Carboniferous Plant Fossil ID

[Rockin' Ric]

Carboniferous Period experts! I need some help getting the correct ID on this fossil. I was finally able to get out to do some Carboniferous Plant fossil hunting on Monday after 2 months! I find a lot of these and wonder if they part of the same plant? The branch to the right that has a coal film on it seems to be that of Lepidodendron and in the upper left what appears to be Lycopodiates? I've associated the Lycopodiates as a ground plant? Is what up in the upper right the leaves of the Lepidodendron or the ground plant I spoke of earlier? 

[Fossildude19]

I believe these are referred to as Lepidophylloides.

Excellent looking plate, Ric!   

 

@fiddlehead  @paleoflor

[Yoda]

I have a specimen labelled as  Bothrodendron that looks quite similar.

Is the above closely related??  

 

 

[fiddlehead]

The concept that the twig-like forms (often given the generic name Lycopodiates), like seen here were herbaceous is no longer the excepted case. It is difficult to resolve the affinities to the parent plant, but researchers now believe this form represents the terminal tips of arborescent lycophytes branches. Some groups of arborescent lycophytes branched profusely to produce abundant crowns of these leafy twigs. And one named Bergeria dilatata did not shed its leaves even as large branches. There were herbaceous lycophytes in the Carboniferous Period. Some may have been epiphytic. But they can be separated from leafy twigs by the fact they produced three ranks of leaves on each stem, very small leaves at base, and the two larger sizes in pairs alternating above. And above this fertile structures may be present. In my opinion due to what appears to be leaves still attached to the larger branch, the fossil is a very nice example of Bergeria dilatata.

 

Hope this helps,

Jack

[Plantguy]

Thanks Jack--that does help a bunch! Continue to learn a ton with everyone of your posts. I wish I could remember 1% of what I've read/seen---

 

So I do remember seeing that genus/species mentioned recently somewhere...Maybe this is where---Is this the latest and greatest? I seem to also remember a couple years ago someone telling me there were a team of folks in Europe looking at sorting thru Lycopsids/Lepidodendron and all of the names and maybe this is part of that effort..

Revision and significance of the Westphalian (Middle Pennsylvanian) arborescent lycopsid Bergeria dilatata (Lindley & Hutton) Álvarez-Vázquez & Wagner

July 2018 Jiri Bek, Carmen Alvarez-Vazquez

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326369290_Revision_and_significance_of_the_Westphalian_Middle_Pennsylvanian_arborescent_lycopsid_Bergeria_dilatata_Lindley_Hutton_Alvarez-Vazquez_Wagner

 

So one of its former names looks like it was a Lepidodendron dilatatum.  The list of other names in that article suggests they must have looked at a ton of different examples of various parts/specimens. 

 

Two more questions if you a have the time relating to the other names mentioned above.

 

Is Lepidophylloides still ok to use for the name of any detached lycophyte leaf? 

 

Bothrodendron is still another rare separate lycophyte genus with fairly narrow stems/leaves and unique scar attachments? 

 

Regards, Chris 

@fiddlehead

[fiddlehead]

To use Lepidophylloides is Ok, maybe. But it is not the name used in present literature. The generic name Lepidophylloides was proposed in 1958 to replace Brongniart’s invalid name, Lepidophyllum. That name was already in use for a type of South African daisy when Brongniart erected the fossil genius. Both names were used to describe the leaf-like fertile bracts of lycopod cones as well the sterile leaves of the branches and trunk. The cone bracts are now placed in a separate genus called Lepidostrobophyllum. And though it has issues too. the generic name Cyperites, now replaces Lepidophylloides and Lepidophyllum for the sterile leaves of arborescent lycophytes. And it's a lot easier to spell. 

 

The twig leaves of Bothrodendron are relatively short and wide compared to Bergeria twigs. And Bothrodendron stems and branches often lack leaves and have a shagreen, relatively smooth surface. Unlike Bergeria which generally retains its leaves on all but portions of trunks, this is unique, and makes it unlike the other arborescent lycophytes.

 

Hope this helps,

Jack

[Plantguy]

10 minutes ago, fiddlehead said:

To use Lepidophylloides is Ok, maybe. But it is not the name used in present literature. The generic name Lepidophylloides was proposed in 1958 to replace Brongniart’s invalid name, Lepidophyllum. That name was already in use for a type of South African daisy when Brongniart erected the fossil genius. Both names were used to describe the leaf-like fertile bracts of lycopod cones as well the sterile leaves of the branches and trunk. The cone bracts are now placed in a separate genus called Lepidostrobophyllum. And though it has issues too. the generic name Cyperites, now replaces Lepidophylloides and Lepidophyllum for the sterile leaves of arborescent lycophytes. And it's a lot easier to spell. 

 

The twig leaves of Bothrodendron are relatively short and wide compared to Bergeria twigs. And Bothrodendron stems and branches often lack leaves and have a shagreen, relatively smooth surface. Unlike Bergeria which generally retains its leaves on all but portions of trunks, this is unique, and makes it unlike the other arborescent lycophytes.

 

Hope this helps,

Jack

Yes, much appreciated! Thank you. 

Regards, Chris