Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Manual of Pteridology pp 65–104Cite as

Anatomy

  • Chapter

Abstract

Anatomy, the study of internal construction, as compared to external morphology has the great disadvantage that its object usually is only open for observation after special preparation; often the studied spatial forms have to be synthesized by combination of the observations made on different sections.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. J. P. Moldenhawer, Beyträge zur Anatomie der Pflanzen, Kiel 1812

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Sprengel, Von dem Bau und die Natur der Gewächse, Halle 1812

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. F. Bris-seau-Mirbel, Éléments de physiologie végétale et de botanique, Paris 1815f.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ad. Brongniart, Histoire des végétaux fossiles, I, Paris 1828, see p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. von Mohl, De structura caudicis filicum arborearum, 1833, in: C. F. Ph. de Martius, Icones plantarum cryptogamicarum quas in itinere annis 1817–20 per Brasiliam instituto collegit et descripsit, Monachii 1828–1834; shortened and translated into German in: H. von Mohl, Vermischte Schriften botanischen Inhalts, Tübingen 1845, see p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. van Mohl, Über den Bau des Stammes von Isoetes lacustris, Linnaea 1840, p. 181; Vermischte Schriften p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. W. Moll, Phytography as a fine art, Leiden 1934, see p. 465.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. de Bary, Vergl. Anatomie der Vegetationsorgane der Phanerogamen und Farne, Leipzig 1877.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. W. Zimmermann, Die Phylogenie der Pflanzen, Jena 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Hirmer, Handbuch der Paläobotanik, München und Berlin 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Elise Hofmann, Paläohistologie der Pflanze, Wien 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  13. F. O. Bower, Primitive land plants also known as the Archegoniatae, London 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bower, op.c. p. 328.

    Google Scholar 

  15. F. Hegelmaier, Zur Morphologie der Gattung Lycopodium, Bot. Ztg 30, 1872, col. 773, see col. 797.

    Google Scholar 

  16. W. L. Beekman, Über die Torsion des Stengeis von Psilotum Bernhardi, Rec. trav. botan. néerl. 21, 1924, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  17. H. G. Holle, Über Bau und Entwickelung der Vegetationsorgane der Ophioglosseen, Bot. Ztg 33, 1875, col. 241, see col. 246.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hegelmaier l.c. (f.n. p. 67), col. 796.

    Google Scholar 

  19. For the reason why this layer may be taken as the innermost cortex layer see J. C. Schoute, Die Stelär-Theorie, Groningen 1902, Groningen und Jena 1903, on p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. Pfitzer, Ueber die Schutzscheide der deutschen Equisetaceen, Jahr. f. wiss. Bot. 6, 1867, p. 297, seep. 318.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Schoute, op.c. p. 144 and moreover F. J. Meyer, Die Stelärtheorie und die neuere Nomenklatur zur Beschreibung der Wasserleitungsbahnen der Pflanzen, B.B.C. 33, 1, 1916, p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Heard, On old red sandstone plants showing structure, from Brecon (South Wales), The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 83, 1928 (volume for 1927), p. 195; see p. 199 and PI. 13, fig. 7, PI. 14, fig. 3, 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. C. Nägeli, Das Wachsthum des Stammes und der Wurzel bei den Gefäss-pflanzen und die Anordnung der Gefässstränge im Stengel, in: Nägeli, Beitr. z. wiss. Botanik, 1, 1858, p. 1, see p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  24. F. J. Meyer, Die diaplektischen Leitbündel der Lycopodien im Lichte der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Paläobotanik nebst einem Ausblick auf die übrigen Pteridophyten, Engler’s Botan. Jahrb., 60, 1926, p. 317, see p. 324.

    Google Scholar 

  25. F. J. Meyer 1926, l.c. p. 319.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C. Nägeli, Über das Wachsthum des Gefässstammes, in: Schleiden und Nägeli, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Botan., 3 und 4, 1846, p. 129, see p. 133; C. Cramer, Ueber Lycopodium Selago, in: Nägeli und Cramer, Pflanzenphysiologische Untersuchungen 3, 1855, p. 10, see p. 14, C. Nägeli l.c. 1858, p. 53; Hegelmaier l.c. (f.n. p. 67), col. 792.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See foot-note 4 p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. de Bary op.c. (f.n. p. 66) p. 293; R. J. Harvey-Gibson, Contributions towards a knowledge of the anatomy of the genus Selaginella, Spr. [The stem], Ann. of Bot. 8, 1894, p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See: C. Nägeli und H. Leitgeb, Entstehung und Wachsthum der Wurzeln, in: C. Nägeli, Beiträge zur wiss. Botan, 4, 1868, p. 73, esp. p. 124; Ph. Van Tieghem, Recherches sur la symétrie de structure des plantes vasculaires, Ann. d. Sc. nat. 5th ser, 13, 1870/1, p. 1, esp. p. 88; R. J. Harvey-Gibson, Contributions towards a knowledge of the anatomy of the genus Selaginella, IV, The root, Ann. of Bot. 16, 1902, p. 449; 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 

  30. Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Harvey-Gibson, l.c. 1902 (f.n. p. 72) p. 457.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harvey-Gibson, l.c. 1902, p. 460.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. p. 126; Van Tieghem l.c. (f.n. p. 72) p. 97 devotes two pages to explain the anomalous case of S. Kraussiana and terminates by saying: “L’anomalie signalée par MM. Naegeli et Leitgeb disparaît ainsi en s’expliquant.” As far as I see the facts are not so easily to be reasoned away.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hirmer op.c. (f.n. p. 66), p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  35. F. E. Weiss, A Stigmaria with centripetal wood, Ann. of Bot. 22, 1908, p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  36. W. H. Lang, Studies in the morphology of Isoetes. II. The analysis of the stele of the shoot of Isoetes lacustris in the light of mature structure and apical development. Mem. & Proc. Manchester Lit. & Phil. Soc. 59, 1914/15, no. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. F. O. Bower, Size and form, London 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  38. D. H. Scott, The old wood and the new, New Phytol. 1, 1902, p. 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nägeli, l.c. (f.n. 4 on p. 71) p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. C. Schoute, Beiträge zur Blattstellungslehre II. Über verästelte Baumfarne und die Verästelung der Pteropsida im allgemeinen, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 11, 1914, p. 93, see p. 156; O. Posthumus, On some principles of stelar morphology, ibid. 21, 1924, p. 111, see p. 145, J. C. Schoute, On the foliar origin of the internal stelar structure of the Marattiaceae, ibid. 23, 1926, p. 269, see p. 271; J. C. Schoute, On pleiomery and meiomery in the flower, Ibid. 29, 1932, p. 164, see p. 214.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Harvey-Gibson, l.c. (f.n. 2 on p. 72) p. 172, Pl. 9 fig. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  42. E. C. Jeffrey, The structure and development of the stem in the Pteridophyta and Gymnosperms, Phil. Trans. 195, 1902, p. 119, seep. 144; Are there foliar gaps in the Lycopsida? Botan. Gaz, 46, 1908, p. 241,

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bower, op.c. 1935 (f.n. p. 67) p. 329.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Posthumus l.c. (f.n. p. 75) p. 155.

    Google Scholar 

  45. For examples see Bower op.c. 1935 (f.n. p. 67), p. 334.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Posthumus l.c. 1924 (f.n. p. 75), p. 155, 163; O. Posthumus, On the anatomy of the Hymenophyllaceae and the Schizaeaceae and some additional remarks on stelar morphology, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 23, 1926, p. 94, see p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  47. A. G. Tansley and R. B. J. Lulham, A study of the vascular system of Ma-tonia pectinata, Ann. of Bot. 19, 1905, p. 475, see p. 503.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Posthumus l.c. 1924 p. 166.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 115–139.

    Google Scholar 

  50. D. T. Gwynne-Vaughan, Observations on the anatomy of solenostelic ferns, II, Ann. of Bot. 17, 1903, p. 689, see p. 708.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tansley and Lulham, l.c. (f.n. p. 78), p. 505.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See foot-note 3 p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  54. D. H. Scott, Studies in fossil botany, 3rd ed., I, London 1920.

    Google Scholar 

  55. De Bary, op.c. (f.n.p. 66), p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Posthumus l.c. 1924, Ch. I.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 118, fig. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 280.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Posthumus l.c. 1926 (f.n. p. 78), p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 278.

    Google Scholar 

  61. A. G. Tansley, Lectures on the evolution of the Filicinean vascular system, New Phytol., 6, 1907, p. 25, 53, 109, 135, 148, 187, 219, 253; 7, 1908, p. 1, 29. Issued in book-form as New Phytologist Reprint 1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tansley, New Phytologist, 1908, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Schoute l.c. 1926 (f.n. p. 75), with quotations of literature; see moreover Tansley l.c. 1907, p. 193; F. O. Bower, The Ferns, Cambridge I, 1923 (p. 151), II, Cambridge 1926 (p. 101).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tansley l.c. 1907, p. 223; Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 258.

    Google Scholar 

  65. G. Mettenius, Über den Bau von Angiopieris, Abh. math. phys. Cl. K. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss., 6, 1864, p. 501 see p. 525.

    Google Scholar 

  66. D. T. Gwynne-Vaughan, l.c. (f.n. p. 78), p. 708.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Schoute, l.c. 1926, p. 274.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tansley l.c. 1907, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Tansley, l.c. 1907, p. 227; Schoute, l.c. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Our detailed knowledge of the stelar structure of Psaronius has been founded by K. G. Stenzel (Über die Staarsteine, Nova Acta 24, 1854, p. 753; Psaronius in: “H. von Meyer, Palaeontographica, Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Vorwelt, 12, H. R. Goeppert, Die fossile Flora der Permischen Formation, Cassel 1864/’65”, p. 46; Die Psaronien, Beobachtungen und Betrachtungen, in: Beiträge zur Paläontologie und Geologie Österreich-Ungarns und des Orients, 19, 1906, p. 85); R. Zeiller (Bassin houiller et permien d’Autun en d’Épinac, 2, Flore fossile 1, in: Études des gites minéraux de la France, 1890, see p. 178); K. Rudolph (Psaronien und Marattiaceen, Denkschr. k. Akad. d. Wiss. Wien, math, naturw. Kl. 78, 1906, p. 165). Hirmer in his hand-book (op.c. 1927 (f.n. p. 66) see p. 545) gives an elaborate and thorough description of the anatomical facts known about Psaronius. In his text as well as in his diagrams, however, some misconceptions have crept in which may tend to cause confusion. The least harmful of these errors is that in Psaronius infarctus a difference is assumed between two kinds of dictyosteles, as every first, third, fifth etc. dictyo-stele is supposed to have no relation to the continued leaf-traces which only attach to the second, fourth etc. (op.c. p. 559 and fig. 680). As Ps. infarctus, described and pictured from one single specimen by Zeiller (op.c. p. 208) and afterwards elucidated from Zeiller’ figures with perfect clearness by Rudolph (l.c. p. 177, Pl. 2, fig. 1), belongs to the best known Psaronii, we are in the position to state that Ps. infarctus in no way differs from the ordinary scheme and that Hirmer’s fig. 680 should be cancelled. More important are two independent errors, expressed in fig. 674, representing the bundle course in Ps. Ungeri, after Stenzel’s drawings. Hirmer gives a radial section through a cylindrical stem part, and delineates a number of obconical dictyosteles, the one within the other. All these dictyosteles are represented as abutting free on the stelar surface; in a superficially tangential section through the stele we therefore should have met with all dictyosteles. From the description given above it must be clear however, that the outer bundles of the whole stele, from its formation in the sporeling up to its last stages

    Google Scholar 

  71. Posthumus l.c. 1924 (f.n. p. 75) p. 219. H. Karsten, quoted there, has been the first to understand the structure of a polycyclic stele (1847).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 240..

    Google Scholar 

  74. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 258. 6) Tansley l.c. 1907, p. 196.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 155.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Schoute l.c. 1926 (f.n. p. 75), p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  78. R. Kidston and W. H. Lang, On old red sandstone plants showing structure, from the Rhynie Chert Bed, Aberdeenshire. I. Rhynia Gwynne-Vaughani, Kidston and Lang, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 51, p. 761, seep. 775.

    Google Scholar 

  79. R. Wilson Smith, Bulbils of Lycopodium lucidulum, Bot. Gaz. 69, 1920, p. 426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  81. W. C. Williamson, On the organization of the fossil plants of the Coal-measures, 3, Lycopodiaceae (continued), Phil. Trans. London, 162, 1873, p. 283:, see Pl. 43, fig. 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Jeffrey, l.c. 1902, (f.n. p. 76), p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Cramer, l.c. (f.n. p. 71), Pl. 31, fig. 1–10; Meyer l.c. 1926 (f.n. p. 71), Pl. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Jeffrey, l.c. 1902, p. 124, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  85. J. C. Schoute, Über Zellteilungsvorgänge im Cambium, Verh. Kon. Ak. v. Wet. Amsterdam, 2nd sect. 9, 4, 1902, see p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  86. J. C. Schoute, Über das Dickenwachstum der Palmen, Ann. d. Buitenzorg 26, 1912, p. 1, see p. 203.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ph. Van Tieghem, Sur quelques points de l’anatomie des Cryptogames vasculaires, Bull. Soc. bot. de France, 30, 1883, p. 169, see p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Van Tieghem, l.c. p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  89. L. A. Boodle, On the occurrence of secondary xylem in Psilotum, Ann. of Bot. 18, 1904, 0. 505.

    Google Scholar 

  90. K. Barratt, A contribution to our knowledge’ of the vascular system of the genus Equisetum, Ann. of Bot. 34, 1920, p. 201, see p. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Van Tieghem, l.c. p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  92. M. H. Kisch, The physiological anatomy of the periderm of fossil Lycopo-diales, Ann. of Bot. 27, 1913, p. 281, seep. 287.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kisch l.c. p. 301, J. Walton, Scottish lower carboniferous plants: the fossil hollow trees of Arran and their branches (Lepidophloios Wünschianus Carruthers), Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 58, 1935, p. 313, see p. 327.

    Google Scholar 

  94. B. Kubart, Stigmaria Bgt., Mitth. naturw. Ver. Steiermark, 71, 1934, p. 33, see p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Kisch, l.c.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Hirmer introduces the new terms exophelloderm for phellem and endophel-loderm for phelloderm (Hirmer op.c. 1927, p. 216). As phellem and phelloderm are already neutral terms indicating the tissues formed to the outside and to the inside of the phellogen, irrespective of their differentiation, there seems no reason for this introduction.

    Google Scholar 

  97. For the terms polygenous origin and transition cambium see Schoute in J. J. Beyer, Die Vermehrung der radialen Reihen im Cambium, Rec. trav. bot. néerl. 24, 1927, p. 631, see p. 649.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Kisch, l.c. p. 291, fig. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  99. M. Hovelacque, Recherches sur le Lepidodendron selaginoides Sternb., Mém. Soc. Linn, de Normandie, 17, 1892, p. 1, see p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  100. W. C. Williamson, A monograph on the morphology and histology of Stig-maria ficoides, The Palaeontographical Soc, Volume for the year 1886, London 1887, see PL 6, fig. 9, 45; PL 8 fig. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Kisch, l.c. PL 24, fig. 2, zone c.

    Google Scholar 

  102. W. C. Williamson, On the organization of the fossil plants of the Coal-measures, II, Lycopodiaceae: Lepidodendra and Sigillariae, Phil. Trans. London, 162, 1873, p. 197, see Pl. 30. fig. 41; Williamson l.c. 1887 (f.n. 5 above), PL 8, fig. 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Kisch, l.c. p. 299.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Hirmer op.c. 1927, p. 216.

    Google Scholar 

  105. B. Renault, Structure comparée de quelques tiges de la flore carbonifère, Nouv. Arch, du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. 2nd ser, 2, 1879, p. 213, see p. 252 and especially PL 10, fig. 6, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Kisch, l.c. p. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Williamson op.c. 1887 (f.n. p. 88), PL 8, fig. 23, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Described for Sigiïlaria spinulosa in: B. Renault, Recherches sur les végétaux silicifiés d’Autun, Étude du Sigiïlaria spinulosa, par MM. B. Renault et Grand’Eury, Mém. prés, par divers savants à l’Acad. d. Sc. de l’Inst. Nat. de France, 22, 9, 1876, see especially the half schematic drawings PL 1, fig. 5, PL 4, fig. 20–22 for the general dilatation, and fig. 23 and its explanation for the gradual difference between inner and outer part.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Kisch, l.c. p. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  110. E. Russow, Vergleichende Untersuchungen betreffend die Histiologie der vegetativen und sporenbildenden Organe und die Entwickelung der Sporen der Leitbündel-Kryptogamen, etc. Mém. Acad. Imp. d. Sc. St. Pétersbourg, 7th ser. 19, 1, 1872, see p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Van Tieghem, l.c. (f.n. p. 86), p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Scott, l.c. 1920 (f.n. p. 79), p. 80; Hirmer l.c. 1927, p. 352; Van Tieghem on the other hand writes that the secondary xylem first appears outside the protoxylem (l.c. p. 173).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Scott, op. c. 1920, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Hirmer op.c. 1927, p. 389.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Hirmer overrates both the frequency and the amount of this dilatation when he supposes (op. c. 1927, p. 392) it to be a general feature of Arthropitys and believes it to be correlated with a striking increase of the pith cavity. In A. bistriata the whole phenomenon evidently failed (see B. Renault, Bassin Houiller et Permien d’Autun et d’Épinac, IV, Flore fossile, 2, Paris 1893-’96, in: Études des gîtes minéraux de la France; see especially Pl. 45, fig. 1, 3, Pl. 46, fig 2, 3) and in A. communis it may almost have been absent in some cases (ibid. Pl 48, fig, 2, 6); A. gigas on the other hand perhaps shows slight indications by the extension of the parenchyma cells perpendicular to the earliest wood (ibid. Pl. 50, fig. 2). The amount of the dilatation no doubt is exaggerated by Hirmer because he bases it on a comparison between morphologically incomparable objects: a strong branch with a great number of stout primary vascular bundles and a large pith cavity on one hand, and a weaker branch on the other hand where everything has been laid down on a smaller scale. Cf. moreover the related phenomena in Astromyelon in § 3, sub B II.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Lang, l.c. (p. 73); C. West and H. Takeda, On Isoetes japonica, A. Br., Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 2nd ser. 8, Botany, 1915, p. 333, see p. 343.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Special treatments of the root being rare for all plant groups, the works of Van Tieghem l.c. 1870/71 (f.n. p. 72) and of G. Poirault, Recherches anatomiques sur les Cryptogames vasculaires, Ann. d. sc. nat., 7th ser. 18, 1893, notwithstanding their early date may be quoted here; the latter contains an extensive chapter on the root (p. 114–158) with full quotation of the older literature.

    Google Scholar 

  118. H. Graf zu Solms-Laubach, Der tiefschwarze Psaronius Haidingeri von Manebach in Thüringen, Zeitschr. f. Bot. 3, 1911, p. 721.

    Google Scholar 

  119. In a recently published preliminary communication (B. Sahni, The roots of Psaronius, Intra-cortical or extra-cortical? — A discussion, Current Science 1935, p. 555) the author returns to the old view of Stenzel, that this tissue may have been secondary cortex, developing pari passu with the roots after the leaves had fallen. His arguments as given in the preliminary note are that at the outside of the pseudocortex a periderm was developed, and further that in a recent Liliacea Asphodelus tenuifolius numerous roots grow down through the cortex of the main root, so as to distend the main root very strongly. As far as I see at present neither of these facts can invalidate in the least the evidence brought forward by Solms-Laubach.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. (f.n. p. 72) p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  121. G. Mettenius, Über Phylloglossum, Bot. Ztg 25, 1867, p. 97, see p. 99. 2) Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. p. 84, 109.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Ph. van Tieghem, Traité de botanique, 2nd ed. I, Paris 1891, p. 681.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Schoute, op.c. 1902/3 (f.n. p. 68), see p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  124. See sor instance the specimen of Equisetum pictured by Van Tieghem l.c. 1870/71 (f.n. p. 72), Pl. 5, fig. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  125. See sor instance the specimens pictured by Van Tieghe l.c. 1870/’71 on PL 5, fig. 18 (Lastraea) and 27 (Botrychium).

    Google Scholar 

  126. See sor instance the specimens pictured by Van Tieghem l.c. 1870/71, PL 4, fig. 11 (Marattia); a much larger and moreover a fistular pith may be found in large specimens of Astromyelon, the root of Calamités, the smaller specimens having a solid pith or no pith at all.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Van Tieghem l.c. 1870/’71, p. 86.

    Google Scholar 

  128. R. B. Thomson, A seed-plant feature of the root in Mavattiaceae, New Phytol. 33, 1934, p. 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. 1868, (f.n. p. 72) p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Van Tieghem l.c. 1870/’71, Pl. 3, fig. 5, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. 1868, p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Van Tieghem, l.c. 1870/’71, p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. 1868, p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Nägeli und Leitgeb, l.c. 1868, p. 134, Pl. 19, fig. 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Russow l.c. (f.n. p. 90), p. 122; Van Tieghem l.c. 1870/’71, p. 108; Poirault l.c. (f.n. p. 93), p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Nägeli l.c. 1858 (f.n. 1 on p. 71), p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Van Tieghem, l.c. 1883 (f.n. p. 86), p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Sahni, l.c. (f.n. p. 93), p. 556.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Renault op. c. 1893/’96 (f.n. p. 91).

    Google Scholar 

  140. Renault op.c. Pl. 56, fig. 6, reproduced in most text-books. 6) Renault op.c. Pl. 53, fig. 2, 5, 6, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Renault op.c. Pl. 56, fig. 6, just quoted, Pl. 57, fig. 1. and for the dilatation in the lacunar cortex PL 57, fig. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  142. R. J. Harvey-Gibson, Contributions towards a knowledge of the anatomy of the genus Selaginella, Spr. III, The leaf, Ann. of Bot. 11, 1897, p. 123, see description of S. Martensii, p. 130.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Hegelmaier l.c. 1872 (f.n. p. 67), col. 817–818.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Harvey-Gibson, l.c. 1897, p. 151.

    Google Scholar 

  145. A. Braun, Über die Isoetes-Arten der Insel Sardinien, Monatsber. k. pr. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin a. d. J. 1863, Berlin 1864, p. 554, see p. 587.

    Google Scholar 

  146. D. H. Scott, On the occurrence of Sigillariopsis in the lower coal-measures of Britain, Ann. of Bot. 18, 1904, p. 519.

    Google Scholar 

  147. T. G. Hill, On the presence of a parichnos in recent plants, Ann. of Bot. 20, 1906, p. 267.

    Google Scholar 

  148. R. Graham, An anatomical study of the leaves of the Carboniferous Arborescent Lycopods, Ann. of Bot. 49, 1935, p. 587.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Renault, op.c. 1893/’96 (f.n. p.91), Pl. 34, fig. 4–8 (L. esnostense); Scott, op.c. 1920 (f.n. p. 79), p. 143 (L. Hickii).

    Google Scholar 

  150. Renault, op.c. 1893/’96, PL 41 fig. 7, 19 (S. spinulosa), 23 (S. Brardi).

    Google Scholar 

  151. F. E. Weiss, The vascular branches of Stigmarian rootlets, Ann. of Bot. 16, 1902, p. 559; 18, 1904, p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  152. A polystelic condition in the simple sporophyll stalk of Equisetum is described by A. Santschi in Contribution à l’étude anatomique du système vasculaire d’Equisetum, Mém. Soc. vaudoise Sc. nat. 5, 1935, p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Harvey-Gibson l.c. 1897, (f.n. p. 98), p. 152 (Selaginella Lyallii).

    Google Scholar 

  154. Poirault l.c. (f.n. p. 93), p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Posthumus l.c. 1924 (f.n. p. 75), p. 170–193.

    Google Scholar 

  156. K. Thomae, Die Blattstiele der Farne, Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot., 17, 1886, p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Posthumus l.c. 1924, p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Thomae l.c. p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Van Tieghem l.c. 1883 (f.n. p. 86), p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  160. J. C. Costerus, Het wezen der lenticellen, Thesis Utrecht 1875, see p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  161. H. Potonié, Anatomie der Lenticellen der Marattiaceen, Jahrb. K. bot. Garten Berlin, 1, 1881, p. 307f.

    Google Scholar 

  162. A. J. Eames, Morphology of vascular plants. Lower groups (Psilophytales to Filicales), New York and London, 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  163. op. c. p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  164. op. c. p. 354. As the term rhizomorph might give rise to confusion with rhizo-phore, and especially as the term rhizome may be used equally well, the introduction of the new term does not seem to be necessary.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Th. Spieker, l.c. (f. n. p. 62), see p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Solms-Laubach, l.c. (f. n. p. 34), see p. 228.

    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). Anatomy. In: Verdoorn, F., et al. Manual of Pteridology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6111-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6111-6_2

  • 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