Pityophyllum sp.
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.26879/1039 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDB84B-A74A-FF91-C783-CC33B6FECE04 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Pityophyllum sp. |
| status |
|
Figure 21
Material. Slope Pt-01, LX684, LX685.
Description. Extremely elongate leaves, c. 2 mm wide, but up to over 70 mm long, with either a midrib taking up about a third of the lamina width, or c. 3 longitudinal veins. Typically straight, sometimes falctae.
Remarks. These leaves are sometimes found in masses. If a form genus name is needed, Pityophyllum may be the most appropriate (Seward, 1919). They are also comparable to some specimens which have been published as detached microphylls of Isoetites (for example, McLoughlin et al., 2002, fig. 7E). This should be given serious consideration. However, until more positive evidence of them being Isoetites turns up, Pityophyllum is a ‘safer’ term. They could be seen as an extremely small Taeniopteris , although there is no sign of lateral veins, or perhaps individual Bellarinea leaves, although no intact shoots have been noted in association. Attention is also drawn to some that lie close to Palissya cones (see below) and may indicate the foliage of that taxon.
Cones ARAUCARITES Presl in Sternberg, 1838
Araucarites cf. cutchensis Feistmantel, 1877
Figure 22 View FIGURE 22
Material. Little Beach-02: LX2364, LX2367.
Description. Ovulate scale, cuneate, 13–20 mm long, 22–24 mm wide, maximum width c. 50–70 % of distance from base to apex. Lateral margins straight, distal margin curved. Ratio of scale length to maximum width 0.5–0.8. Seed scar wedgeshaped, located in central portion of scale, margin indistinct, but up to c. 3.5 mm wide,
Remarks. The specimens are compared with the widely-reported taxon Araucarites cutchensis .
The genus was discussed by Cleel and Rees (2003) who remarked that “some show ovuliferousscales with a single ovule and a free distal ligule, which suggest that they belong to the Araucariaceae ,” and although some authors place them in
POLE: CATLINS COAST JURASSIC
Araucaria , they preferred to assign isolated organs to Araucarites . This follows Rees and Cleal (2004) in assigning similar specimens from Hope Bay, Antarctica to this genus. They placed their material in Araucariaceae , whereas Gee (1989) regarded Hope Bay material as Araucaria . In the absence of cuticular details of the Catlins Coast foliage to confirm the presence of Araucaria , the more conservative Araucarites is preferred here. A ligule is not apparent on the Catlins material, although this may have been broken off. Edwards (1934) described, but did not figure, an araucarian cone scale from Curio Bay as Araucarites grandis Walkom. His specimen was 45 mm long by “a little under” 30 mm wide.
Palissya batrumi Edwards, 1934 , emend.
PALAEO- ELECTRONICA.ORG
Pattemore and Rozefelds, 2019
Figure 23 View FIGURE 23
1917 Stachyotaxus (?) sp., Arber, p. 61, pl. 13, fig. 7. 1921/ Stachyotaxus cf. S. elegans Nath. ; Bartrum, p.
258.
1934 Palissya batrumi Edwards , p. 100, pl. 5, figs. 5,
6.
2019 Palissya batrumi Pattemore and Rozefelds , p.
197, fig. 10.
Material. Boat Harbour: LX2071, Curio Bay: LX1096, 1103, Little Beach-01: LX0721, Otara-20: LX2238, LX2239, Otara-22: LX2178.
Description. Cones, at least 90 mm long, 10–17 mm diameter. Cone axis 2–3 mm diameter, bearing helically-arranged, rhomboid bract/scales, 3–5 mm wide, 5–7 mm long, sub-perpendicular to the axis, then reflexed strongly apically. Each bract/scale with about four pairs of ovule/scale units on the adaxial surface, placed oppositely, along the bract/ scale midline.
Remarks. Distinctive elongate cones have been placed in Palissya , a genus established on material from the Jurassic of Europe. Figure 23.1 View FIGURE 23 exhibits the external morphology, other specimens are split, or weathered to reveal internal detail, In Figure 23.2 View FIGURE 23 , the apical portion has been split along the central axis, while in Figure 23.4 View FIGURE 23 , the external surface has been removed to clearly show the paired ovule/scale units. On the adaxial surface o.
Palissya was initially assumed to represent ovulate cones, probably coniferous. In fact, Edwards (1934) claimed to have found a Palissya attached to what seemed to be an Elatocladus conifer shoot. However, Parris et al. (1995) reviewed the New Zealand and Australian examples of Palissya (including material from Black Bay ) and expressed doubt that they were from conifers. Schweitzer and Kirchner (1996) then made a case for Palissya being microsporangiate. Subsequently, some of the Australian Palissya were placed in Knezourocarpon (Pattemore, 2000) in Knezourocarponaceae , possibly with ginkgoalean or pteridospermous affinity. They concluded that other Australian and the New Zealand taxa, were probably new genera in the Knezourocarponaceae . Pattemore et al. (2014) concluded that all Australasian Palissya were distinct from the original Northern Hemisphere concept of the taxon. Most recently, Pattemore and Rozefelds (2019) emended the diagnosis of the New Zealand material, P. bartrumi , and emphasized a likely relationship within the conifers for the genus. Some comparison with extant Taxaceae and Podocarpaceae was noted.
In Antarctica, Palissya has been described from the Aptian of Snow Island, Antarctica (Cantrill, 2000) , but has not been described from the Hope Bay or Botany localities (Gee, 1989; Rees and Cleal, 2004).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.