4.1 Article

Lower Cretaceous conifers from Apple Bay, Vancouver Island:: Picea-like leaves, Midoriphyllum piceoides gen. et sp nov (Pinaceae)

Journal

BOTANY-BOTANIQUE
Volume 86, Issue 7, Pages 649-657

Publisher

NATL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA-N R C RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/B08-061

Keywords

Pinaceae; Pinus; Picea; leaves; Cretaceous; fossil

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [A-6908]
  2. National Science Foundation [EF-0629819]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A diverse assemblage of fossil conifer leaves was identified in calcareous marine concretions from the Lower Cretaceous (Valanginian-Hauterivian) Apple Bay locality, Vancouver Island. Of the hundreds of isolated leaf fragments, most show affinities to Pinaceae. Leaves with closest similarities to Picea (spruce) were studied using cellulose acetate peels. Picea-like leaves vary in cross-section froth rhomboidal, pentagonal, triangular, to ovoid. One fused vascular bundle with a centrally located ray and abaxial sclerenchyma is surrounded by a circular endodermis and transfusion tissue. Mesophyll is plicate containing two lateral external resin canals surrounded by a sclerenchyma sheath. Hypodermal fibres are one to three layers thick, except in areas of stomata. Leaves are amphistomatic, with sunken guard cells. Vascular bundles are identical anatomically to Picea; however, plicate mesophyll is similar to that in leaves of Pinus. Extensive sclerenchyma in the hypodermis and surrounding resin canals differs from that in most extant Picea. The major difference between these leaves and those of Picea is leaf shape. These fossil leaves probably belong to an extinct pinaceous conifer, and are described as Midoriphyllum piceoides gen. et sp. nov. Similar evidence from Cretaceous seed cones suggests that like the angiosperms, the Pinaceae were undergoing rapid mosaic evolution during the Lower Cretaceous.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available