Abstract Emily Dix was a leading British palaeobotanist during the first half of the 20th century to deal with the stratigraphical distribution of macrofloras. She helped transform the use of fossil plants in defining biostratigraphic units in the Carboniferous strata in Britain; her plant-based zonation remains the foundation of Carboniferous macrofloral biostratigraphy today. She addressed several problems that came to dominate Carboniferous stratigraphical research during the second half of the century, including the mid-Carboniferous boundary and the Westphalian-Stephanian boundary. Her career was tragically cut short by mental illness when she was only in her early 40s.

Abstract This volume concentrates on selected historic aspects of palaeobotany that are, perhaps, hard to find elsewhere. In writing historical accounts it is often of much greater value to provide fresh material concerning little known personages and events rather than re-invent the wheel by going over well-trodden paths more expertly tackled in other works. Therefore we have not endeavoured to include all those who have made substantial contributions to the science, so that there are inevitable gaps and omissions. Instead, we hope that the compilation presented in this volume will be of interest to those who wish to explore some of the byways of our palaeobotanical heritage. A full history of ‘Palaeobotany’ has yet to be written, but we hope that this volume may help to spur such future activity. The history of palaeobotany contains fascinating insights into scientific endeavour. In the past it has been too easily dismissed as the ‘Cinderella’ of palaeontological studies in which many of the early workers were pursuing personal interests rather than a full-time career. This publication falls into several broad sections with a couple of minor themes occurring throughout. The first two papers serve as an introduction into the early developments of selected aspects of palaeobotany. Wilding briefly examines the work and setting of Robert Plot and Edmund Lhwyd, who laid down foundations for what would eventually become the sciences of palaeontology and Palaeobotany. Torrens looks at the life and work of the Moravian minister, Reverend Henry Steinhauer, who became a disciple of William Smith’s stratigraphic methods. Steinhauer’s tragic premature death from consumption in 1818 may have contributed to his subsequent obscurity.

Abstract Henry Steinhauer (born in 1782 at Haverfordwest, UK; died in 1818 at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA) was the son of a Moravian minister and teacher. He attended their Yorkshire school from 1789 and then trained for their ministry in Germany. He returned to teach at Fulneck from 1801 to 1811. Moravians particularly encouraged the study of, and participation in, music and natural history, and Fulneck school had a museum for the latter by 1795. At Fulneck Steinhauer came across the fossil plants found in nearby coal mines. By 1811 he was suffering from consumption. To improve his health he moved temporarily to London where he tried to encourage James Sowerby to undertake a ‘ Mineral Botany ’ project to parallel Sowerby’s one on fossil shells, Mineral Conchology . Sadly, this failed to come to fruition. Next Steinhauer moved to Bath, where he became a disciple of the stratigraphic methods of William Smith. In 1814 he received a call to teach at the new world Moravian settlement of Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, USA. He set off late in 1815 and there presented his only palaeobotanical paper to the American Philosophical Society in May 1817. This gave scientific descriptions of 10 species of English fossil coal plants and introduced valid binomial nomenclature for such fossils. His large collection of stratigraphically arranged fossils from all over England, and its detailed manuscript catalogue all predating his 1815 departure, survive in Philadelphia. His work has largely been lost sight of because of his early death and the tragic separation of this fine collection from its place of origin. He deserves to be better known.

Abstract The 35/8-2 well, drilled by Phillips Petroleum in 1981, tested oil and gas from a Late Jurassic reservoir within a plunging, tilted fault block. The reservoir is overpressured by 5000 psi and, despite having good porosity and high net to gross ratio, exhibits very low permeability. Three hydrocarbon-bearing sandstone intervals were encountered in the well, and more than 120m of core was taken from these reservoir sections. The sedimentological structures identified in core are clearly indicative of a deep-water (below storm wave base) submarine fan system, comprising a wide spectrum of turbidite and debris-flow, channel and lobe deposits. Detailed petrographic analysis of the reservoir was undertaken to identify the key factors afffecting reservoir quality. The sandstones are chemically immature lithic arenites, containing abundant quartz, feldspar and rock fragments. Reservoir quality is generally poor, largely as a result of the chemical instability of the sandstones. Diagenetic overprinting is the main agent of downgrading the sandstones, with kaolinites and carbonate cements blocking pore throats and reducing permeability. Facies type, sand to mud ratio and ultimately the clastic provenance of the sandstones are also critical factors affecting the reservoir quality in these sandstones. Hydrocarbon flow was predominantly from a single sandstone facies (B1) and was confined to the ‘A’ sand interval in well 35/8-2, but it is inferred that this facies may occur away from the wellbore in all three sand intervals. Uncertainties in the results of the drillstem test and pressure data demonstrate that it is not possible to confimi whether the hydrocarbons present in the reservoir are gas condensate or volatile oil. Uncertainty in the extent of the productive reservoir facies, hydrocarbon columns and hydrocarbon type are challenges that must be overcome before the reserves contained within the 35/8-2 structure can be developed.

Abstract The 17th and 18th centuries were periods when all the sciences began to develop and men of science showed an interest in what began later to grow into significant ways of looking at the Earth, the composition of its crust and the life forms inhabiting it. The political, social, economic and religious events of those times acted as helping influences on the way that all knowledge grew and developed, but also provided some limitations on the ways that scientific knowledge was pursued. The 18th century became widely known as ‘the Age of Enlightenment’, as it marked the ending of ignorance and darkness, but there were developments in 17th century European culture and knowledge that foreshadowed this. This paper concentrates on the work of two men of 17th century science who assisted the rise of interest in those evidences of the past life on our planet that would later become the sciences of Palaeontology and Palaeobotany. Robert Plot and Edward Lhwyd were the first custodians of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, and their work demonstrates that such institutions did much to advance our scientific knowledge. Although three of their contemporaries, Robert Hooke, Nicolaus Steno and John Woodward, firmly believed that fossils were of organic origin, both Plot and Lhwyd opposed these views and developed their own explanations, yet, nevertheless, produced some accurate descriptions of fossils from both animal and plant sources. Lhwyd, in particular, was very hardworking and successful in his early attempts at classification. Later in the 18th century, Richard Brookes, MD used much of their work in a highly successful compilation of current knowledge, a six-volume work on Natural History. In this he was assisted by one of the literary geniuses of his time, Oliver Goldsmith. This was an important advance in the popularization of Natural Science

Abstract The last 40 years of the 19th century saw a great expansion in the study of fossil plants. This was, in part, brought about by the growth of coal mining and the consequent increase in the discovery of plant remains from the Carboniferous Coal Measures. The interest in the evolution of life forms following Darwin’s theories, together with the development of the petrological microscope, also had their effect on the growth of this discipline. Among the pioneers of this growth of palaeobotany was the Canadian John William Dawson, who was the first to have a clear understanding of some of the earliest land plants from the Devonian. William Crawford Williamson, another of the 19th century pioneers, was also instrumental in forwarding the interests and careers of the two great palaeobotanists with which this paper is concerned — Dukenfield Henry Scott and Sir Albert Charles Seward. Scott was the son of a distinguished architect, who studied botany as a boy and returned to the science after studying in Germany. Through Williamson’s influence he later took up palaeobotany, a field in which he was to distinguish himself, eventually becoming Honorary Director of the Jodrell Laboratory at Kew. His contributions to the science of palaeobotany were considerable. So were those of Albert Charles Seward, his near contemporary, who attained a high position and influence in palaeobotany through his own hard work and undoubted talents. He was awarded a Fellowship of the Royal Society in 1898, and received a knighthood in 1936. He was Master of Downing College, Cambridge for 21 years from 1915, and in 1924 he became Vice Chancellor of the university. He wrote of the palaeobotany of many parts of the world, including Antarctica. Both Scott and Seward can be regarded as the forerunners of the great growth of the palaeobotanical work during the 20th century.

ABSTRACT Mount Diablo is flanked on its northeast side by a thick section of Late Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary rocks, which produced small hydrocarbon accumulations in the Los Medanos, Willow Pass, Mulligan Hill, and Concord gas fields. The first well was drilled in 1864, and today most of the active wells on the northeast flank are used for gas storage by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. These fields, which also include the Brentwood oil field, lie to the northeast of Mount Diablo and have produced 6.4 million cubic meters (225 billion cubic feet) of natural gas and over 57 million cubic meters (9.1 million barrels) of oil. The main reservoirs for the Sacramento Basin are sandstones in the Late Cretaceous and Paleogene section. The source rock there is primarily from the Upper Cretaceous Dobbins Shale, which began generation 75 m.y. ago, and the Winters Shale, which began generation 35 m.y. ago. The Livermore Basin is located on the western and southwestern sides of the mountain. The only commercial field in that basin is the small Livermore oil field. This field produces primarily from Miocene sandstones. The Livermore Basin is a Neogene basin that was syntectonically formed in the last few million years and continues to grow today. Studies of the black oils found in the Livermore field show that the source rock is likely the Eocene Nortonville Shale, though the Upper Cretaceous Moreno shale is also considered to be a possible source. The Livermore field has produced 12 million cubic meters of oil (1.9 million barrels).

Abstract John Lindley (1799–1865) is best known among palaeobotanists for having written, together with William Hutton, the three volumes of The Fossil Flora of Great Britain (1831–1837; published by James Ridgeway, London). He only published three other works on fossil plants, two short appendices on European Tertiary material and a list of fossil plants from the Culm of Devon. The Fossil Flora served to catalogue many of the fossil plants recognized by the 1830s from Britain, ranging in age from Carboniferous to Pleistocene. Together with contributions from Henslow, Murray and Williamson, Lindley and Hutton described, illustrated and, in some cases, emended almost 300 species, with many of their type and figured specimens having survived. By giving the first illustrated account of the microscopic structure of a fossil cuticle together with discussions about the origin of coal, prehistoric climates, experimental taphonomy and plant evolution The Fossil Flora was much more than a catalogue of fossil plants. Although orchidology, his work at University College London and numerous other activities came to fill his time after finishing The Fossil Flora , John Lindley must surely rank amongst his palaeobotanical contemporaries for having pioneered aspects of the science that remain topics of active research into the third millennium.

Abstract Three works from the early 19th century stand out as having influenced the development of scientific palaeobotany: Schlotheim’s Beschreibungen merkwürdiger Kräuter-Abdrücke (1804, printed by Becker, Gotha), Sternberg’s Flora der Vorwelt , [Volume I: 1820–1821, (Parts 1 and 2), printed by F. Fleischer, Leipzig; 1823–1825 (parts 3 and 4), printed by E. Brenck’s Wittwe, Regensburg: Volume II: 1833 (Parts 5 and 6), printed by J. Spurny, Prague; 1838 (Parts 7 and 8), printed by G. Hässe und Söhre, Prague] and Brongniart’s Histoire des végétaux fossiles (1828–1837, 1837–1838, printed by G. Dufour & E. d’Ocagne, Paris). The text of all three works contains important insights into the nature of plant fossils and how they relate to modern-day vegetation. Significantly, however, they are also among the first published works to include accurate images of plant fossils, and thus raised the awareness of the scientific community as to the importance of such fossils. Schlotheim’s illustrations were based on his own drawings and were reproduced as etchings by the well-known botanical illustrator Johann Capieux of Leipzig. Sternberg’s illustrations were based on original artwork prepared by various artists, many of whom were essentially landscape and portrait artists. The final illustrations were again reproduced as etchings, prepared by another eminent botanical illustrator Jacob Sturm of Nuremberg. Brongniart’s illustrations are quite different, being lithographs, prepared by Mme Ve Noël, L. Houloup and ‘Thierry frères’. They were based on drawings by various artists, although most were, in effect, copies of originals prepared by Brongniart.

Abstract The Hugh Miller collection (mainly NMS G.1859.33) held at the National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, consists of 591 palaeobotanical specimens, 54 of which are of type and/or figured status. A preliminary assessment of this collection, in the light of renewed interest in Hugh Miller’s works in the bicentenary of his birth (2002), has provided new insights into this remarkable Scottish geologist. Miller, through writing popular articles in both newspaper and book format, publicized the various subdisciplines of palaeontology including palaeobotany. His distinctive writing style promoted public understanding of the science, and helped his readers to grasp the concept of deep time and the intricacies of past worlds. An appendix of type and figured material based on Miller’s collection is included.

Abstract Baron Achille de Zigno (1813–1892) of Padua published dozens of articles on the early Mesozoic floras from the Venetia region of Italy. His magna opera , however, were the two volumes of the Flora fossilis formationis oolithicae (Volume 1 (1856–1867) and Volume 2 (1873–1885), Padua University Press, Padua). In these he aimed to put the Venetian Jurassic plants in context with what were then considered oolitic floras from around the world. Like many of his contemporaries, his research has been revised both taxonomically and stratigraphically, so that the fossil plants he described from the calcari grigi are now regarded as older than Middle Jurassic. His collection of over 3000 specimens of Italian fossil plants, now kept in the University of Padua, continued to attract researchers during the 20th century from across Europe who used light microscopy to investigate them. Today electron microscopy is being applied to Baron Zigno’s specimens that are of importance not only as representatives of a rare Middle Liassic flora but also of value in the palaeobiogeography of the Tethys area in Lower Jurassic times.

Abstract The need to conserve geological features and palaeontological sites is an increasingly recognized part of conservation policy in many countries. In the USA, Canada and Great Britain this need was emphasized by the discovery in the 19th century of spectacular plant fossils that were in danger of disappearing through overcollecting or through the effects of weathering. People were spurred into action by these all too obvious dangers to save the plant fossils where they had been found as ‘monuments’ or ‘records of the past’. The methodology for protection varied from one country to another through differences in both land ownership and legislation. The backgrounds to the discoveries, the reasons for their conservation, and the methods employed for their protection are outlined and discussed.

Abstract Palaeobotanical studies in the NW of England could be said to originate with Mr William Barton and Charles Leigh in the latter part of the 17th century. These individuals merely noted the existence of fossil plant remains in the Coal Measure deposits around Lancashire. However, it was not until the 19th century before any real studies were carried out on the flora found within the Lancashire Coalfield. The Ravenhead collection is primarily made up of an Upper Carboniferous Langsettian flora, fish and bivalves with some insect remains. The collector was Liverpool Museum volunteer Reverend Henry Hugh Higgins and the collection was made from a railway construction site in 1870. The site exposed two coal seams known as the Upper and Lower Ravenhead Coals. The collection was exhibited at the British Association meeting held in Liverpool in 1870 and at once created a great deal of interest. W. Carruthers remarked upon the fine preservation and the importance of having material where the separate components can now with certainty be shown to be part of the same plant. Higgins published the first paper on the Ravenhead collection in 1871. A year later, museum assistant Frederick Price Marrat produced an extensive paper for the Liverpool Geological Society in which he attempted a more detailed description of the Ravenhead flora. This paper described 58 true and seed fern specimens with variations, nine types that included five holotypes and two syntypes. However, Marrat admitted he found identification of plant remains by relying on external features extremely difficult and Williamson’s methods of examining the microstructures of fossilized material were not yet in use. He published a further paper in 1872, listing the Sphenopsids found at the Ravenhead site. The bulk of the Ravenhead collection, including most of the types, survived the May 1941 blitz that virtually destroyed the museum. Unfortunately, all of the Ravenhead display material was lost in the fire.

Abstract Marie Stopes was unquestionably one of the most remarkable women of the 20th century. The long-term significance of her work in pioneering the defence of women’s rights, and in urging the general acceptance of contraception, far exceeds that of her contributions to palaeobotany. Nonetheless, between 1903 and 1935 she published a series of palaeobotanical papers that placed her among the leading half-dozen British palaeobotanists of her time. Her book Ancient Plants (1910; Blackie, London) was a successful pioneering attempt to popularize the subject for a non-botanical audience. Her contributions on the earliest angiosperms, on the formation of coal-balls, and, above all, on the nature and terminology of coal macerals have had a lasting impact on palaeobotanical thought.

Abstract James Lomax was born in Radcliffe, near Bury, Lancashire, the son of a colliery manager. After a meagre formal education he too began work in the mines. There his interest in geology was aroused by the abundant fossil plant remains in the Coal Measure rocks. He became particularly keen on the applications of the microscope to geological science and developed some skill in the production of the thin sections necessary for geological microscopy. Lomax was initially encouraged by W.C. Williamson of Owens College, for whom he began to prepare fossil plant thin sections around 1885. Ultimately, Lomax gave up his job as a collier and became a full-time commercial manufacturer of geological thin sections. James Lomax was aided by his son Joseph in a business that produced sections from the complete range of geological materials; however, he became especially noted for his fossil plant preparations. From 1906 the business was rather more formally constituted as the Lomax Palaeobotanical Company Limited, and received sponsorship from a group of academic palaeobotanists for whom Lomax collected and prepared fossil plant sections. The output from the Lomax workshops was a significant component of the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of palaeobotany and the evidence for that is still present in the collections of many museums and academic institutions. The business model under which Lomax operated, however, did not always serve the best interests of academic research.