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


Darren Naish wrote:

>Major objection to the notion of an arboreal _A_ is the absence of
>trees from Solenhofen. Advocates of the arboreal _A_ say this is
>reliance on negative evidence - furthermore there were apparently
>numerous retrieved gingkos and other plants (many large) from
>Solenhofen, all of which were destroyed in WW II.  I recall this being
>debated on dino-l ages ago: can anyone support it from the literature?

Barthel et al. (1990) list several plant fossils from Solnhofen.

Pteridosperms (seed ferns) - _Cycadopteris_

Bennettitales (related to cycads) - _Zamites_, _Sphenozamites_

Ginkgos - _Ginkgo_, _Baiera_

Coniferopsids (conifers) - _Brachyphyllum_, _Palaeocyparis_,
_Arthrotaxites_, _Araucaria_

They state that the *best* specimens of _Ginkgo_ were destroyed in WWII.
They also note an absence of ferns and horsetails - common elements in
Jurassic floras, and put it down to the arid environment, which would not
be conducive to plants which need moisture to reproduce.

They also list a lot of (flying) insect fossils such as cockroachs,
locusts, cicadas, beetles, wasps and flies, sugesting a thriving
terrestrial ecology close by.


Barthel, K.W.; Swinburne, N.M.H. & Conway Morris, S. (1990)  Solnhofen. A
study in Mesozoic palaeontology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au                  nedin@ediacara.org
Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong,
it was all downhill from there.