Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T23:00:05.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Sampling of Plant Megafossil Assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Robert A. Spicer
Robert A. Spicer*
Affiliation:
Life Sciences Department, Goldsmiths' College University of London Creek Road, London SE8 3BU England
Get access

Extract

Sampling of plant megafossil assemblages has been traditionally a somewhat haphazard process. There has been an almost universal desire to collect the most perfectly preserved, complete, largest (or most conveniently transported) or aesthetically pleasing specimens (I too plead guilty here), and yet collections tend to have been made from the most accessible parts of an outcrop without due regard to depositional geometry, or sedimentological characteristics. Imperfectly preserved, and/or fragmented material typically has been ignored and successive collections frequently have been made from particular beds or horizons that are know to yield “good material” at a particular site. Chance tends to play a significant role in prospecting for new plant beds and heavy reliance is put on the random hit by the hammer (as often as not on float). Once a concentration of plant remains has been found little note is taken of where each recovered specimen was located in relation to other specimens or the entombing sediments.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Paleontological Society Special Publications , Volume 3: Methods and Applications of Plant Paleoecology , 1988, pp. 29 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Braun-Blanquet, J., 1927. Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Wein.Google Scholar
Ferguson, D. K., 1985. The Origin of Leaf-assemblages - New Light on an Old Problem, Reviews Palaeobotany and Palynology, 46, 117–188.Google Scholar
Gastaldo, R. A., 1985. Plant Accumulating Deltaic Depositional Environments: Mobile Delta, Alabama. Alabama Geological Survey Reprint Series, 66, 1–35.Google Scholar
Gastaldo, R. A., 1986. Selected Aspects of Plant Taphonomic Processes in Coastal Deltaic Regimes, In Plants, Land, Broadhead, T. (ed), University of Tennessee Department of Geological Sciences Studies in Geology 15, 27–44.Google Scholar
Goodall, D. W., 1952. Some Considerations in the use of Point Quadrats for the Analysis of Vegetation, Aust. J. Sci. Res. Ser B, 5, 1–41.Google Scholar
Greig-Smith, P., 1964. Quantitative Plant Ecology, 2nd Edition, London, Butterworths, 256 p.Google Scholar
Hill, C. R., 1974. Palaeobotanical and Sedimentological Studies on the Lower Bajocian (Middle Jurassic) flora of Yorkshire, Unpublished Thesis, Leeds University, England, 281 p.Google Scholar
Kershaw, K. A., 1973. Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology, 2nd Edition, Edward Arnold, London, 308 p.Google Scholar
Lambert, J. M., and Dale, M. B., 1964. The Use of Statistics in Phytosociology, Advances in Ecological Research, 2, 59–99.Google Scholar
Orloci, L, 1968a. Definitions of Structure in Multivariate Phytosociological Samples, Vegetatio, 15, 281–291.Google Scholar
Orloci, L. L., 1968b. Information Analysis in Phytosociology, Journal Theoretical Biology, 20, 271–284.Google Scholar
Otto, G. H., 1938. The Sedimentation Unit and its Use in Field Sampling, Journal Geology, 46, 569–582.Google Scholar
Phillips, T. L. Kunz, B. A., and Mickish, D. J., 1977. Paleobotany of permineralized peat (coal balls) from the Herrin (No. 6) Coal Member of the Illinois Basin. in Given, P. N., and Cohan, A. D. (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies of Peat and Coal Origins. Geol. Soc. Amer. Microform Pub. 7, 18–49.Google Scholar
Phillips, T. L., and DiMichele, W. A., 1981. Paleoecology of middle Pennsylvanian age coal swamps in southern Illinois/Herrin Coal Member at Sahara Mine No. 6, In Niklas, K. J. (ed.) Paleobotany, Paleoecology, and Evolution, Praeger, New York, 231–284.Google Scholar
Retallack, G. J., 1977. Reconstructing Triassic vegetation of eastern Australia: a new approach for the biostratigraphy of Gondwanaland. Alcheringa, 1, 247–277.Google Scholar
Scott, A. C., 1977. A Review of the ecology of Upper Carboniferous plant assemblages, With New Data from Strathclyde, Palaeontology, 20, 447–473.Google Scholar
Schiehing, M. M., and Pfefferkorn, H. W., 1984. The taphonomy of land plants in the Orinoco Delta: a model for the incorporation of plant parts in clastic sediments of Late Carboniferous age in Euramerica. Reviews Palaeobotany Palynology, 41, 205–240.Google Scholar
Spicer, R. A., 1980. The importance of depositional sorting to the biostratigraphy of plant megafossils, In Dilcher, D. L., and Taylor, T. N., (eds). Biostratigraphy of Fossil Plants. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 171–183.Google Scholar
Spicer, R. A., 1981. The sorting and deposition of allochthonous plant material in a modern environment at Silwood Lake, Silwood Park, Berkshire, England. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1143, 77 p.Google Scholar
Spicer, R. A., and Greer, A. G., 1986. Plant Taphonomy in Fluvial and Lacustrine Systems, In Broadhead, T. W. (ed), Land Plants. University of Tennessee Department of Geological Sciences Studies in Geology 15, 10–26.Google Scholar
Spicer, R. A., and Wolfe, J. A., 1987. Taphonomy of Holocene deposits in Trinity (Clair Engle) Lake, Northern California. Paleobiology, 13, 227–245.Google Scholar