Re: New Revision: Hell Creek Fossil Plants List

[Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>]

At 02:27 PM 10/30/97 -0800, Phillip Bigelow wrote:
>Expect this list to change *greatly* in future
>revisions, as I slowly remove all non-Montana taxa, and
>add new taxa from different authors.  The 
>ultimate goal is to have a list of plants from only the
>Montana paleoecosystem.

There is no reason to suspect substantial differences between Montana and
the Dakotas at that time.  I would certainly be surprised if the common
species were not present throughout the area.  In the absence of intensive,
focused collecting of plants in Montana, absence of a species from Montana
sites really means little.


This lists looks like it uses some of the older identifications.  I have a
letter from Dr. Hickey that discusses his re-assigments.  It is rather old,
so Kirk Johnson may have revised it further, but here is what it says
(along with some notes about modern relatives)

>        YALE-PEABODY MUSEUM HELL CREEK FORMATION FOSSIL PLANTS
>
>LINNAEAN NAME
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Celastrus" taurenensis Ward. TYPE.
He state "some are Eucommiacaea".  This implies that this is a mixed bag.

> "Cinnamomum" lineafolia Knowlton. TYPE.
This is included in ""Ficus" affinis by Hickey, which he says belongs in
Rhamnaceae (modern buckthorns and _Ceanothus_).
(Though he also refers some specimens formerly in "F". affinis to
Cinnamomum sezanensis (sp?), which he says really *is* a Cinnamomum - that
is, a cinnamon bush).

> "Dryophyllum" subfalcatum Lesquereux. TYPE.

This is one of the most common leaves in Lancian floras.  If it is close to
Dryophyllum (perhaps Castaneophyllum or Berryophyllum), then it is a
beech/chestnut-like tree (Fagaceae).  Alternatively, it is a walnut-like
tree (Juglandaceae).

> "Dryophyllum" tenneseensis. TYPE.

Ditto.

> "Ficus" artocarpoides Lesquereux. TYPE.

If this is the form based on the cluster of fossil "figs" (the supposed
fruits), it has been determined to be equisitalean root tubers.

> "Ficus" planicostata Lesquereux. TYPE.

Hickey suggests that this may also be in Rhamnaceae, and close to, or
synonymous with, "Ficus" affinis.

> "Quercus" viburnifolia Lesquereux. TYPE.

Hickey includes this within "Cissus" marginata, which he claims belongs in
Platanaceae (American sycamore or plane tree).

> "Vitis" stantonii (Knowlton) Brown. TYPE.

Hickey doesn't scare-quote this one.  He, at least, seems to think it
really might be a grape.  Perhaps this is one which Johnson has had second
thoughts about.

> Cissites lobata Dorf. TYPE

Hickey suggests that this belongs in Hamemelididae (the subclass that
includes a number of wind-pollinated trees, including the sycamore).

> Dryophyllum subfalcatum Lesquereux, 1875[1876].

Isn't this a duplicate?

> Grewiopsis saportana Lesquereux. TYPE.

Another generic Hamamelididae

> Magnolia pulchra Ward, 1884-85[1886]. TYPE.

This is really found in the Dakotas?  Dorf only lists it in the Medicine
Bow (southern Wyoming, almost in Colorado)).

> Sequoia sp. TYPE.

Most of the Lancian _Sequoia_ are placed in _S. artus_.



--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
                                          sfriesen@netlock.com