Text
E-book Manual of Leaf Architecture
One of the most critical uses of foliar characters is in interpreting the angiosperm fossil record. Although fossil reproductive structures comprise an important source of data (e.g., Friis and Skarby, 1982; Basinger and Dilcher, 1984; Herendeen et al., 1999; Crepet et al., 2004; Friis et al., 2006), compressions and impressions of leaves are the most common macroscopic angiosperm fossils. Because of their abundance, fossil leaves provide agreat deal of
information about the composition, diversity, and paleoecology of past floras (Chaney and Sanborn, 1933; MacGinitie, 1953; Burnham, 1994; Johnson and Ellis, 2002; Wang and Dilcher, 2006). Furthermore, fossil leaf morphology is widely used to produce estimates of paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental conditions (Bailey and Sinnott, 1915, 1916; Chaney and Sanborn, 1933; Wolfe, 1971, 1995; Utescher et al., 2000; Jacobs and Herendeen, 2004). Fossil identifications, including those based on leaves, are also used to estimate divergence times of clades (e.g., Richardson et al., 2000, 2001; Renner, 2004; Davis et al., 2005; Uhl et al., 2007). Working with isolated fossil angiosperm leaves is a long-standing challenge in paleobotany. Late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century paleobotanists left a legacy of poorly defined taxa. Most early workers had neither an accepted lexicon for describing leaf form nor knowledge of how leaf features are distributed among living angiosperms (see discussions in Dilcher, 1973; Hill, 1982, 1988). They focused mostly on shape, size, and generalized vein characters that failed to discriminate species or even higher taxa accurately and routinely applied names of living genera to fossils from unrelated fossil genera based on poorly preserved leaves without diagnostic characters. Thus, modern workers inherited a host of misidentified fossilspecies incorrectly described as Ficus, Populus Aralia, and other modern genera.
Tidak tersedia versi lain