Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Morphology

  • Chapter
Book cover Manual of Pteridology

Abstract

Since the task of any morphology is the study of forms, it should always be based on an inventory of the occurring forms and a description of them by means of a suitable terminology.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. P. de Candolle, Organographie végétale, Paris 1827, II, p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. W. Bischoff, Über die Entwicklung der Equiseten, insbesondere des Equisetum palustre, aus den Sporen, Nova Acta 14, 1828, p. 779.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. von Mohl, Einige Bemerkungen über die Entwicklung und den Bau der Sporen der cryptogamischen Gewächse, Flora 16, 1833, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Nägeli, Bewegliche Spiralfaden (Saamenfaden ?) an Farren. Zeitschr. f. wiss. Bot. 1. Heft 1844, p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 1.c. p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Leszczyc-Suminski, Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Farnkräuter, Berlin 1848.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. Hofmeister, Vergleichende Untersuchungen der Keimung, Entfaltung und Fruchtbildung höherer Kryptogamen und der Samenbildung der Coniferen, Leipzig 1851.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Velenovský, Vergl. Morph, d. Pflanzen, I, Prag 1905, p. 152–277.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Engler & Prantl, Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, I, 4, Leipzig 1902.

    Google Scholar 

  10. K. von Goebel, Organographie der Pflanzen, 3rd ed. II, Jena 1930, p. 1039–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Hirmer, Handbuch der Paläobotanik I, München und Berlin 1927, p. 147 – 692.

    Google Scholar 

  12. F. O. Bower, Primitive land plants also known as the Archegoniatae, London 1935, see p. 111–646.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Orth criticizes (Morphologische und physiologische Untersuchungen an Farnprothallien, Planta 25, 1936, p. 104) the “artificial” taxonomical systems of Ferns, based exclusively on the differences in the annuli, the construction of the sporangia and the indusia and on sorus distribution; he wants these systems to be replaced by a “natural” system, based on the developmental history and the morphology of the gametophyte (see especially p. 149). Probably most taxonomists will not yet be inclined to go that length.

    Google Scholar 

  14. This paper being already in type, the point of view taken by the present author has been worked out in: Fasciation and dichotomy, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 33, 1936, p. 649, where instances are given and the literature is reviewed.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. C. Mekel, Die Entwicklung des Stammes von Matteuccia Struthiopteris insbesondere die der Höhlungen, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 30, 1933, p. 627.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. T. Gwynne-Vaughan, On the possible existence of a fern stem having the form of a lattice-work tube, New Phytol. 4, 1905, p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goebel, op.c. p. 1221: Engler & Prantl, op.c. p. 461; M. W. Beyerinck, Beobachtungen und Betrachtungen über Wurzelknospen und Nebenwurzeln, Verh. Kon. Akad. v. Wetensch. Amsterdam, Afd. Nat. 25, 1886, see p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goebel, op.c. p. 1220.

    Google Scholar 

  19. W. Kupper, Ueber Knospenbildung an Farnblättern, Flora 96, 1906, p. 337.

    Google Scholar 

  20. K. Barratt, A contribution to our knowledge of the vascular system of the genus Equisetum, Ann. of Bot. 34, 1920, p. 201, see p. 208.

    Google Scholar 

  21. W. Docters van Leeuwen, Ueber die vegetative Vermehrung von Angiopte-ris evecta Hoffm. Ann. de Buitenzorg, 2nd ser, 10, 1912, p. 202.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. C. Schoute, Ueber die Verästelung bei monokotylen Bäumen III, Die Verästelung einiger baumartigen Liliaceen, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 15, 1918, p. 263.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ad. Brongniart, Histoire des végétaux fossiles, II, Paris 1837, p. 3. See moreover J. C. Schoute, Beiträge zur Blattstellungslehre II, Über verästelte Baumfarne und die Verästelung der Pteropsida im allgemeinen, Rec. trav. bot. néerl., 11, 1914, p. 94, especially in the object from Sendoro.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schoute 1914, I.e. p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  25. W. Troll, Grundsätzliches zum Stigmarienproblem, Flora 129, 1934, seep. 99. 2) For illustrations of the two last mentioned cases see Velenovský, op.c. p. 248 and 249.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C. Cramer, Über Lycopodium Selago, Pflanzenphysiologische Untersuchungen von Carl Nägeli and Carl Cramer, 3. Heft, Zürich 1855, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  27. F. Hegelmaier, Zur Morphologie der Gattung Lycopodium, Bot. Ztg 30, 1872, col. 773, see col. 826.

    Google Scholar 

  28. K. A. Zittel, Handbuch der Palaeontologie, München & Leipzig, II Palaeo-phytologie 1890, see p, 192.

    Google Scholar 

  29. F. Goldenberg, Flora Saraepontana fossilis, Saarbrücken 1855–1862, Pl. 16. fig. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  30. A. Renier, Asterocalamites Lohesti n.sp., du houiller sans houille (H la) du bassin d’Antiée, Ann. d. 1. Soc. géol. de Belgique II 1910, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  31. R. Zeiller, Bassin houiller de Valenciennes, Description de la flore fossile, Paris 1886, in Études des gîtes mineraux de la France ; see Atlas PL 57, fig. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hirmer, op. c. p. 445, fig. 542.

    Google Scholar 

  33. R. Kidston and W. J. Jongmans, A monograph of the Calamités of Western Europe, the Hague 1915–1917.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kidston and Jongmans, op.c. PL 152, fig. 1 and 2.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ad. Brongniart, Histoire des végétaux fossiles, I, Paris 1828, p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  36. E. de Janczewski, Recherches sur le développement des bourgeons dans les Prêles, Mém. Soc. nationale des Sc. natur. de Cherbourg, 20, 1876, p. 69, see on p. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  37. F. J. Meyer, Das Leitungssystem von Equisetum arvense, Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot. 59, 1920, p. 263, see fig. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Velenovský, op. c.p. 249. See moreover Schoute, l.c.p. 1914 (f.n. p. 9), p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  39. After having written this paragraph I have become aware of the fact that Hegelmaier (l.c. col. 826) reports exactly the same conditions for Lycopodium complanatum, even with the incidental trimerous whorl under the forking.

    Google Scholar 

  40. F. O. Bower, The ferns, I, Cambridge 1923, see p. 74, and op. c. 1935 p. 300.

    Google Scholar 

  41. K. G. Stenzel, Untersuchungen über Bau und Wachsthum der Farne. II Über Verjüngungserscheinungen bei den Farnen, Nova Acta 28, 1861, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Velenovský op. c. p. 250 and especially M. Büsgen, Einige Eigentümlichkeiten des Adlerfarns, Zeitschr. Forst- und Jagdwesen 47, 1915, p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Al. Braun, Über die Blattstellung und Verzweigung der Lycopodiaceen, insbesondere der Gattung Selaginella, Verh. bot. Ver. Prov. Brandenburg, 16, 1874, p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schoute l.c., 1914, (f.n. p. 9) p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  45. G. Mettenius, Über Seitenknospen bei Farnen, Abh. d. math. phys. Kl. d. K. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 5, 1861, p. 611.

    Google Scholar 

  46. R. Wilson Smith (Bulbils of Lycopodium lucidulum, Bot. Gaz. 69, 1920, p. 426) tried to solve the question of their morphological origin on the basis of modern technique and serial sectioning; he concluded from the nature of the bulbil trace, that the bulbils should be metamorphosed leaves: a new argument for the inefficiency of anatomical research in morphological questions. The same result was reached on an experimental basis by S. Williams (A contribution to the experimental morphology of Lycopodium Selago, with special reference to the development of adventitious shoots, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 57, 1933, p. 711) ; the descriptions of the regeneration products and the drawings do not however warrant any conclusion.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mettenius, l.c. p. 628.

    Google Scholar 

  48. F. Hegelmaier, 1.c. (f.n. p. 11), col. 841.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Velenovský, op.c. (f.n. p. 3), p. 257.

    Google Scholar 

  50. V. Czurda, Zur Kenntnis der Brutzwiebeln von Lycopodium Selago und L., lucidulum, Flora 116, 1923, p. 457.

    Google Scholar 

  51. D. Stur, Die Culm Flora, Abh. k.k. Geol. Reichsanst. 8, Wien 1875–77, see Pl. 21 (38), 22 (39).

    Google Scholar 

  52. R. Zeiller, op.c. (f.n. p. 12).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Velenovský, op.c. p. 249; probably already earlier in a Czech paper of 1890. 2) Al. Braun l.c. (f.n. p. 16), p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Al. Braun, Über den Blüthenbau der Gattung Delphinium, Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot. 1. 1858, p. 307.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Velenovský, op.c. p. 230–242.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stenzel, 1.c. (f.n. p. 16), Pl. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  57. L. J. Celakovsky, Die Gliederung der Kaulome, Bot. Ztg 59, 1901, p. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Al. Braun, Tannenzapfen, Nova Acta 15, 1, 1831, see p. 347.

    Google Scholar 

  59. W. Zimmermann, Die Phylogenie der Pflanzen, Jena 1930; see p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  60. W. H. Lang and I. S. Cookson, On a flora including vascular land plants, associated with Monograptus, in rocks of Silurian age, from Victoria, Australia, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, B, 224, 1935, p. 421.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lang and Cookson, 1.c. p. 437.

    Google Scholar 

  62. H. C. Pincher, A genetical interpretation of the origin of heterospory and related conditions, New Phyt. 34, 1935, p. 409.

    Google Scholar 

  63. A. Anstruther Lawson, The prothallus of Tmesipteris tannensis, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 51, 1917, p. 785, and: The gametophyte generation of the Psilo-taceae, ibid. p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  64. G. P. Darnell Smith, The gametophyte of Psilotum, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 52, 1918, p. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Engler & Prantl, op.c. p. 98.

    Google Scholar 

  66. J. P. Lachmann, Contributions à l’histoire naturelle de la racine des Fougères, Ann. Soc. Botan. de Lyon, 16, Notes et Mémoires, 1889, p. 1, see p. 23; J. C. Schou-te, On the foliar origin of the internal stelar structure of the Mavattiaceae, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 23, 1926, p. 269, see p. 287, 288.

    Google Scholar 

  67. R. F. Shove, On the structure of the stem of Angiopteris evecta, Ann. of Bot. 14, 1900, p. 497, see p. 506.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Hirmer makes mention of dichotomous branching of the roots of Asterocala-mites scrobiculatus (op.c. p. 377), without quoting his source. Perhaps this source has been D. Stur, who describes his Archaeocalamites radiatus as “radices irregu-lariter dichotomas emittens” (op.c. f.n. p. 19, p. 2). The figures (PL 1, fig. 3–5) as well as the further description of the text p. 5 are far from convincing: in the text it is expressly stated that the branching is not so regular nor so symmetrical as that of the leaves. So the question must remain unsettled.

    Google Scholar 

  69. C. Nägeli und H. Leitgeb, Entstehung und Wachsthum der Wurzeln, Beiträge zur wiss. Botan. von C. Nägeli, 4. Heft, 1868, p. 73, see p. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Nägeli und Leitgeb, lc. 1868, p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  71. F. O. Bower, On the development and morphology of Phylloglossum Drum-mondii, Phil. Trans. 1885, no. 238 p. 665.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Velenovský, Op.C. p. 266.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Hofmeister, op.c. (f.n. p. 2), passim.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Goebel, op.c. (f.n. p. 3), p. 1145.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Potonié, struck by the leaf-like characters of the stigmarian rootlets, suggested (H. Potonié, Grundlinien der Pflanzen-morphologie im Lichte der Palaeon-tologie, Jena 1912, on p. 233), that all roots might be metamorph leaves. At present such a view is not likely to find supporters.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Engler & Prantl 1.c. p. 98.

    Google Scholar 

  77. O. Lignier, Essai sur l’évolution morphologique du règne végétal, C. R. du Congrès de Clermont Ferrand de l’Assoc. franc. 1908, reprinted in 1911 in: Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, 6th ser., 3, p. 35 and especially p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  78. R. Kidston and W. H. Lang, On old red sandstone plants showing structure, from the Rhynie chert bed, Aberdeenshire, Part 4, Restorations of the vascular cryptogams, and dicussion of their bearing on the general morphology of the Pteridophyta and the origin of the organisation of land-plants, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 52, 1921, p. 831.

    Google Scholar 

  79. R. Kräusel und H. Weyland, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Devonflora II, Abh. d. Senckenberg. Naturf. Ges. 40, 1926, p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Velenovský-, Op.C. p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Bower, op.c. (f.n. p. 3), p. 552.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Bower, op.c. p. 550.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lady I. M. P. Browne, Some views on the morphology and phylogeny of the leafy vascular sporophyte, Botanical Review 1, 1935, p. 383, 427; see p. 440.

    Google Scholar 

  84. H. Bruchmann, Von den Vegetationsorganen der Selaginella Lyallii Spring, Flora 99, 1909, p. 436.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Suz. Leclercq, Sur la structure réelle de Sphenophyllostachys fertile Scott, Proc. Int. Bot. Congr. I, 1936 p. 234.

    Google Scholar 

  86. H. Graf zu Solms-Laubach, Über das Genus Pleuromeia, Bot. Ztg, 57, 1899, p. 227, see p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Hirmer has tried to explain this supposed abaxial sporangium position (M. Hirmer, Rekonstruktion von Pleuromeia Sternbergi Corda, nebst Bemerkungen zur Morphologie der Lycopodiales, Palaeontographica 78 B, 1933, p. 47) by fancying an original form with a belt of sporangia all around the sporophyll; by reduction in the belt the normal case of Lycopodium as well as the case of Pleuromeia might have arisen.

    Google Scholar 

  88. H. Graf zu Solms-Laubach, Der Aufbau des Stockes von Psilotum triquetrum und dessen Entwicklung aus der Brutknospe, Ann. d. Buitenzorg 4, 1884.. p. 139.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Bower, op.c. (f.n. p. 3), p. 598.

    Google Scholar 

  90. J. Milde, Monographia Equisetorum, Nova Acta 32, 2, 1867; especially p. 164

    Google Scholar 

  91. Goebel, op.c. (f.n. p. 3), p. 1108.

    Google Scholar 

  92. F. O. Bower, The origin of a land-flora, London 1908, see p. 383.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Lady I. M. P. Browne, A new theory of the morphology of the Calamarian cone, Annals of Bot. 41,1927, p. 301.

    Google Scholar 

  94. R. Zeiller, Étude sur la constitution de l’appareil fructificateur des Sphé-nophyllum, Mém. Soc. géol. de France, Paléont. 1893, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  95. D. H. Scott, Studies in fossil botany, 3rd ed. I, 1920, see p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  96. M. Hirmer, Bemerkungen zur Theorie der serialen Spaltung der Blätter. Eine Erwiderung an Herrn W. Troll, Berichte D. bot. Ges. 51, 1933, p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  97. W. Troll, Zur Deutung des Blütenbaues fossiler Articulatales, Ibid. p. 21. ‘) A. C. Seward, Fossil plants, I, Cambridge 1898, see p. 405.

    Google Scholar 

  98. The strobili of Calamostachys and its allies are sometimes believed to display-analogous phenomena of serial splitting; for literature see Browne l.c. 1927, p. 310 and especially Hirmer 1933 l.c. In the discussion on phyllotaxis I hope to make clear why this view is not to be accepted, as the superposed parts in these strobili belong to different phyllomes.

    Google Scholar 

  99. M. G. Sykes and W. Stiles, The cones of the genus Selaginella, Ann. of Bot. 24, 1910, p. 523.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Lang and Cookson, l.c. (f.n. p. 27), fig. 6, 12, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Johanna Liebig, Ergänzungen zur Entwicklungsgeschichte von Isoeies lacustre l.c Flora 125, 1931, p. 321, see p. 335.

    Google Scholar 

  102. J. C. Schoute, Beiträge zur Blattstellungstheorie. I, Die Theorie, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 10, 1913, p. 153.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Schoute 1913, l.c. p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  104. On Pl. 5, fig. 25, in Kidston and Lang, l.c. 1921 (f.n. p. 30).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Al. Braun 1831, l.c. (f.n. p. 26), p. 277.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Al. Braun 1831, l.c. p. 338.

    Google Scholar 

  107. My own observations pertained to L. carinatum, dichotomum, Hippuris and Phlegmaria. From one or more shoots the phyllotaxis was determined in all branches, all changes in system of the shanks being recorded ; the results are plotted in the two following tables:

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ad. Brongniart, op.c. II, (f.n. p. 9), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  109. A. Spring, Monographie de la famille des Lycopodiacées, I, Mém. de l’acad. roy. de Belgique 15, 1841; do do II, ibid. 24, 1848; see II, p. 303.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Al. Braun 1874, l.c. (f.n. p. 16), p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Stur, l.c. (f.n. p. 19), p. 342 (236)-368 (262).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Al. Dickson, On the phyllotaxis of Lepidodendron, Transactions of the Botanical Society 11, Edinburgh, 1873, p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Stur l.c. p. 400(294).

    Google Scholar 

  114. C. F. Naumann, Über den Quincunx, als Gesetz der Blattstellung bei Sigillaria und Lepidodendrum, Neues Jahrbuch für Miner., Geogn., Geol. und Petrefakten-kunde, herausg. von von Leonhard und Bronn, 1842, p. 410

    Google Scholar 

  115. C. F. Naumann, Ueber den Quincunx als Grundgesetz der Blattstellung vieler Pflanzen, Dresden und Leipzig 1845; a third paper in Poggendorff Annalen is alluded to by the author but not quoted.

    Google Scholar 

  116. F. Goldenberg, l.c. (f.n. p. 12), Heft 2 p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Al. Braun, Über die Blattstellung der Gewächse, mit Beziehung auf die fossilen Formen und die vorangehende Abhandlung, same place as the first paper by Naumann, p. 418.

    Google Scholar 

  118. P. Bertrand, Structure des stipes d’Asterochlaena laxa Stenzel, Mém. Soc. Géol. du Nord, 7, 1911, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Already figured for Equisetum fluviatile by J. P. Vaucher, in: Monographie des Prêles, Genève 1822.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Usually called bracts, a very inappropriate name, as the term bract has a strictly defined meaning in botanical morphology, namely of a subtending phyl-lome, especially in inflorescences.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Browne, l.c. 1927 (f.n. p. 34), p. 304.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Hirmer 1927, op. c. p. 471, 472.

    Google Scholar 

  123. R. Zeiller, op.c. 1886 (f.n. p. 12). see PL 78, fig. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Spring (l.c. f.n. p. 38, II, p. 300) develops a remarkable theory on the polarity of the Selaginella leaves, trying to demonstrate that every form property of an upper leaf is the polar contrast of the same property of an under leaf. Without any doubt his views are too sketchy; moreover the exposition of his views is far from clear. The fact is that the right and left sides of any leaf, developing in different positions with regard to the zygomorphy factors in the stem, differ in many respects; so most leaves are either unequal-sided or falcate or both at the same time. The position of the broad halves and the curvature of their midribs may be opposed in the two kinds of leaves or they may be similar ;fixed rules such as Spring claimed not being present.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Milde, lc. (f.n. p. 33), p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Lignier, l.c. (f.n. p. 30).

    Google Scholar 

  127. Hofmeister, op.c. (f.n. p. 2), p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  128. T. G. Halle, Lower devonian plants from Röragen in Norway, K. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handl. 57, 1916, no. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Scott, op.c. (f.n. p. 34), p. 414.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Kidston and Lang, l.c. (f.n. p. 30), p. 673. 6) Hirmer 1927, op.c. p. 688.

    Google Scholar 

  131. K. von Goebel, Organographie der Pflanzen, 2nd ed. II, Jena, 1915–18, see on p. 914; and op.c. 1930, p. 1045.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Zimmermann op.c. (f.n. p. 26), p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Hirmer 1927, op.c. p. 688.

    Google Scholar 

  134. W. Troll, Über die Blattbildung der Ophioglossaceen, insbesondere von Ophioglossum, Planta 19, 1933, p. 547.

    Google Scholar 

  135. M. A. Chrysler, The nature of the fertile spike in the Ophioglossaceae, Annals of Bot. 24, 1910, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  136. In his masterly doctor’s thesis Eichler describes (A. W. Eichler, Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Blattes mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nebenblatt-Bildungen, Inaug. Diss. Marburg 1861) the same condition of two lateral rows of leaf-members, uniting basally by an adaxial “Transversalzone”, such as he observed in plants with peltate leaves and also in many others like Oxalis, Lupinus and Geranium (op.c. p. 13).

    Google Scholar 

  137. Goebel 1930, op.c. p. 1171–1209.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Bower 1935, op.c. p. 302–316.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Scott, op.c. p. 414.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Hirmer, 1927, op.c. p. 690.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Bower 1935, op.c. 628.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Compare Bower 1935, op.c. p. 371.

    Google Scholar 

  143. F. O. Bower, The ferns, III, Cambridge 1928, see p. 259.

    Google Scholar 

  144. The sorus of the Salviniaceae is often wrongly called sporocarp too, as by Sadebeck in Engler & Prantl op.c. 1902, p. 391 and even in the last edition (1936) of the well-known Bonn textbook.

    Google Scholar 

  145. K. G. Stenzel, Die Psaronien, Beobachtungen und Betrachtungen, Beiträge zur Paläontologie und Geologie Österreich-Ungarns und des Orients 19, 1906, p. 85, see p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  146. See Schoute 1914 l.c. (f.n. p. 9), p. 151.

    Google Scholar 

  147. See Goebel 1930, op.c. p. 1188.

    Google Scholar 

  148. See Engler & Prantl, op. c. p. 659.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Detailed surveys of the facts with full quotation of the extensive literature may be found in Engler & Prantl, op. c. (1902), Goebel, op. c. (1930) and Bower (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  150. All from Bower 1935, op.c.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Bower 1935, op.c. p. 542.

    Google Scholar 

  152. See Bower 1935, op.c.

    Google Scholar 

  153. H. Bruchmann, Zur Reduktion des Embryoträgers bei Selaginellen, Flora 105, 1913, p. 337.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Bower 1935, op. c. p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  155. L. Jurányi, Über den Bau und die Entwicklung des Sporangiums von Psilotum triquetrum Sw., Bot. Ztg. 29, 1871, col. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Solms-Laubach, 1884, l.c. (f.n. p. 32).

    Google Scholar 

  157. Velenovský, Op.C. p. 215.

    Google Scholar 

  158. A. C. Seward, Fossil Plants, II, Cambridge 1910, see p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  159. B. Sahni, On Tmesipteris Vieillardi Dangeard, an erect terrestrial species from New Caledonia. Phil. Trans. R. S. London, 1925, B 213, p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  160. R. Kräusel und H. Weyland, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Devonflora, Sen-ckenbergiana 5, 1923, p. 154, see on p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  161. D. H. Scott, Studies in fossil botany, London 1900.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Seward, 1910, op.c. p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Goebel, 1930, op.c. p. 1252.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Zimmermann, op.c. p. 125.

    Google Scholar 

  165. J. C. Th. Uphof, Contributions towards a knowledge of the anatomy of the genus Selaginella. The root. Ann. of Bot. 34, 1920, p. 493

    Google Scholar 

  166. S. Williams, An analysis of the vegetative organs of Selaginella grandis Moore, together with some observations on abnormalities and experimental results, Trans. Roy, Soc. Edinb., 57, 1931, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  167. H. Graf zu Solms-Laubach, Einleitung in die Paläophytologie, Leipzig 1887, see p. 276.

    Google Scholar 

  168. W. C. Williamson, A monograph on the morphology and histology of Stig-maria ficoides, London 1887, in: The palaeontographical society, volume for 1886. See foot-note on p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  169. R. Zeiller, Végétaux fossiles du terrain houiller de la France, Paris 1880, as vol. 4 of “L’explication de la carte géologique de France”.

    Google Scholar 

  170. L. Lindinger, Die sekundären Adventivwurzeln von Dracaena und der morphologische Wert der Stigmarien, Jahrbuch der Hamb. wiss. Anst., 26, 1908 J 3. Beiheft, p. 59, Hamburg 1909.

    Google Scholar 

  171. K. Goebel, Morphologische und biologische Bemerkungen, 16. Die Knollen der Dioscoreen und die Wurzelträger der Selaginellen, Organe welche zwischen Wurzeln und Sprosse stehen, Flora 95, Erg. Bd. 1905, p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  172. H. Potonié, Lehrbuch der Pflanzenpalaeontologie, Berlin 1899, see on p. 214; moreover Potonié op.c. 1912, (f.n. p. 29), p. 236.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Zimmermann, op.c. p. 148.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Bower 1935, op.c. p. 236.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Scott 1920, op.c. p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Troll 1934, l.c. (f.n. p. 10).

    Google Scholar 

  177. Solms-Laubach 1887, op.c. p. 288.

    Google Scholar 

  178. R. Zeiller, Éléments de paléobotanique, Paris 1900, see p. 202.

    Google Scholar 

  179. F. E. Weiss, A re-examination of the Stigmarian problem, Proc. Linn. Soc. London, session 144, 1932, p. 151. For further quotations see Hirmer 1927 op.c. and especially Solms-Laubach op.c. 1887, p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  180. B. Kubart, Stigmaria Bgt., Mitth. naturw. Ver. Steiermark 71, 1934, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Troll 1934, l.c. p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Solms-Laubach 1887, op.c. p. 299.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Seward 1910, op.c. (f.n. p. 50), p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  184. J. Walton, Scottish lower carboniferous plants: the fossil hollow trees of Arran and their branches (Lepidophloios Wünschianus Carruthers). Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 58, 1935, p. 313.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Brongniart, l.c. 1828, (f.n. p. 14), PI. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  186. F. Goldenberg, l.c. (f.n. p. 12), 1855–1862, 1. Heft p. 38. PL 4 fig. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  187. R. Kidston, Fossil Flora of the Yorkshire Coalfield II, Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 39, 1897.

    Google Scholar 

  188. O. Lignier, Interprétation de la souche des Stigmaria, Bull. Soc. bot. de France, 60, 1913, p. 2. The author supposes that stigmarian rhizomes by dichotomous branching in a perpendicular plane, gave rise to the aerial stem at the upper side and to a new rhizome at the under side ; the latter by two further dichotomies formed the usual stigmarian base. He further supposes that by apposition of secondary tissues all these branching places became covered and withdrawn from the eye; a view for which it might be difficult to obtain a satisfactory anatomical foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Hirmer(1927op.c. p. 289; 1933 l.c. f.n. p. 32, p. 52 and 1934 in a paper „Grundsätzliches zur Rekonstruktion des Lepidophyten-embryos. Eine Erwiderung an Herrn Wilhelm Troll, Palaeontographica 79, B, p. 143) suggests, especially in the second paper, that in the embryo of Lepidodendron both epibasal and hypobasal halves may have been active, not only the epibasal one as in Isoetes, or the hypo-basal one as in Lycopodium and Selaginella; in such a way two poles might have been produced, one for the aerial stem, the other for the stigmarian base. This view which does not seem very acceptable in itself and for which the facts mentioned above are not favourable, has been discussed by Troll (1934, l.c. f.n. p. 10).

    Google Scholar 

  190. F. E. Weiss, The vascular branches of Stigmarian rootlets, Ann. of Bot. 16, 1902, p. 559 and same title 18, 1904, p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Renault believed that apart from the root-like leaves true roots also occurred on the older stigmarian axes, roots of the same form and properties as the leaves. His arguments in favour of this incredible view have been discussed and fully refuted by Solms-Laubach (1887, op. c. f.n. p. 52, p. 285, 297).

    Google Scholar 

  192. Potonié, op.c. 1912 (f.n. p. 29), p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Scott, op.c. 1920, p. 238; this view has been adopted by Kubart (f.n. p. 54).

    Google Scholar 

  194. W. H. Lang, On the apparently endogenous insertion of the roots of Stigmaria, Mem. and Proc. Manch. Lit. and Phil. Soc. 67, 1923, p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Potonie 1899, op.c. (p. 53), p. 212.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Solms-Laubach 1887, op.c. (f.n. p. 52), p. 252.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Zimmermann, op.c. (f.n. p. 26), p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Weiss 1932, l.c. (f.n. p. 54), p. 156.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Ad. Brongniart, Prodrome d’une histoire des végétaux fossiles, Paris 1828, see p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  200. K. Mägdefrau, Über Nathorstiana, eine Isoetacee aus dem Neokom von Quedlinburg a. Harz, B.B.C. 49, 2, 1932, p. 706; see p. 715.

    Google Scholar 

  201. C. West and H. Takeda, On Isoetes japonica, A. Br., Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 2nd ser. 8, Botany, 1915, p. 333.

    Google Scholar 

  202. J. C. Schoute, Die Stammesbildung der Monokotylen, Flora 92, 1903, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  203. Thus for instance still in Potonié 1912, op.c. (f.n. p. 29), p. 234.

    Google Scholar 

  204. First observed by Al. Braun, Weitere Bemerkungen über Isoetes, Flora 30, 1847, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  205. J. Bretland Farmer, On Isoetes lacustris, Ann. of Bot. 5, 1890/’91, p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  206. This acropetal development has especially been demonstrated by D. H. Scott and T. G. Hill (The structure of Isoetes Hystrix, Ann. of Bot. 14, 1900, p. 413) who observed that the roots of any series are of different ages, the oldest root. traces having their vascular tissues more or less obliterated while the youngest are still wholly meristematic (l.c. p. 428). West and Takeda however contend (l.c. p. 354) that all roots of a series are of the same age. No observations are given in proof of this aberrant statement; the fact that the roots in a series appear in a regular succession at the stem surface with considerable difference in time is duly recognized, but explained by the remark that the roots at the furrow end have to travel over a longer distance through the cortex. This last statement is difficult to reconcile with the drawings of longitudinal sections through the stem in the furrow plane, as given by von Mohl (Über den Bau des Stammes von Isoetes lacustris, Linnaea 14, 1840, p. 181, pl. 3, fig. 4, 9) and by W. H. Lang (Studies in the morphology of Isoetes I, The general morphology of the stock of Isoetes lacustris, Mem. & Proc. Manch. Lit. & Phil. Soc. 59 1915, Memoir no. 3. See fig. 2).

    Google Scholar 

  207. Scott and Hill, l.c. fig. 11, 12; Lang, l.c. fig. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  208. H. Fitting, Sporen im Buntsandstein — die Makrosporen von Pleuromeia? Ber. d. D. bot. Ges., 25, 1907, p. 434, see p. 441.

    Google Scholar 

  209. West and Takeda in this respect hold another view; they describe an apical meristem by which the stelar arms grow (I.e. p. 346). This meristem is compared to that of the stem, and on this basis the authors try to keep to the fore the conception of the downward growing “rhizophore” as an organ sui generis. They admit however that this apical meristem differs from any other in being distributed over a large area, since it extends along the whole length of the curved lower edge of each of the stelar arms. They further admit that this primary meristem is not situated at the actual periphery of the stock, but that it is separated from the exterior by several regularly arranged layers of parenchyma cells, and finally they admit that it may also be regarded as a part of the cambium. The natural conclusion therefore may be that this “primary meristem” is nothing but a specialized part of the cambium in which the adventitious roots are formed in great number.

    Google Scholar 

  210. Lang 1915, l.c. p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  211. ‘Joha. Liebig, l.c. (f.n. p. 35), 329.

    Google Scholar 

  212. K. Mägdefrau, Zur Morphologie und phylogenetischen Bedeutung der fossilen Pflanzengattung Pleuromeia, B.B.C., 48, 2, 1931, p. 119; already earlier observed by Bischoff 1855.

    Google Scholar 

  213. H. Potonié, Abbildungen und Beschreibungen fossiler Pflanzenreste, Lief. 2, Berlin 1904.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Solms-Laubach, l.c. 1899 (f.n. p. 32), see p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Th. Spieker, Pleuromeia, eine neue fossile Pflanzengattung und ihre Arten, gebildet aus der Sigillaria Sternbergi Münst. des bunten Sandsteins zu Bernburg. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Naturwiss., Halle, 3, 1854, p. 177 see p. 185. 1) Solms-Laubach 1899, l.c. p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  216. K. Mägdefrau 1932, l.c. (f.n. p. 58).

    Google Scholar 

  217. J. Duval-Jouve, Histoire naturelle des Equisetum de France, Paris 1864, see on p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Engler & Prantl, op.c. p. 583.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Ibidem p. 638 and moreover R. J. Harvey-Gibson, Contributions towards a knowledge of the anatomy of the genus Selaginella Spr., Ill, The leaf, Ann. of Bot., 11, 1897, p. 123, see pi. 9 fig. 1, 4, 14, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  220. Bower 1935, op.c. p. 558.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Velenovský- op.c.p. 194, ibidem Part 4, 1913, p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  222. Velenovský 1905, op.c. p. 195.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Groningen, The Netherlands

    J. C. Schoute

Authors
  1. J. C. Schoute
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Fr. Verdoorn A. H. G. Alston I. Andersson-Kottö L. R. Atkinson H. Burgeff H. G. Du Buy C. Christensen W. Döpp W. M. Docters Van Leeuwen H. Gams M. J. F. Gregor M. Hirmer R. E. Holttum R. Kräusel E. L. Nuern-Bergk J. C. Schoute J. Walton K. Wetzel S. Williams H. Winkler W. Zimmermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1938 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schoute, J.C. (1938). Morphology. In: Verdoorn, F., et al. Manual of Pteridology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6111-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6111-6_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-5743-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6111-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation