Yes I am

Hi Jiří,

What do you mean by "a new concept" of sphenophylls?

Hi Jiří,

I'm wondering the same as Mihai, what does that mean?

Hello,

To echo Mihai Alexandru M.F. Tomescu but differently:

What do you mean by "fertile sphenophylls"? Do you mean the parts that bear sporangia in sphenophytes? (yes, I am not committing to a homology-fueled term, and on purpose here, G.W. Rothwell ), or fertile parts of just Sphenophyllum?

for me I am intrigued, since from what I recall, that group has already had nearly every possible homology proposed for these fertile "bits".

However, it may be that I misunderstand what you mean by "concept" (perhaps you have evidence for fertile fossils ascribed normally to the group as belonging to a different group?)

I look forward to seeing/hearing about this question.

Dear Stephan, thank you for your message, please. You know that almost all reproductive organs of sphenophylls belong to the only one genus - Bowmanites. We know several Bowmanites species proposed purely based on palaeobotanical, i.e. morphological/anatomical features by palaeobotanists who ignored palynology, i.e. in situ spores. Bowmanites produced six to seven morphologically different spore types that is not mentioned in diagnosis of majority of species and even in generic one.In short, it´d be better to propose some new cone sphenophyllalean genera with the combination of the morphology of the cones and their spores. Preliminary results (sphenophyllalean papers in my profile) suggest that palynological differences can correspond with morphological ones of their cones But I´d need a help of some palaeobotanist.

All the best

Jiri

I think there are some, for example: Riggs, S. D., and G. W. Rothwell. 1985. Sentistrobus goodii n. sp., a permineralized sphenophyllalean cone from the Upper Pennsylvanian of the Appalachian Basin. Journal of Paleontology 59: 1194-1202.

Thanks for clarifying Dr. Bek ( Jiří Bek )