CHAPTER XIV 



FOSSIL ANGIOSPERMS 



The importance of a knowledge of the ancient history of 

 Angiosperms can not be overestimated. The morphological 

 conclusions as to phylogeny that can be confirmed by historical 

 evidence rest: upon the securest available foundation. Unfor- 

 tunately, the paleobotanical record of Angiosperms is very frag- 

 mentary and poorly understood. The published accounts are 

 dominated mainly by stratigraphy rather than by plant-groups, 

 and the named material is often so uncertain as to its affinities 

 that the morphologist is extremely perplexed in drawing any 

 conclusions. Even when all data are rejected excepting those 

 that rest upon reasonably secure botanical evidence, any con- 

 clusions must be extremely tentative, not only because much 

 of the evidence is negative, but also because much of the re- 

 jected material undoubtedly contains valuable testimony. In 

 spite of this uncertainty, it may be useful to put together such 

 testimony as we possess. Even this may modify some concep- 

 tions as to phylogeny. 



MONOCOTYLEDONS 



When the parallel venation of leaves was taken to be a dis- 

 tinctive character of the Monocotyledons their presence in the 

 Carboniferous was claimed. But since it has become known 

 that such leaves are equally characteristic of the great Paleozoic 

 group ( 'ordaites, as well as of other Gymnosperms, and of cer- 

 tain heterosporous Pteridophytes, this claim rests upon no sub- 

 stantial basis. So far as we have been able tofexamine the 

 testimony, it must be said that the existence of Paleozoic Mono- 

 cotyledons has not been proved. 



There is no historical evidence that the Monocotyledons 

 have ever been a dominant race, as the Gymnosperms have 

 272 



