4.5 Review

Anatomically preserved Liquidambar (Altingiaceae) from the Middle Miocene of Yakima Canyon, Washington State, USA and its biogeographic implications

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 499-509

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.91.3.499

关键词

Altingia; Altingiaceae; biogeography; fossil fruit; infructescence; Liquidambar; Miocene; silicification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquidambar changii Pigg, Ickert-Bond & Wen sp. nov. (Altingiaceae) is established for anatomically preserved, middle Miocene infructescences from Yakima Canyon, Washington, USA. Specimens are spherical, similar to2.5 cm in diameter, and have similar to25-30 tightly packed, bilocular fruits per head. Fruits are 3.4-4.7 mm wide X 2.6-3.5 mm long and wedge shaped, fused at the base, and free distally. Each locule contains 1-2 mature, elongate seeds proximally and 5-9 aborted seeds of more irregular shape distally. Mature seeds are 1.5 mm long X 1.2 mm wide, elongate, and triangular transversely, with a slight flange. Seeds have a seed coat for which three zones can be well defined, a uniseriate outer palisade layer, a middle region of isodiametric cells comprising most of the integument, and a uniseriate inner layer of tangentially elongate cells lining the embryo cavity. Liquidambar changii is most similar to the eastern Asian L. acalycina H.-T Chang on features of infructescence, fruit, and seed morphology and quite unlike the North American L styraciflua L. and other species. Such a close relationship between these two species supports a Beringian biogeographic track between eastern Asia and western North America during the Miocene. Previous phylogenetic and allozyme analysis of modern Liquidambar demonstrates a close relationship between North American-western Asian taxa and suggests a North Atlantic biogeographic track in the middle Miocene. Together, these biogeographic tracks underscore the complexity of the biogeographic history of the Altingiaceae in the Northern Hemisphere throughout the Neogene.

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