Fossil Leaves of the Araceae from the European Eocene and Notes on Other Aroid Fossils
Fossil Leaves of the Araceae from the European Eocene and Notes on Other Aroid Fossils
复制标题
DOI：
10.1086/425673
复制
发表时间：
2005-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
V. Wilde;Z. Kvaček;J. Bogner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Wilde;Z. Kvaček;J. Bogner
对现存天南星科植物的叶片形态和脉纹模式进行了比较研究，以确定与中欧始新世的化石叶片相匹配的类群。结果发现了4个形态属：Araceophyllum Kräusel。Wilde， Z. kva<e:1> ek & Bogner （Pothoideae亚科）；Araciphyllites Wilde， Z. kvaek & Bogner, gen. 11 .（巨蝇亚科和巨蝇亚科）；Caladiosoma Berry （caladiae科和caladiae科）；Nitophyllites Iljinskaja修正。费多托夫（peltandae和Arophyteae部落）。在Messel和Eckfeld（德国）和Kučlín（捷克共和国）的始新世遗址研究的叶片化石被包括在四个物种中：Araciphyllites tertiarius (Engelhardt) Wilde， Z. kva<e:1> ek & Bogner, comb。11月（在Messel很常见，在Eckfeld很少见）；Araciphyllites schaarschmidtii Wilde， Z. kva<e:1> ek & Bogner, sp. 11 . （Messel单一标本）；Caladiosoma messelense Wilde， Z. kvaek & Bogner, sp. 11月（在Messel罕见）；和nitophylites bohemicus Wilde， Z. kvaek & Bogner, p. 11 .（在Kučlín上有一个片段）。在欧洲以外，我们修订的其他第三纪避叶物种包括Araciphyllites tobleri (Kräusel) Wilde， Z. kva<e:1> ek & Bogner, comb。11 .（苏门答腊新近纪），和Nitophyllites limnestis (Dilcher & Daghlian) Wilde， Z. kva<e:1> ek & Bogner, comb。11月（田纳西州克莱本组始新世）。对天南星科的其他新生代记录及其亲缘关系（如Nitophyllites zaisanicus Iljinskaja的修订）也作了重要注释。Fedotov（哈萨克斯坦和俄罗斯远东地区晚古新世—始新世）和Peltandra primaeva Hickey（北达科他州金谷组始新世）。上面提到的四种无叶植物大大增加了该科的可靠化石记录，该科目前包含大约10种基于叶子的植物。它们最近的现存亲戚表明，它们属于热带至亚热带气候，这种气候与古地理位置和相应地区的植物区系非常吻合。除Messel的2种araciphylite外，其余均明显代表水/半水或泥泞/沼泽样地的水生植物。天南星科植物除Caladiosoma miocenicum被认为是新近纪时期外，所有的天南星科植物的叶片化石大多是始新世时期的，表明天南星科植物早在古近纪早期就具有相当的多样性。我们提醒大家，不要想当然地认为所有化石记录的名字都暗示与天南星科有亲缘关系。他们中的许多人被排除在家庭之外，或者至少是可疑的。其他的，主要基于生殖结构或整个植物，为了解类恐龙的化石历史提供了重要的信息。
A comparative study of leaf morphology and venation patterns of extant Araceae has been undertaken in order to define groups matching aroid fossil leaves from the Eocene of Central Europe. As a result, four morphogenera have been recognized: Araceophyllum Kräusel emend. Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner (subfamily Pothoideae); Araciphyllites Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner, gen. nov. (subfamilies Monsteroideae and Aroideae); Caladiosoma Berry (tribes Colocasieae and Caladieae); and Nitophyllites Iljinskaja emend. Fedotov (tribes Peltandreae and Arophyteae). The leaf fossils studied from the Eocene sites at Messel and Eckfeld (Germany) and Kučlín (Czech Republic) have been included in four species: Araciphyllites tertiarius (Engelhardt) Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner, comb. nov. (common at Messel, rare at Eckfeld); Araciphyllites schaarschmidtii Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner, sp. nov. (a single specimen at Messel); Caladiosoma messelense Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner, sp. nov. (rare at Messel); and Nitophyllites bohemicus Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner, sp. nov. (a single fragment at Kučlín). Outside Europe, other Tertiary aroid foliage species that we have revised nomenclaturally include Araciphyllites tobleri (Kräusel) Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner, comb. nov. (Neogene of Sumatra), and Nitophyllites limnestis (Dilcher & Daghlian) Wilde, Z. Kvaček & Bogner, comb. nov. (Eocene of the Claiborne Formation, Tennessee). Critical notes are also provided concerning other Cenozoic records of Araceae and their affinities, like Nitophyllites zaisanicus Iljinskaja emend. Fedotov (late Paleocene‐Eocene of Kazakhstan and the Russian Far East) and Peltandra primaeva Hickey (Eocene of the Golden Valley Formation, North Dakota). The mentioned four species of aroid foliage add considerably to the reliable fossil record of the family that now contains ca. 10 species based on leaves. Their nearest living relatives suggest a (para)tropical to subtropical climate that is well in accordance with the paleogeographic position and the accompanying floras of the respective localities. Except for the two species of Araciphyllites from Messel, they all obviously represent helophytes of aquatic/hemiaquatic or muddy/swampy sites. Except for Caladiosoma miocenicum, which is suggested to be of Neogene age, all of the fossil leaves of Araceae are mostly of Eocene age, suggesting a considerable diversity of Araceae as early as in the early Paleogene. We caution against taking for granted all fossil records whose names imply affinities with the Araceae. Many of them are excluded from the family or are at least doubtful. Others, mainly based on reproductive structures or whole plants, contribute important information for understanding of the fossil history of aroids.