Krassilovia: An Amazing Cretaceous Conifer

Reconstructing extinct organisms based on fossils is no simple task. Rarely do paleontologists find complete specimens. More often, reconstructions are based on fragments of individuals found either near one another or at least in similar rock formations. This is especially true for plants as their growth habits frequently result in fragmentary fossilization. As such, fossilized plant remains of a single species are often described as distinct species until subsequent detective work pieces together a more complete picture.

Such was the case for the fossil remains of what were described as Krassilovia mongolica and Podozamites harrisii. Hailing from the Early Cretaceous (some 100-120 million years ago), Krassilovia was only known from oddly spiny cone scales and Podozamites was only known from strap-shaped leaves found in a remote region of Mongolia. Little evidence existed to suggest they belonged to the same plant. That is, until these structures were analyzed using scanning electron micrographs.

(A–C) Articulated seed cones, (D) Isolated cone axis, (E) Incomplete leafy shoot showing a cluster of three attached leaves, (F) Three detached strap-shaped leaves, G) Detail of A showing tightly imbricate interlocking bract-scale complexes, (H) Detail of leaf apex showing converging veins, (I) Three isolated bract-scale complexes showing abaxial (top) and adaxial (bottom) surfaces, (J) Two isolated seeds showing narrow wings. [SOURCE]

These fossilized plant remains were preserved in such detail that microscopic anatomical features such as stomata were visible under magnification. By studying the remains of these plants as well as others, scientists discovered some amazing similarities in the stomata of Krassilovia and Podozamites. Unlike other plant remains associated with those formations, the Krassilovia cone scales and Podozamites leaves shared the exact same stomate morphology. Though not without some uncertainty, the odds that these two associated structures would share this unique morphological trait by chance is slim and suggests that these are indeed parts of the same plant.

The amazing discoveries do not end with stomata either. After countless hours of searching, fully articulated Krassilovia cones were eventually discovered, which finally put the strange spiky cone scales into context. It turns out those spiked scales interlocked with one another, with the two bottom spikes of one scale interlocking with the three top spikes of the scale below it. In life, such interlocking may have helped protect the developing seeds within until they had matured enough to be released. Also, the sheer volume of cone scales coupled with other minute anatomical details I won’t go into here indicate that, similar to Abies and Cedrus cones, Krassilovia cones completely fell apart when fully ripe.

Though not related, the cone scales of the extinct Krassilovia (left) show similarities with the cone scales of modern day Cryptomeria species (right).

Interestingly, the ability to resolve microscopic structures in these fossils has also provided insights into some modern day taxonomic confusion. It turns out that Krassilovia shares many minute anatomical similarities with present day Gnetales. Gnetales really challenge our perception of gymnosperms and their superficial resemblance to angiosperms have led many to suggest that they represent a clade that is sister to flowering plants. However, more recent molecular work has placed the extant members of Gnetales as sister to the pines. Evidence of shared morphological features between extinct conifers like Krassilovia and modern day Gnetales add some interesting support to this hypothesis. Until more concrete evidence is described and analyzed, the true evolutionary relationships among these groups will remain the object of heated debate for the foreseeable fture.

What we can say is that Krassilovia mongolica was one remarkable conifer. Its unique morphology clearly demonstrates that conifers were once far more diverse in form and function than they are currently. Even the habitat in which Krassilovia once lived is not the kind of place you can find thriving conifer communities today. Krassilovia once grew in a swampy habitat. However, whereas only a few extant conifers enjoy swamps, Krassilovia once shared its habitat with a wide variety of conifer species, the likes of which we are only just beginning to appreciate. I for one am extremely excited to see what new fossil discoveries will uncover in the future.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 300 OF THE IN DEFENSE OF PLANTS PODCAST TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS FOSSIL AND THE ECOSYSTEM IN WHICH IT ONCE EXISTED.

Photo Credits: [1] [2] [3]

Further Reading: [1]

Gnetum Are Neat!

Photo by gbohne licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

As much as I hate to admit it, when I think of gymnosperms my mind autopilots to conifers and ginkgos. I too easily forget about some of the other extant gymnosperm lineages with which we share space on this planet. Whereas one can easily pick out a conifer or a ginkgo from a lineup, some of the other gymnosperms aren't readily recognized as such. One group in particular challenges my gymnosperm search image to the extreme. I am, of course, talking about a family of gymnosperms known as Gnetaceae.

Gnetaceae is home to a single genus, Gnetum, of which there are about 40 species. They can be found growing in tropical forests throughout South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Gnetum essentially come in two forms, small trees and larger, scrambling vines. To most passersby, the various Gnetum species appear to be yet another tropical angiosperm with elliptical evergreen leaves. Indeed, the various species of Gnetum exhibit features that suggest a close link with flowering plants. This has led some to hypothesize that they represent a sort of living "link" between gymnosperms and angiosperms. We will get to that in a bit. First, we must taker a closer look at these odd plants.

Photo by Forest and Kim Starr licensed under CC BY 2.0

We will start with their leaves. They are quite strange by gymnosperm standards. Gnetum produce elliptical leaves with reticulate or web-like venation. Also, their vascular tissues contain vessel elements. Such traits are usually associated with dicotyledonous angiosperms. Characteristics such as these explain why the taxonomic position of Gnetaceae has floundered a bit over the years. What about reproduction? Surely that can help gain a better understanding of where this groups stands taxonomically.

Gnetum reproductive bits require a bit of scrutiny. They are certainly not what we would call flowers. They aren't quite cones either. The technical term for gymnosperm reproductive structures are stobili. In Gnetum, these arise from the axils of the leaves. They are strange looking structures to say the least. Male strobili are long and cylindrical. They, of course, produce pollen. They also contain infertile ovules whose function I will get to in a minute. Female strobili, on the other hand, are larger and consist of ovules enclosed in a thin tissue or integument.

Photo by Kware Ji licensed under CC BY 2.0

Pollination in Gnetum is largely accomplished via insects, though wind plays a significant role for some species as well. In insect pollinated species, the female strobili emit a strong odor and secret tiny beads of liquid called "pollination droplets." Pollination droplets are also secreted from the sterile ovules on the male strobili. It was observed that moths were the main visitors for at least two species of Gnetum.  The reason both sexes produce pollination droplets is to ensure that moths will visit multiple individuals in their search for food.

Following pollen transfer, even more angiosperm-like activity takes place. Some Gentum undergo a type of double fertilization that is unique among moat gymnosperm lineages. Double fertilization is largely considered a defining feature of flowering plants. It is a process by which two sperm cells unite with an egg and become the embryo and the nutritive endosperm that will fuel seedling growth. Along with its cousin Ephedra, Gnetum double fertilization also involves two sperm cells, though the end result is a bit different. Instead of forming an embryo and an endosperm, double fertilization in Gentum (and Ephedra) results in the formation of two viable zygotes and no endosperm.

Photo by Forest and Kim Starr licensed under CC BY 2.0

Fertilized seeds gradually swell into large drupe-like structures. Integument tissues develop with the seed, covering it in a fruit-like substance that turns from green to red as it matures. As far as anyone knows, birds are the main seed dispersal agents for most Gnetum species. 

Taken together, their peculiar anatomy and intriguing pollination have led many to suggest that Gnetum are more closely allied to flowering plants than they are gymnosperms. Certainly it is easy to draw lines from one dot to another in this case but the real test lies in DNA. Are they highly derived gymnosperms or possibly a so-called missing link? 

No. Recent work by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group found that Gnetaceae are more closely related to the family Pinaceae than they are any of the sister angiosperm lineages. Their work also revealed that, although this lineage arose some 250 million years ago, much of the diversity we see today is the result of rapid speciation events during the Oligocene and Miocene. It would appear that these derived gymnosperms are not the missing link they we once thought to be. In fact, the whole concept of an evolutionary missing link is flawed to begin with. 

Photo by Ahmad Fuad Morad licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Still, this should not take away from fully appreciating the bizarre nature of this family. The uniqueness of the genus Gnetum is certainly worth celebrating. They serve as a reminder of just how diverse gymnosperms once were. Today they are a mere shadow of their former glory, overshadowed by the bewildering diversity of angiosperms. If you encounter a Gnetum, take the time to appreciate it as a representative of just how strange gymnosperms can be. 

Photo Credits: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Further Reading: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]