaloa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nestor R. Cúneo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Wilf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kirk R. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gonzalez, C.C., Gandolfo, M.A., Zamaloa, M.C. et al. Revision of the Proteaceae macrofossil record from Patagonia, Argentina. Bot. Rev 73, 235–266 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2007)73[235:ROTPMR]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2007)73[235:ROTPMR]2.0.CO;2

Keywords

Search

Navigation