4.5 Article

SPORE WALL ULTRASTRUCTURE IN THE EARLY LYCOPSID LECLERCQIA (PROTOLEPIDODENDRALES) FROM THE LOWER DEVONIAN OF NORTH AMERICA: EVIDENCE FOR A FUNDAMENTAL DIVISION IN THE LYCOPSIDS

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 96, 期 10, 页码 1849-1860

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0800422

关键词

Devonian; early land plants; fossil; Leclercqia; lycopsids; Protolepidodendrales; spores; ultrastructure

资金

  1. NERC [NE/E006612/1]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E006612/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. NERC [NE/E006612/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Documenting the morphology and ultrastructure of spores from known Silurian-Devonian plants clarifies organization and probable affinities of dispersed spores and contributes to analyses of evolutionary changes and phylogenetic relationships in early plants. In this study of fossil in situ spores from the early protolepidodendra lean lycopsid Leclercqia, we identified new characters including an additional synapomorphy of the ligulate lycopsid clade. A detailed light (LM), scanning electron (SEM), and transmission electron microscope (TEM) analysis of spores from two species of Leclercqia from the Lower Devonian (Emsian) of New Brunswick, eastern Canada, L. andrewsii and L. complexa, shows both are homosporous, yielding spores belonging to the dispersed spore form taxon Acinosporites lindlarensis. Important features Of wall ultrastructure include the presence of a paraexospore, peculiar exospore-derived, peg-like structures located in the gap between the Outer exospore/inner paraexospore, and multilamellate regions in the interradial areas of the proximal surface. Similar interradial multilamellate regions occur in other ligulate lycopsids (fossil and extant). This character is probably a further synapomorphy for the ligulate lycopsid clade, within which heterosporous lycopods form a monophyletic group. These data suggest the ligule and interradial multilamellate region appeared prior to heterospory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据