-
Mason Hintermeister posted a new specimen. 3 years, 8 months ago
3 years, 8 months ago3 years, 8 months agoMason Hintermeister has contributed specimen mFeM 79635 to myFOSSIL!
Mason Hintermeister posted a new specimen. 3 years, 8 months ago
Mason Hintermeister has contributed specimen mFeM 79635 to myFOSSIL!
@mackenzie-smith any thoughts on this one?
Hi @mason-hintermeister and @vperez. To me it appears that there are multiple veins on each leaf? If this is the case, it is not in Lycopodiophyta since all members of this phylum/division only have a single xylem strand in their leaf. If there are multiple xylem strands (veins) per leaf then it is probably Cordaites. The higher taxonomy is highly debated. Wikipedia has it listed as Division(Phylum) Pinophyta, Class Pinopsida, Order Cordaitales, Family Cordaitaceae, Genus Cordaites.
@smoran I see two distinct lines, so Cordaites?
Sounds that way to me @mason-hintermeister. Is that correct @mackenzie-smith? Here’s the current taxonomy that the PaleobiolgyDB shows (https://paleobiodb.org/classic/checkTaxonInfo?taxon_no=125753&is_real_user=1).
@smoran and @mason-hintermeister Yes, it is Cordaites. It’s strange because the PBDB taxonomy contradicts itself (if you click on the family name derived from the leaf it will take you to the order name based on the leaf (which is correct) but the order listed on the first page is the strobilis order). While it does appear that an order and family names were both made for the strobili genus, the leaf order and family names predate the strobili ones so they would take precedence. So the taxonomy I have listed in the previous comment is the “correct” one. I say “correct” because we still aren’t confident about the phylum and class placement. It could change in 5 years. Order and lower we are confident.
Thanks for confirming and clarifying @mackenzie-smith. Could you update this @mason-hintermeister when you get the chance? Thanks!