, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 351–368 | Cite as

The identity of Archaeopteris and Callixylon

  • Charles B. Beck

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.


Secondary Xylem Fossil Plant Primary Xylem Tracheid Wall Secondary Wood 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Andrews, H. N. 1940. On the stelar anatomy of pteridosperms, with particular reference to the secondary wood. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.27: 51–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, C. A. 1930. The genusCallixylon from the Upper Devonian of central and western New York. Papers Mich. Acad.11: 1–50.Google Scholar
  3. —. 1931. OnCallixylon newberryi (Dawson) Elkins et Wieland. Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Mich.3: 207–232.Google Scholar
  4. —. 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
  5. —. 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
  6. —. 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
  7. —. 1940. Structure and relationships of some Middle Devonian plants from western New York. Am. Jour. Bot.27: 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. —. 1947. An introduction to paleobotany. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
  9. —. 1948. Classification of gymnosperms from the viewpoint of paleobotany. Bot. Gaz.110: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. —. 1953. Origin and relationships of the cycads. Phytomorphology3: 51–65.Google Scholar
  11. Beck, C. B. 1953. A new root species of Callixylon. Am. Jour. Bot.40: 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —. 1955. A technique for obtaining polished surfaces of sections of pyritized plant fossils. Bull. Torrey Club82: 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. —. 1957.T etraxylopteris schmidtii gen. et sp. nov., a probable pteridosperm precursor from the Devonian of New York Am. Jour. Bot.44: 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. —. 1960. Connection betweenArchaeopteris andCallixylon. Science131: 1524–1525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berry, E. W. 1917. The classification of vascular plants. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.3: 330–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bold, H. C. 1956. Some aspects of the classification of the plant kingdom. Bull. Assoc. Southeast. Biol.3: 1–5.Google Scholar
  17. Coulter, J. M. &Chamberlain, E. J. 1910. Morphology of gymnosperms. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Dawson, J. W. 1871. The fossil plants of the Devonian and Upper Silurian formation of Canada. Geol. Surv. Canada, Montreal.Google Scholar
  19. Delevoryas, T. &Morgan, J. 1954. A new pteridosporm from Upper Pennsylvanian deposits of North America. Palaeontographica96B: 12–13.Google Scholar
  20. Gordon, W. T. 1935. The genusPitys, Witham, emend. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh58: 279–311.Google Scholar
  21. Hirmer, M. 1927. Handbuch der Paläobotanik. R. Oldenbourg, München.Google Scholar
  22. Hoeg, O. A. 1942. The Downtonian and Devonian flora of Spitsbergen. Norges Svalbardog Ishavs-undersøkelser83: 1–228.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, T. 1911. IsArchaeopteris a pteridosperm? Sci. Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. N. S.13: 114–136.Google Scholar
  24. Joy, K. W., Willis, A. J. &Lacey, W. S. 1956. A rapid cellulose peel technique in palaeobotany. Ann. Bot.20: 635–637.Google Scholar
  25. Kidston, B. 1906. On the microsporangia of the Pteridospermeae, with remarks on their relationship to existing groups. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London198B: 413–445Google Scholar
  26. —, &Lang, W. H. 1923. OnPalaeopitys Milleri M’Nab. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh53: 409–417.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. —. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Nathorst, A. G. 1902a. Zur Oberdevonischen Flora der Bären-Insel. J. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akad. Handl.36 3: 1–60.Google Scholar
  32. —. 1902b. Beiträge zur Kenntnis einiger Mesozoischen Cycadophyten. K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akad. Handl.36 4: 1–28.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. —. 1959. Notes on the evolution and taxonomy of the stachyospermic gymnosperms. Preslia31: 251–272.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Sahni, B. 1920. On the structure and affinities ofAcmopyle Pancheri, Pilger. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London210B: 253–310.Google Scholar
  37. Saporta, G. & Marion, A. F. 1885. L’évolution du règne végétal. Les phanérogames. Vol. 1. Paris.Google Scholar
  38. Scott, D. H. 1923. Studies in fossil botany. Ed. 3, Vol. 2. A. and C. Black, Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  39. —, &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
  40. Takhtajan, A. L. 1953. Phylogenetic principles of the system of higher plants. Bot. Rev.19: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Worsdell, W. C. 1906. The structure and origin of the Cycadaceae. Ann. Bot.20: 129–159.Google Scholar
  43. Zalessky, M. D. 1911. Étude sur l’anatomie duDadoxylon tehihatcheffl Goeppert. Mém. Comité Géol. Russe, N. S.68: 18–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1960

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles B. Beck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations