. Maryland geological survey. pened out as shown in part in fig. 8, B. * Renault, Bassin Houill, dAutun, 1896, fasc. 4, pt. 2, p. 329, pi. 73, figs. 1-7. Maryland Geological Survey 319 Since these fructifications are obviously reduced lateral branches, thebracts at least, if not the staminate and ovulate appendages as well, repre-senting leaves, it follows that the ancestral cycadophytes were more or lessslender, unarmed, branching forms somewhat similar to the TriassicAnomozamites so admirably restored by Nathorst,^ possibly with terminalinstead of axillary fructifications, a not very essenti
. Maryland geological survey. pened out as shown in part in fig. 8, B. * Renault, Bassin Houill, dAutun, 1896, fasc. 4, pt. 2, p. 329, pi. 73, figs. 1-7. Maryland Geological Survey 319 Since these fructifications are obviously reduced lateral branches, thebracts at least, if not the staminate and ovulate appendages as well, repre-senting leaves, it follows that the ancestral cycadophytes were more or lessslender, unarmed, branching forms somewhat similar to the TriassicAnomozamites so admirably restored by Nathorst,^ possibly with terminalinstead of axillary fructifications, a not very essential difference, if, in-deed, the fructifications are axillary in Anomozamites. Detached and more or less imperfect cycadean fructifications of thesame general character as those we have just been considering, and pre-served as impressions, are common fossils in Mesozoic deposits theworld over, and are usually referred to the genus Williamsonia. Althoughtheir true affinity was long ago suggested by the late Prof. Williamson,^ K.
Size: 1765px × 1415px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, booksubjectpaleont, bookyear1901
