4.4 Article

An update of monocot macrofossil data from New Zealand and Australia

期刊

BOTANICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 178, 期 3, 页码 394-420

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/boj.12284

关键词

Cretaceous; Cuticle; Eocene; macrofossils; Miocene; palaeoclimate; palaeoenvironment

资金

  1. Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. University of Otago Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The macrofossil record of monocotyledons for New Zealand and Australia is updated on the basis of recent finds. In particular, reports for mummified leaf fossils with good cuticular preservation reveal significant fossil age or range extensions for a number of families in several different orders, including Ripogonaceae in the Eocene of Tasmania and New Zealand (and South America), and calamoid and other Arecaceae from the Eocene of southern New Zealand. There are also earliest macrofossil records for several families or subfamilies, including Alstroemeriaceae: Luzuriagoideae (Luzuriaga), Arecaceae, Asparagaceae: Lomandroideae (Cordyline), Asteliaceae (Astelia), Cymodoceaceae (aff. Ruppia), Cyperaceae, Restionaceae, Orchidaceae: Epidendroideae (Dendrobium and Earina), Asphodelaceae (previously Xanthorrhoeaceae): Hemerocallidoideae (Dianella/Phormium) and Xeronemataceae (Xeronema) from the Miocene of New Zealand. In addition, an Ensete-like seed associated with Pakawaua (Musaceae) and a leaf fragment of a second Musaceae-like species of Miocene age are presented. The biogeographical and palaeoecological implications of these records, especially for tropical or subtropical taxa occurring at mid to high southern latitudes, is discussed. In particular, the role and ecology of the relatively high-diversity monocot fossils in the sclerophyllous swamp forest at Newvale Mine in Southland and the lake-edge rainforest at Foulden Maar are explored.(c) 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 178, 394-420.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据