[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: option re pachy head banging

In a message dated 95-07-21 12:08:44 EDT, you write:

>     Weren't the conifers of the time also cone-bearing?  I recall
>discussions on the list of the existance of redwoods and firs, so wouldn't
>pinecones (rich in protein, and mighty flavorful in a salad) be one possible

Certainly. I have both preserved casts and impressions of cones that Fontaine
(189?)  called Sequoia spp. from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian-Albian) Arundel
Clay Formation of Maryland.  Hickey regards these as "taxodioid" conifers,
 and possibly synonymous with Arthrotaxopsis sp. I also have at least two
impressions of Pinus sp. carpels  which strongly resemble their modern
counterparts the white pines (also Pinus). There are also "strobili"  sic
Fontaine of yet another possible conifer.  Maybe some of the paleobotanists
on this lis can elaborate in more deatail before I shoot myself in the foot!
  I may have even found some amber globules from this formation! 

                                                         Thomas R. Lipka



      The above flora were coexistant with some of the earliest (but not the
earliest) angiosperms known which first appeared aroud the
Valangian-Hauterivian depending on whom you talk to.