[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New Revision: Hell Creek Fossil Plants List
At 02:27 PM 10/30/97 -0800, Phillip Bigelow wrote:
>Expect this list to change *greatly* in future
>revisions, as I slowly remove all non-Montana taxa, and
>add new taxa from different authors. The
>ultimate goal is to have a list of plants from only the
There is no reason to suspect substantial differences between Montana and
the Dakotas at that time. I would certainly be surprised if the common
species were not present throughout the area. In the absence of intensive,
focused collecting of plants in Montana, absence of a species from Montana
sites really means little.
This lists looks like it uses some of the older identifications. I have a
letter from Dr. Hickey that discusses his re-assigments. It is rather old,
so Kirk Johnson may have revised it further, but here is what it says
(along with some notes about modern relatives)
> YALE-PEABODY MUSEUM HELL CREEK FORMATION FOSSIL PLANTS
> "Celastrus" taurenensis Ward. TYPE.
He state "some are Eucommiacaea". This implies that this is a mixed bag.
> "Cinnamomum" lineafolia Knowlton. TYPE.
This is included in ""Ficus" affinis by Hickey, which he says belongs in
Rhamnaceae (modern buckthorns and _Ceanothus_).
(Though he also refers some specimens formerly in "F". affinis to
Cinnamomum sezanensis (sp?), which he says really *is* a Cinnamomum - that
is, a cinnamon bush).
> "Dryophyllum" subfalcatum Lesquereux. TYPE.
This is one of the most common leaves in Lancian floras. If it is close to
Dryophyllum (perhaps Castaneophyllum or Berryophyllum), then it is a
beech/chestnut-like tree (Fagaceae). Alternatively, it is a walnut-like
> "Dryophyllum" tenneseensis. TYPE.
> "Ficus" artocarpoides Lesquereux. TYPE.
If this is the form based on the cluster of fossil "figs" (the supposed
fruits), it has been determined to be equisitalean root tubers.
> "Ficus" planicostata Lesquereux. TYPE.
Hickey suggests that this may also be in Rhamnaceae, and close to, or
synonymous with, "Ficus" affinis.
> "Quercus" viburnifolia Lesquereux. TYPE.
Hickey includes this within "Cissus" marginata, which he claims belongs in
Platanaceae (American sycamore or plane tree).
> "Vitis" stantonii (Knowlton) Brown. TYPE.
Hickey doesn't scare-quote this one. He, at least, seems to think it
really might be a grape. Perhaps this is one which Johnson has had second
> Cissites lobata Dorf. TYPE
Hickey suggests that this belongs in Hamemelididae (the subclass that
includes a number of wind-pollinated trees, including the sycamore).
> Dryophyllum subfalcatum Lesquereux, 1875.
Isn't this a duplicate?
> Grewiopsis saportana Lesquereux. TYPE.
Another generic Hamamelididae
> Magnolia pulchra Ward, 1884-85. TYPE.
This is really found in the Dakotas? Dorf only lists it in the Medicine
Bow (southern Wyoming, almost in Colorado)).
> Sequoia sp. TYPE.
Most of the Lancian _Sequoia_ are placed in _S. artus_.
May the peace of God be with you. email@example.com