Fossil Podocarp Root from Telangatuk East, Victoria 



l.y EL Hi ukhi kn 



During percussion drilling fW 

 water i" ihc lolangatuk I asi dis- 

 trict, pieces of Wood were lotmd in 

 SHJltlj spoil hrouglU up From a depth 

 d[ 65 li (20 m). They wore rWft&Wd 

 hy ihc landholder, Mr {• W Dun 

 stan, who lold [WC of this in May 

 li<63 when 1 was ai his farm; hul he 

 was unable lo show mo ihc speei 

 mens. My first response was lo men 

 turn the possibility of ostahlishniy 

 their age hy radiocarbon dating. 

 Weeks later, one specimen several 

 cenlimeitcx long, approximately I si), 

 cm. in cross-section and woody, was 

 brought to mc in Adelaide. I aigei 

 pieces had accidentally been broken 

 up after discovery — Ihe fragments 

 were not sent. 



There were then two consulei allow 

 apart from expense, to discourage an 

 attempt ni radiocarbon dating. Firstly. 



the specimen sent to me weighed less 

 than Id gm, Ihe mmimum quantity 

 nl Wood 'hen requited for dating. 

 (There was a possibility of acquiring 

 the other fragments and I wrote to 

 Mr. Dunstan to warn him against 

 discarding them). 



Secondly, the wood was collected 

 from sediments which possibly were 

 as old as Pliocene, pidging by 

 the Litest geological mlonnalion 

 then ttvtulable, (Vielonaii Resuurees 

 Survey fur the Wimmera Region 

 M<J<S1) ) Considering this indication 

 and the depth of the specimens, 

 radiocarbon dating was considered 

 unlikely to establish an age within the 

 limit — for this method — of approxi- 

 mately 35.000 years. It also appeared 



Ihal if dating was utidri taken, ihc 

 largest remaining specimen might he 

 needed lor the requisite comhustiun, 

 along With other pieces of \h v 

 material. 



Due to these circumstances, m 

 altei native was to hml oul if un 

 examination ol t hi- specimen wouKI 

 indicate the plant species it repre- 

 sented. The wood was accepted for 

 examination In Ihe Wood and I'ibrc 

 Structure Section of "he < SIRO Divi- 

 sion of Forest I'loduets, Melbourne 

 The rcpOrl on the sample (H. D 

 Ingle, personal communication 

 stated thai il was coniferous, belonged 

 lo the I'odocarpaceae. could not bt 

 matched wiih any other Australian 

 species, came front root rather than 

 stem wood, and was icgardcd ai 

 reminiscent of fnJoturi'i^ wnmu 

 I to n (Queensland. 



I he failure to match the specimen 

 with another Australian species imli- 

 calcs that it is fossil material Im- 

 possibility ot Ihc root being part Of 

 a tree grown on the present suit. ice 

 icquiies that there was .< BOOtiHj 

 depth far greater than usual A nu\i- 

 mum depth ol 5 to 6 metres is indi- 

 cated for roots of /'irn/r giowing m 

 deep sand in Soulh Ausii.ili.i tJ W 

 Holmes, personal communication), 

 the maximum depth uporlcd tr, 

 Kramer and Kozlowsk. (IWfiOj k 

 Iree root penetration is ovei 3D 

 feet" (9 m). The podocarp specimen 

 Ihereforc appear to represent a tree 

 grown on soil now huned 



•cvru ftylfWq ul turn OrmI s* 



Vict Nat Vol 3S 



