Volume 23, No. 1 - June 2000
|NEWSLETTER of the INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION of PALYNOLOGICAL SOCIETIES|
MESSAGE FROM OUT-GOING PRESIDENT
I ask all of the councillors and officers to join me in welcoming ANNICK LE THOMAS as Seventh President of the International Federation of Palynological Societies. Annick has served IFPS for many years as Representative to IUBS, and as Councillor. I look forward to serving Dr. Le Thomas as Past President, and I especially thank the other candidates. Twenty five votes were received by the Secretary Treasurer in this election.
The following items are to be considered at the meeting in Nanjing. This announcement is being made in the future tense inasmuch as we are trying to get this newsletter out before the Congress convenes. In any case, we need to publicize the proposed constitutional amendment one more time.
Plenary Session: Saturday, June 24, 2000 5:00 PM Agenda:
- Introduction of Current IFPS Officers
- Explanation of IFPS and IPC History
- Voting on the *Amendments to the IFPS Constitution
*Article 17 the IFPS Constitution states, "The Constitution may be amended only at a plenary session of the General Assembly. The text of any proposed amendment(s) shall be circulated to all members through the affiliated societies at least six months before the plenary session."
Therefore in accordance with the IFPS Constitution, the June 27, 1996
meeting of the IFPS Council, I post the following proposed amendment to the IFPS Constitution, to be voted upon by the IFPS Members present at the Plenary Session at the opening of IPC 10, Nanjing China, June 24-30,2000.
The amendment to Article 16 reads.
"Up to $6000 shall be made available to the organizing committee of the International Palynological Congress, upon their request, to assist with the expenses that may be incurred for organizing the Congress. The amount loaned shall be returned to the Secretary-Treasurer of the IFPS; and inaddition, half of any profit accruing from the meeting shall be transmitted to the IFPS along with a detailed account of the financial status of the Congress".
It is to replace the last sentence of Article 16, which currently reads.
"Surplus funds remaining after the final settlement of financial affairs of each International Palynological Congress shall be sent in trust to the Secretary-Treasurer of the IFPS for transmittal, if needed, to the organizing committee for the next congress."
NOTE FROM THE NEW PRESIDENT
As we enter the New Millennium, it is a great honor for me to have been chosen as the New President of the International Federation of Palynological Societies, a Federation which has
achieved a tremendous amount during almost 50 years. Greetings to all palynologists
of our many IFPS affiliated societies! During my term of office I will endeavor to
further the aims of our Federation, which have been outlined and developed over the
years by my predecessors.
Our International Palynological Federation has grown through a slow evolutionary process. Now, for the first time, a woman has been elected. Is it a forewarning for the New Millennium? I cannot say, but I know it will be a serious commitment for me. Indeed, the New Century will have to develop a unified strategy to the study of biodiversity. Palynology is one of the many links in the chain of disciplines involved in a better appreciation of our Earth's resources. We must continue to ensure its status as a very important tool in integrated programs of Biodiversity Science. Our discipline provides a wide range of data that can help us to understand the biology and development of plants, the effect of biodiversity, plant-animal interactions, and of man's intervention on ecosystem functioning, the origins, phylogeny, origins and maintenance, and change of biodiversity, the conservation of biodiversity, the changes to climates during the past, and so on. Palynologists continue to have a large and important contribution to provide to the biological and geological sciences.
Now that we are at a significant scientific crossroad, we must look forward and embrace necessary changes in the way that we work and communicate. So, we need to continue to consolidate and further our channels of communication through the Councillors of our constituent national societies which comprise the International Federation. We have a powerful network that can enable greater involvement in international multidisciplinary projects. However, to get back to basics, PALYNOS remains our most valuable communication tool. To keep abreast of the international palynological scene it is necessary for each of the societies to continue to send us their regular newsletters, and/or communicate newsworthy items regarding research, meetings, conferences, individuals, etc. Send contributions directly to Anne-Marie LEZINE, the new PALYNOS Editor. The new Secretary-Treasurer will be Madeline HARLEY,
previously one of the three Vice-Presidents. You will find their addresses in this
newsletter. With the new Presidency we experience a Transatlantic move from America
to Europe. I am confident that during the next four years, with the new European
collaboration, we will successfully maintain the health and future of our Federation
at a high level.
Finally, my thanks to Owen DAVIS and to Scott ANDERSON for shepherding the IFPS so well through the past four years, and to Frederick RICH for the excellence of the PALYNOS newsletter.
I look forward to seeing many of you in Nanjing in June at what promises to be a very special and appropriate venue for the first International Palynological Congress of the New Millennium, and the 10th of our Congresses.
Annick Le Thomas, President of IFPS
Annick Le Thomas (President, IFPS)
Laboratoire de Biologie et Evolution des Plantes vasculaires
Museum national d'Histoire naturelle
16, rue Buffon, F- 75005 Paris
TEL 331 40 79 33 66
FAX 331 40 79 33 42
Madeline Harley (Secretary-Treasurer, IFPS)
Palynology Unit, The Herbarium
Royal Botanic Gardens
Surrey TW9 3AE
TEL 44 181 332 5263
FAX 44 181 332 5278
Anne-Marie Lezine (Newsletter Editor, IFPS)
URA 1761 Palééontologie et Stratigraphie
Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie
4, Place Jussieu
75252 PARIS CEDEX 05
TEL 1 91 26 96 53
Francisca Oboh-Ikuenoba (AASP Councillor)
Dept. Of Geology & Geophysics
125 Mcnutt Hall
University of Missouri
Rolla, Missouri 65401-0249
TEL 314 341 6946
FAX 314 341 6935
Prof. Reed Wicander (AASP Councillor)
Central Michigan Univ
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48859
TEL 517 774 3179
FAX 517 774 3439
Annick Le Thomas (AIPA/IAAP Councillor)
Directeur, Laboratoire de Phytomorphologie, EPHE
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle
16, rue Buffon
75005 PARIS FRANCE
Tel : (1) 40 79 33 66
Fax : (1) 40 79 33 42
Ana Teresa Romero Garcia (APLE Councillor)
Departmento De Botanica
Facultad De Ciencias
Universidad De Granada
18001 Granada Españia
958 243 394
948 243 254
Jacques-Lois de Beaulieu (APLF Councillor)
L.B.H.P., case 451
Faculté de St Jérôme
Bd Escadrille Normandie-Niemen
13397 MARSEILLE Cedex 20
Tel: 011 33 4 91 28 80 12
FAX: 4 91 28 86 68
Edwige Masure (APLF Councillor)
Lab. De Micropaleont., Casier 104
Univ. P. et M. Curie
4 Place Jessieu T 15-25, 4 Etage
75230 Paris Cedex 05
TEL 011 33 44 27 49 87
FAX 011 33 44 27 38 31
Prof. Dr. Thomas Litt (APP Councillor)
Institute for Paleontology
University of Bonn
D-53115 Bonn, GERMANY
Phone:0228 732 736
FAX: 0228 733 509
Gail L. Chmura (CAP Councillor)
Department of Geography
805 Sherbrooke St. W
Montreal H3A 2K6 Quebec CANADA
Geoffrey Clayton (CIMP Councillor)
FAX 353 1 677 3072
Florentin P. Paris (CIMP Councillor)
Laboratoire de Paleontologie et Stratigraphie
Universite de Rennes
35042 Rennes Cedex
TEL 33 99 28 69 89
FAX 33 99 28 67 80
Stefan Piasecki (CPS Councillor)
Denmarks OG Groenlands Geol. Unders.
Oster Voldgade 10
DK-1350 Kobenhavn K DENMARK
45 33 11 88 66
45 33 93 53 52
Dr. Laura Sadori (GPSBI Councillor)
Dip. Biologia Vegetale
Universitàà "La Sapienza"
P.le Aldo Moro, 5
Eugenio Dominguez-Vilches (IAA Councillor)
Dept. De Biologia Vegetal & Ecologia
Univ. Of Cordoba
Avda San Alberto Magno S/n
E-14004 Cordoba Spain
957 411 211
Madeline Harley (LSPSG Councillor)
Palynology Unit, The Herbarium
Royal Botanic Gardens
Surrey TW9 3AE
FAX 44 181 332 5278
Jiri Bek (OCP Councillor)
Paleontology, Geological Inst.
Academy of Sciences
FAX 011 42 2 243 11578
Oscar A. Abbink (PK Councillor)
Lab. Palynology and Palaeobotany
3584 CD Utrecht
TEL 31 30 253 2402
FAX 31 30 253 5096
Michael K. MacPhail (PPAA Councillor)
Archaeology & Natural History
School of Pacific Studies
Australia National University
CANBERRA, A.C.T. 0200
TEL 61 6 249 3676
FAX 61 6 253 1032
Emile Roche (PPMB Councillor)
Musee Royal De l'Afrique Centrale
Section Ecologie et Forestiere
Leuvense Steenweg 13
TEL 38 2 769 54 09
FAX 32 2 767 02 42
Lolita J. Bulalacao (PPS Councillor)
Philippine Palynological Society
c/o Botany Division
P. Burgos St., P.O. Box 2659
tel 011 632 527 11 46
fax 011 632 527 03 06
Liu Gengwu (PSC Councillor)
Nanjing Inst. of Geol. & Palaeontol.
Nanjing, 210008 P.R. China
Masako Sado (PSJ Councillor)
Dept. Environmental Hygene
School of Pharmaceutical Science
Miyama 2-2-1 Funabashi
Chiba 274-8510 JAPAN
81 47 472 2539
FAX 81 47 476 6195
Takashi Uchiyama (PSJ Councillor)
Chiba Keizai College
Inageku Chibasi 263 JAPAN
FAX 81 043 252 6050
H. P. Gupta (PSL Councillor)
Birbal Sahni Inst. of Palaeobotany
53 University Rd.
FAX 011 91 522 246 169
Dorota Nalepka (PSP Councillor)
W.Szafer Institute of Botany
Polish Academy of Sciences
31-512 Cracow, Poland
(48) 12 421-51-44
fax (48) 12 421-97-90
Nataliya S. Bolikhovskaya (RPC Councillor)
Moscow State University
GSP-3 Vorobevy Gory
119899 Moscow, RUSSIA
h 095 931 6252
w 095 939 2830
FAX 095 932 8836
Alexey V. Gomankov (RPC Councillor)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Pyzhevsky per., 7
h 095 230 8164
w 095 333 5535
Kaya Ertug (TCP Councillor)
Turkey Petrolleri Anomin Ortakligi
Mustafa Kemal Mahallesi
2 Cadde, No. 86
06520 Ankara, Turkey
TEL 90 4 286 9100
FAX 90 4 286 7808
Dr. Lucy Edwards (Representative to IUGS)
970 National Center
Reston Virginia 22092
TEL 703 648-5272
FAX 703 648-6684
Annick Le Thomas (Representative to IUBS)
Lab. de Phytomorphologie
Ecole Pratiaue des Hautes Etudes
16, rue Buffon
FAX 011 33 1 40 793 342
First Circular Announcing The Tenth Brazilia; Meeting Of Paleobotanists and Palynologists (X REUNIAO DE PALEOBOTANICOS E PALINOLOGOS), 11-16 December, 2000 Universidade Guarulhos, Guarulhos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
The tenth Brazilian Meeting of Paleobotanists and Palynologists
(X Reuniao de Paleobotanicos e Palino1ogos X RPP) will be held
December 11-16, 2000, at the Guarulhos University in the Greater
Sao Paulo metropolitan area.
As in all previous meetings in this series, this year's program offers a broad spectrum of activities, divided approximately equally between technical sessions (oral and poster presentations) and special events, including keynote addresses and round-table discussions on the following:
Phytostratigraphy of the Glossopteris flora.
Phytogeographic patterns: Paleoenvironmental implications of present and past distributions of plants.
Palynostratigraphy of Mesozoic sequences applied to petroliferous systems: Methods of high-resolution study and perspectives.
Palynostratigraphic correlations of the Late Paleozoic of Gondwana.
We enthusiastically invite all interested persons to attend. The registration fee is U$70, payable by check to Antonio Roberto Saad. Abstracts for oral presentations (15 minutes plus 5 minutes for discussion) and posters should be mailed by 30 June, 2000 in hard form and 3.5" diskette (WORD 97 or 98 format using Times New Roman 12 font and 1.5 spacing). All text, title, author's names and affiliations, etc, should fit within a single A4 page (210 x 297mm) with 3.5 cm upper margin, 2.0 cm right margin, 3.0 cm left margin, and 2.5 cm lower margin.
Information on accommodations and how to get to the meeting will he available in the Second Circular to be sent out in July. For further information, contact:
Profa. Dra. Maria Judite Qarcia
(President, Organizing Committee)
Laborat6rio de Geociencias Praqa Tereza Cristina,
01 - Guarulhos, SP, Brazil 07023-070
Telephone: 55 (11) 1708
Fax. 55 (11) 1702 or -1694
IX Russian Palynological Conference
The IXth Russian Palynological Conference was held at the Institute of Geology and Development of Fossil Fuels (Moscow) from 13 to 17 September, 1999. One hundred forty specialists gathered from 33 cities of Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Voronezh, Tomsk, Saratov, Vyatka, Kazan', Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Tyumen', Ulan-Ude, Chita, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski, Yakutsk, Magadan, Vladivostok, etc.) as well as from the countries of Baltia and CIS.
The theme of the Conference was announced as "Urgent problems of palynology before the Millennium". Its scientific programme was suc- cessfully realized due to the active work in planning plenary and sectional meetings. The following sections and seminars were organized:
Palynology and ecology congeners O. F. Dzyuba and V. F. Tarasevich).
Precambrian and Lower Palaeozoic (convenors N. A. Volkova and I.K. Chepikova).
Devonian and Carboniferous, (convenors T. V. Byvsheva, V. V. Menner, and L. N. Peterson)
Permian and Triassic (convenors A. V. Gomankov, O. P. Yaroshenko, and A. A. Tsaturova)
Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous (convenors L. V. Rovnina and S. B.Smirnova)
Neogene and Pleistocene (convenors N. S. Bolikhovskaya, I.A. Karevskaya, V.V. Pisareva, V. S. Volkova)
Holocene and modern deposits (convenors Y. K. Elovicheva, E. S. Pleshivtseva, and V. I. Khomutova)
Microalgae (convenors M. A. Akhemetiev, N. I. Zaporozhets, V. I. Ilyina, V. A. Fedorova)
Diatoms (convenors Z. I. Gleser and L. V. Rasumovski)
Intersectional seminar on computer analyses of palynological data (convenors M. V. Oshurkova, K. V. Kremenetski, P. E. Tarasov)
Intersectional seminar on paleophytogeography (convenors M. A. Akhmetiev,V. A. Krasilov, M. P. Doludenko)
One hundred ten reports were presented and discussed. They concerned a number of topics including detailed stratification and correlation of oil and gas bearing rocks, paleogeography, environmental state and other urgent problems. Significant interest was aroused by the report of corresponding member of Russian Academy of Sciences A. M. Zhamoida on the history of the Academy.
The participants of the conference noted the high scientific level of the presented reports, a great deal of data and the use of new methods for their interpretation. The results obtained demonstrate that palynology today retains its leading role among the biostratigraphic research methods in such directions as detailed stratigraphy, correlation of events in space and time, and paleogeographic reconstructions based on precise chronological information.
The coincidence of boundaries and units recognized by means of palynology, paleozoology and other methods was mentioned in many cases. This allows us to confidently correlate natural events and reveal both global and local factors that caused the changes in vegetation, climate, biogeocoenoses, and rhythms of sedimentation.
The extremely high level of some studies is noteworthy. Particularly, we note the investigations of the coloniality among Precambrian microorganisms and the stratigraphic applications of data on the evolution of their co unities as well as studies in the biostratigraphy of the Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician. It was clearly demonstrated that the acritarchs have considerable biostratigraphical potential in the Cambrian and Ordovician, providing zonation which can rival and supplement the traditional scales based on such groups of fauna as
conodonts and trilobites.
Many interesting and new ideas were presented in the reports treating the morphology and ecology of pollen grains in the light of their ultrastructure, viz. the communication by I. I. Gabaraeva entitled "Exine substructure: direct and reversal approach"; by V. F. Tarasevich entitled "Specialization features within the family Araceae in connection with the electron microscopic investigation of exine"; and by O. F. Dzyuba entitled "Pollen as a model of control over the animal, human and plant male generative sphere state under conditions of industrial centers and cities".
There is interest in creating regional and personal palynological data bases with the broad participation of palynologists from Russia and CIS in the international programmes.
The conference testified to the increase in international contacts among palynologists, as well as higher levels of investigations both in palynology and adjacent branches of science, and the use of modern technologies in palynological studies. The presented reports confirmed the leading role that palynology occupies in the research into the floristic and vegetational history of the Earth as well as in biostratigraphy, paleoecology and environmental analyses, and clarified the development of the theory and practical aspects of palynostratigraphy, paleofloristics., paleoclimatology, paleoecology, and environmental sciences.
The next Xth Russian Palynological Conference "Methodical aspects of palynology" will be held at the same Institute of Geology and Development of Fossil Fuels (Moscow) in 2002.
N. S. Bolikhovskaya
Department of Geography
Moscow State University
117234 Moscow Russia
A. V. Gomankov
Russian Academy of Sciences
109017 Moscow Russia
L. V. Rovnina
Institute of Geology &
Development of Fossil Fuels
117312 Moscow Russia.
NEW (OLD) PUBLICATIONS SOON TO BE BACK IN PRINT AND A AVAILABLE AGAIN
Textbook of Pollen Analysis, 4th. edition by Knut Faegri, Johs. Iversen, Peter Emil Kaland and Knut Krzywinski. ISBN 1-930665-01-6 This book is a reprint of the fourth edition of the Textbook of Pollen Analsis and is unique in its approach as it discusses both the practical and theoretical aspects of palynology. It uses palynological techniques as tools for solving problems in Quaternary geology, ecology and archeology. This edition of this standard reference has the same objectives as the earlier ones but the objectives have been widened, particularly the archaeological aspects. There are over 130 illustrations and the identification keys have been thoroughly revised and are now illustrated.
"...will certainly benefit all in understanding the principles of pollen analysis. All students, palynologists and libraries should have it as a textbook for reference." Marine Geolology.
"Classic and much-used text book... will remain an indispensable book for those interested in paleoecology and practicing pollen analysis." The New Phycologist
"...unsurpassed in its restriction to basic principles, breadth of coverage, clarity of expression and emphasis on ecology." Review of Paleobotan and Palynology
The Seed Identification Manual by Alexander C. Martin and William D. Barkley. ISBN 1- 930665-03-2
This title was first published by the University of California Press and is an attempt to deal with the long-standing need for a reference work dealing exclusively with seed identification. The imediate aim of the manual is to help agriculturists, foresters, wildlife
biologists and others interested in land-use programs to identify the
seeds in their particular fields of interest. The authors have, in the
main, restricted the content of the description to those characteristics
useful for identification. The descriptions are, to the extent possible,
nontechnical and therefore useful to a broader range of interests and skills.
For further information on these publications, point your browser to http://www.blackburnpress.com
Frances Reed, Publisher
The Blackburn Press
(973) 228-7077 (voice)
(973) 228-7276 (FAX)
In the previous edition of this Newsletter, I thanked various individuals for their contributions to paleobotanical aspects of the nomenclatural sessions at the Botanical Congress in St Louis. However, I omitted mention of Bill Chaloner, who was certainly very much involved in the discussions. I here thank Bill for his continuing significant contributions and apologize for inadvertently omitting his name.
Professor Jane Gray, Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, died January 9, 2000 of cancer. She was born in Nebraska on April 19, 1929 to Muriel Barrett Gray and Col. Ernest Gray, a West Point Graduate. Jane Gray received her B.S. degree from Radcliffe College in 1951 and her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1958. Her dissertation dealt with fossil pollen and spores of the Miocene in eastern Oregon. She served as an Instructor in the Department of Geology, University of Texas, Austin, for several years until marrying a fellow professor in the Biology Department, which automatically lead to her dismissal owing to nepotism rules in force at the time. Following this she held a position in the
Desert Research Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson for several years, where she continued her work on Tertiary pollen and spores. She then moved to the Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon, Eugene. Subsequently she joined the Department of Biology at the University of Oregon where she served until her death. She taught both undergraduate students and graduate students in biology, geology, geography, and anthropology.
Her research career, supported in large part by the National Science Foundation and the Whitehall Foundation, included a number of outstanding discoveries. Her work on the early evolution of land plants showed that higher land plants first appeared in the Middle Ordovician 40 million years earlier than had been previously thought. This discovery, which faced great opposition, is widely accepted today and used in many textbooks. Her masterful book- length monograph on nonmarine paleoecology is widely used as a synthesis of what was known in this area up through 1988.
At the time of her death she was investigating the nature of atmospheric carbon dioxide present since the Cambrian. Her compilation and correlation of a massive amount of botanical and geological data will substantially revise previous estimates. This work will be completed by her colleagues. She was also working on a groundbreaking amount of evidence for a widespread Precambrian nonmarine biota, chiefly at the bacterial level.
She taught and mentored many students who found her work and ideas highly original. Her enthusiasm encouraged many to forge ahead in their respective areas. Her death deprives the scientific community of a highly original and innovative worker who undoubtably would have provided even more significant contributions had time permitted. She will be sorely missed by many colleagues, students, and friends.
Dr. Gray was devoted to animal rights and welfare. Memorial contributions may be made to Greenhill Humane Society. http://www.green-hill.org/ There was no memorial service at her request.
Batten, David J., ____________, and Harland, Rex, 1999. Palaeoenvironmental significance of a monospecific assemblage of dinoflagellate cysts from the Miocene Clarkia beds, Idaho, USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 153:161-177
Boucot A.J., ____________, and Hoskins, Donald M. 1994. New hughmilleriid (Eurypterida) occurrence from the Tuscarora Formation, central Pennsylvania, and its environmental interpretation. Bulletin New York State Museum 481: 21-23.
____________. 1993. Major Paleozoic land plant evolutionary bio events. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 104: 153-169.
____________., and Shear, William. 1992. Early life on land. American Scientist. 80: 444-456
____________. 1991. Tetrahedraletes, Nodospora, and the "cross" tetrad, an accretion of myth. Pages 49 87 In: Pollen and spores, patterns of diversification. Blackmore, S. and Barnes, Susan H. (editors) Systematics Association Special Volume. 44.
Babcock Loren E, ____________, Boucot, Arthur J., Himes, Gregory T., and Siegele, Paul K. 1990. First Silurian conulariids from Paraguay. Journal of Paleontology. 64: 897-902.
____________. 1988. Aspects of freshwater paleoecology and biogeography. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 62.
Boucot Arthur J., and ____________. 1987. The Tethyan concept during the Paleozoic. Pages 31-47. In: McKenzie, Kenneth G. (editor) Shallow Tethys 2., proceedings of the International Symposium on Shallow Tethys 2, Wagga Wagga, 15-17 September 1986.
Boucot A.J., ____________, and Van Houten, F.B. 1986. Oolitic ironstones and contrasting Ordovician and Jurassic paleogeography, discussion and reply. Geology (Boulder). 14: 634-635.
Boucot A.J., Eldredge, Niles, ____________, Pojeta, John Jr., and Theron, J.N. 1986. Devonian invertebrates from the Bokkeveld Group below the Karoo succession near Sutherland. Annals of the Geological Survey, Republic of South Africa 20:119-128.
____________, Colbath, G. Kent, de Faria, Alvaro, Boucot, Arthur J., Bohr, D. M. 1985. Silurian age fossils from the Paleozoic Parana Basin, southern Brazil. Geology (Boulder). 13: 521-525.
____________. 1985. The microfossil record of early land plants, advances in understanding of early terrestrialization, In: Evolution and environment in the Late Silurian and Early Devonian. Chaloner, W. G. and Lawson, J. D. (editors). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences. 309: 167-195
Sherwood, Pike, Martha, A., and ____________. 1985. Silurian fungal remains, probable records of the class Ascomycetes. Lethaia. 18: 1-20
____________. 1985. Interpretation of co occurring megafossils and pollen, a comparative study with Clarkia as an example. Pages 185 244. In: Smiley, Charles J (editor) Late Cenozoic history of the Pacific Northwest, interdisciplinary studies on the Clarkia fossil beds of northern Idaho.
____________. 1985. Ralph Works Chaney. Biographical Memoirs. 55, Pages 135-161. National Academy of Sciences.
____________, Beeunas, Mark A., and Knauth, L. Paul. 1985. Preserved stable isotopic signature of subaerial diagenesis in the 1.2 b.y. Mescal Limestone, central Arizona, implications for the timing and development of a terrestrial plant cover, discussion and reply. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 96: 1594-1595.
____________. 1984. Ordovician Silurian land plants, the interdependence of ecology and evolution. In: Autecology of Silurian organisms. Bassett Michael G., and Lawson J D (editors). Special Papers in Palaeontology. 32.
Strother, Paul K., Traverse, Alfred, ____________, Massa, Dominique, and Boucot, A.J. 1983. Caradocian land plant microfossils from Libya, discussion and reply. Geology (Boulder). 11:316-318.
Boucot A.J., and ____________. 1983. A Paleozoic Pangaea. Science. 222: 571-581.
Boucot A.J., ____________, Fang Run shen, Yang Xue chang, Li Zai ping, and Zhang Ning 1982. Devonian calcrete from China, its significance as the first Devonian calcrete from Asia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 19: 1532-1534.
____________, Massa, Dominique, and Boucot, A.J. 1982. Caradocian land plant microfossils from Libya. Geology (Boulder). 10: 197-201.
Boucot, Arthur J., and ____________. 1982. Paleozoic data of climatological significance and their use for interpreting Silurian Devonian climate. In: Climate in Earth history. Pages 189 198. Natl. Acad. Press.
Boucot, A.J., and ____________.1980. A Cambro Permian Pangaeic model consistent with lithofacies and biogeographic data. Pages 389-419. In: The continental crust and its mineral deposits. Strangway, D.W. (editor) Special Paper Geological Association of Canada. 20,
____________, and Boucot, Arthur J. 1980. Microfossils and evidence of land plant evolution. Lethaia. 13: 174.
Boucot Arthur J., and ____________. 1979. Epilogue. Pages 465 482. In: Historical biogeography, plate tectonics, and the changing environment. Jane Gray and Boucot, Arthur J. (editors). Proceedings of the Annual Biology Colloquium and Selected Papers. 37,
Smiley, Charles J., ____________, and Huggins, L. Maurice. 1975. Preservation of Miocene fossils in unoxidized lake deposits, Clarkia, Idaho, with a section on fossil Insecta by W. F. Barr and J. M. Gillespie. Journal of Paleontology. 49: 833-844.
____________, and Boucot A.J. 1975. Color changes in pollen and spores, a review. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 86: 1019-1033.
____________, Laufeld, Sven, and Boucot, A.J. 1974. Silurian Trilete Spores and Spore Tetrads from Gotland, Their Implications for Land Plant Evolution. Science. 185: 260-263.
____________, and Axelrod, D. I. 1974. Memorial to Ralph Works Chaney, 1890 - 1971. Memorials Geological Society of America. 3, Pages 60 68.
____________, Boucot A.J. 1971. Early Silurian spore tetrads from New York, earliest New World evidence for vascular plants?. Science. 173: 918-921.
____________, Kittleman, L. R. 1967. Geochronometry of the Columbia River basalt and associated floras of eastern Washington and western Idaho. American Journal of Science. 265: 257-291.
____________. 1965. Palynological techniques. Pages 471 481. In: Handbook of paleontological techniques.
____________, Sohma, Kankichi. 1964. Fossil Pachysandra from Western America with a comparative study of pollen in Pachysandra and Sarcococca. American Journal of Science. 262: 1159-1197
____________. 1964. Northwest American Tertiary palynology, the emerging picture. Pages 21-30. In: Ancient Pacific floras The pollen story. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.
Martin. Paul S., and ____________. 1962. Pollen analysis and the Cenozoic. Science. 137: 103-111.
____________. 1961. The emerging pollen picture in the American Northwest. Proceedings of the Pacific Science Congress. 144. Pages
____________. 1961. Early Pleistocene paleoclimatic record from Sonoran Desert, Arizona. Science. 133: 38-39.
Smiley, Charles J., and ____________. 1960. Cretaceous amber from the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. Langenheim Ralph Louis Jr., Geological Society of America Bulletin. 71: 1345-1356.
____________. 1960. Micropaleobotanical research on the late Tertiary sediments of Arizona. Arizona Geological Society Digest. 3: 145-149.
____________. 1960. Fossil chlorophycean algae from the Miocene of Oregon. Journal of Paleontology. 34: 453-463.
____________. 1960. Temperate pollen genera in the Eocene (Claiborne) flora, Alabama. Science. 132: 808-810.
____________. 1960. Late Tertiary microflora from the Basin and Range Province, Arizona. Science. 132: 147-148.
Compiled by Mark Turner and other University of Oregon Scientists, with a bibliography submitted by Owen Davis.
Flora of the Shroud of Turin. Avinoam Danin, Alan D. Whanger, Uri Baruch, and Mary Whanger, 1999, Missouri Botanical Garden Press. 52 pages, 25 B&W figures. US $14.95
Late last year a new book published by the Missouri Botanical Gardens became the latest entry into the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The book focuses mostly on the evidence of the Shroud's floral remains and presents new interpretations as to why the four authors believe the floral remains confirm that the Shroud's origin comes from a period earlier than the eighth century AD, that it originally came from a place in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and that the Shroud was first used during the spring months of March and April (Easter?). So, I ask a question that has plagued devoted Christians and scientists for centuries. Is the Shroud of Turin actually the linen cloth that covered the body of Jesus after he was crucified, and can its authenticity be proven by the physical evidence that still exists?
For those who are not familiar with the Shroud of Turin, a bit of background information might be helpful. The Shroud is purported to have
been the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and shows a full-length
front and back image of what appears to be a crucified man. It is
made of fine linen and is 4.35 x 1.1 meters in size. The history
that some associate with the Shroud begins with the writings of an
early Christian historian, Eusebius, who reported that in the year
AD 30, Thaddeus, one of Jesus' disciples, gave a "cloth with an
image on it" to king Abgar V, whose palace was in Edessa, Turkey.
At the time Abgar V was very ill with what modern scholars believe
may have been leprosy. However, after Abgar V looked at and touched
the cloth, he was miraculously healed. The news of his cure spread
rapidly and soon many pilgrims flocked to Edessa to see and touch
the cloth. In A.D. 944 Romanus I, Emperor of the Byzantine Empire,
wanted the "magic" cloth, which by then was being called the Mandylion.
This cloth is mentioned by Byzantine historians but they say that
the "Mandylion" contained only a facial view of Jesus. If the
Mandylion and the Shroud are supposed to be the same item (as stated
by Wilson in his 1978 book) then I fail to understand why the early
Byzantine historians did not mention that the cloth contained both a
facial and full-body image of Jesus.
When the city of Edessa refused to give up their sacred cloth relic, Romanus I laid siege to the city until they surrendered the Mandylion. The cloth was then taken to the Byzantine capital of Constantinople by the victors. In AD 1204, an organization called the Knights of the Temple reportedly took the Mandylion (Shroud?) to France after the end of the Fourth Crusade. From France the Mandylion (Shroud?) reportedly went to England and then back to France. In AD 1453, the cloth (Shroud?) was given to the King of Savoy who took it to Turin where it has remained in the Chapel of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist ever since.
Almost from the first appearance of the cloth, (Mandylion?, Shroud?) questions were raised about its authenticity. Many aspects of the Shroud make it a challenging religious icon to examine and to try to validate. Add to the numerous careful scientific studies of the Shroud the element of religious faith and immediately a problem develops. Some believe the Shroud is authentic and view any attempt to disprove the Shroud's origin as the work of
"Satan" and other non-believers who will do anything to destroy or challenge
Christian faith. Thus, during the past four decades when any specialist has
attempted to use scientific or forensic techniques to examine the Shroud all
positive results have been accepted by the faithful, but all negative restlts
have been met with immediate skepticism and challenges by those same faithful
who then question the accuracy and technical validity of the scientific methods.
For example, during the 1980's small portions of the Shroud were removed and
sent to different laboratories for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon labs at
Oxford University dated the Shroud to AD 1322+ 50, labs at the University of
California (Berkeley) dated the Shroud to AD 1340+ 50, and other Shroud fragments
were dated by labs at the University of Arizona and the Zurich Institute for
Middle Energy Physics as being an average of AD 1325 + 65. All of these dates
were immediately challenged by the faithful who argued: 1) that the Shroud
fragments that were dated were pieces of linen used to "repair" the Shroud
during the 1300's, 2) that recent bacteria and fungi inside the examined
fibers provided a younger date, and 3) that the heat of a fire in AD 1532
[that scorched but did not burn the Shroud may have increased the 14C content
of the linen.
The radiocarbon dates and the many other scientific tests performed on the Shroud are numerous, but those data are not the focus of this book, nor my review. Instead, I want to concentrate on the botanical evidence - associated with the Shroud, about which t these authors have written. The botanical investigation of the Shroud began in November 1973, when Dr. Max Frei, Director of the Zurich Police Scientific Laboratory was allowed to use Scotch tape to collect "tape pulls" from the surface of the Shroud. According to Walter McCrone (1996), on the sticky surface of the 1973 tapes Frei collected slightly more than 100 pollen grains, many of which Frei then stated "made an unassailable case" for the Shroud's origin having been in the area of Israel/Turkey. Frei first reported these findings during a lecture presented in October of 1978, at The Congress of Turin. Of the 44 pollen types Frei reported, he claimed 34 types were from plants that grow only in Palestine (Israel) or Turkey. In McCrone's 1996 book, Judgment Day for the
Turin Shroud, McCrone reports that in 1981, Frei made a second lecture
presentation in Turin in which he stated that a reexamination of the
pollen on the original 1973 and the later 1978 tape samples
(he collected 26 additional Scotch tape samples in 1978) revealed not 34,
but a total of 54 different types of pollen each of which could be
traced to plants growing exclusively in areas of Palestine and Turkey.
The authors of the current book on the Shroud of Turin report slightly different numbers for the various pollen studies conducted by Frei. Nevertheless, the numbers of tapes and pollen taxa listed in both accounts (McCrone's book and this current book) are fairly similar, and I admit that I do not know which report is accurate because I do not have access to some of the original German and Italian notes, manuscripts, and obscure newsletter-type publications attributed to Frei and cited in both books. In an article Frei published in the late 1970's (Frei-Sulzer 1979) he says that he identified 48 (not 44) pollen types to the genus, and in some cases to the species level from the 1973 and 1978 sticky tapes.
Regardless of the actual number of different pollen taxa, the important issue is whether or not the pollen alone can verify that the Shroud had ever been in the region of Jerusalem, lsrael. One of the authors of the current book, Uri Baruch, reexamined the pollen still stuck to the original sticky tapes, slides, and other materials collected by Frei in 1973 and 1978 that were donated in 1986 to the Association for Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin (ASSIST) by Max Frei-Sulzer's widow. However, I can find no mention in any book, article, or personal letter indicating how the sticky tape samples or other pieces of evidence collected by Frei were stored and protected between the time of their collection and the most recent reexaminations conducted during the late 1990s.
In an effort to confirm the pollen taxa reportedly found by Frei on his two sets of sticky tape samples, Baruch reexamined the various tapes and used comparative modern pollen reference material he collected in Israel and other pollen reference samples originally collected by Frei and some that were collected by botanist Avinoam Danin. After his reexamination,
Baruch produced a pollen list, with most listed to the species level, for the
current book that shows he was able to confirm 18 of the 47 original pollen
taxa Frei reported as being found on the sticky tape samples he collected from
the Shroud in 1973. Baruch also reexamined the pollen that was stuck on 26
additional sticky tape samples that Frei collected from the Shroud in 1978.
Baruch reports that the 1978 sticky tapes contain a total of 313 pollen grains.
Of those, Baruch says he could make a "...positive identification on 44.6%."
As with his reexamination of the 1973 tapes, Baruch is again able to report
most pollen identifications from the tapes to the species level. In the 1978
sticky tape "positive ID" group Baruch lists 91 pollen grains of
Gundelia tournefortii L., which the authors later claim, "...becomes
not only a temporal indicator but also a geographical one."
In the book's discussion section, the authors continue by saying, "
It (Gundelia tournefortii) also grows at the center of the
Mediterranean territory of Israel in bathas or shrubby formations
that develop as seral communities in old fields succession."
Aside from the pollen data, the authors also rely upon other floral evidence to authenticate the Shroud. The other floral evidence consists of over 100 purported images of plant flowers, leaves, seeds, and stems on the Shroud, which they admit are, "Plant images (that) are rather difficult to see directly on the Shroud." The authors point out that, "...photographically enhanced photos (of the Shroud from negatives made by Enrie (in 1931) are excellent tools for discovering plant images on the Shroud." In all, the authors report finding 14 specific plant taxa that are revealed as faint "images" in photos taken of the Shroud. From the enhanced photos the authors again note that most images are distinct enough for the plants to be identified to the level of both genus and species. Some of the plant images the authors show in photos are ones they claim represent: Chrysanthemum (cf. C. coronarium L.), Pistacia atlantica Desf., Pistacia lentiscus L., Gundelia tournefortii L., and Zygophyllum dumosum Boiss. Of these five taxa the authors report that, "...Chrysanthemum coronarium is only suggestive and is not a conclusive geographical indicator for the Shroud." However, for other plant images they say, "Gundeliatou fortii may serve as an indicator plant for the entire
assemblage... and...its phenology is also indicative for chronology of the
Shroud; Gundelia tournefortii blooms in Israel between March and May."
Finally, the authors seal their claims for the Shroud's authenticity by
saying that the image of "...the bouquet containing Zygophyllum dumosum
appears on the body image's upper chest. Here, two young but well- developed
succulent leaves are visualized....... The only species of Zygophyllum in
Israel and its neighboring countries that sheds its pair of leaflets annually
is Z. dumosum." The authors then refer the reader to a map in their book
showing the distribution of this plant. According to the map the plant
grows "only" in a very restricted region of the Sinai Desert and in a narrow
band around the Dead Sea in western Jordan and eastern Israel.
As a botanist, I have been trained to be skeptical, and as a palynologist I am especially skeptical of pollen data that are not convincing. This is why I remain skeptical about the pollen evidence reported in this new book on the Shroud of Turin. I also do not believe that the current pollen studies can be used to authenticat the Shroud, mostly for the following reasons. First, I must assume that the authors based their precise (i.e., down to the species level) identifications of most of the pollen species mentioned in their new book on studies they made using only light microscopy because there is no mention of using SEM or TEM techniques. Second, the authors report that the basis for their pollen grain identifications was based on new studies they made of the original pollen trapped on the sticky tapes personally collected by Max Frei from the surface of the Shroud in 1973 and 1978. I have been conducting and teaching palynology for more than 30 years and for more than a decade have been conducting forensic studies using pollen. When doing forensic pollen studies I have sometimes used sticky tape pulls to collect surface pollen and dust from a crime scene. I find that making pollen identifications from such sticky tapes is often problematical at best. Fresh pollen trapped on sticky tapes, especially pollen from insect-pollinated taxa, often has surface lipids and waxes that obscure surface morphological features. In addition, fresh pollen contains cytoplasm that makes precise studies using L-0 analysis and detailed
|examinations of exine wall structure nearly impossible. Another point is that when pollen remains on sticky tape too long the individual grains begin to sink into the glue. Depending on the size and surface ornamentation of the pollen, part or most of the grain may sink to a point where the surrounding glue obscures essential morphological features. Third, much of the current authors' case for the authenticity of the Shroud rests on the precise identification of pollen from a single taxon, Gundelia tournefortii L. I obtained a vouchered reference sample of Gundelia tournefortii from one of the book's authors (Avinoam Danin). I used some of the fresh pollen from that sample and dusted it on cotton paper and then using Scotch tape (as Frei did) I made a tape pull. I also processed some of the flowers using acetolysis and then measured 50 of the processed pollen grains. I found that the equatorial diameter of Gundelia pollen ranged from a minimum of 35 microns up to a maximum of 49 microns (these measurements were made of the gain's body and excluded the spines and the spine bases). The average diameter for all 50 measured pollen grains was 43.92 microns. I admit that this size makes this pollen taxon among one of the larger ones in the Asteraceae. Nevertheless, I believe that size alone should not be used as the criterion to identify this pollen taxon to the species level. Gundelia tournefortii L. is only one of over 920 different plant genera and only one of over 19,000 separate species found in this large plant family (ASTERACEAE). Using only the optical resolution of a light microscope, some of the pollen types in this plant family can be separated to the genus level. However, less than a small fraction of one-percent of them can be correctly identified to the species level even at the highest levels of optical resolution possible when using a light microscope. Although I have not looked at all 19,000+ species of composites, I do not believe that Gundelia tournefortii is so unique that it could be included in that small fraction of one-percent of types that are absolutely unique at the light microscope level. If Gundelia tournefortii pollen were associated with evidence in a forensic case, I would not be willing to state under oath that I could confidently separate it from all other composites. If the authors of this current new book can do this, and can identify this pollen taxon to species, as they claim, then they should provide convincing evidence and a||
list of the techniques and criteria they used to do this. Fourth, even the
authors admit that the ecological range of Gundelia tournefortii includes
Israel as well as most of Turkey. There is purported evidence that the
Shroud may have been in Constantinople, Turkey, at one time. If so, could
the pollen, identified as being Gundelia tournefortii, have been introduced
at that time instead of centuries earlier in Israel? Some authors who have
written about the Shroud even speculate that these pollen grains are
contaminants that could have been added on purpose at a much later time.
In addition to pollen, there are more than 100 plant images purportedly found on the Shroud that can only be seen in photographs with negative enhancements. These are supposed to be the images of flowers and plants used as grave offerings, and were placed on, or in the Shroud at the time it was used when Jesus died. Of the 28 different plant taxa that the authors claim can be identified from these faint images, most are identified to both the genus and species level. Nevertheless, the only evidence the authors provide the readers of this new book are some faint B&W pictures that are supposed to be the images left by impressions of plant parts on the Shroud. A couple of the images are impressive, but many are not. My lack of training in photographic processes makes me ill- equipped to judge the reliability of the photographic process through which these plant images appeared after being enhanced from the original 1931 negatives. Nevertheless, I know that there are many new photographic techniques now available and there are a variety of new ways to use digital enhancements of faint images. I wonder why none of those newer techniques were mentioned or attempted. $o where does this leave the controversy about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin? I suspect not much has changed. Those who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud as a matter of their Christian faith will be happy to learn that this new book "confirms" what they have always believed. Those who have doubts about the age and purpose to which the Shroud is attributed will not have their doubts changed by the information in this new book. As skeptics, this second group will be able to find fault with the procedures that were used and the conclusions that were reached by the authors of
As a final comment, I want to mention that rarely have I found such total
disagreement among so many people as to the possible authenticity of something.
After initially reading this short, new book on the Shroud of Turin I had
too many unanswered questions to write a competent book review. Therefore,
during the next several months I read four more published books about the
Shroud (The DNA of God: The True Story of the Scientist who Reestablished
the Case for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and Discovered its
Incredible Secrets; Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud; The Shroud of Turin:
the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?,and Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud).
Next, I contacted a scientist who for more than 30 years has worked on
scientific aspects surrounding the Shroud. Finally, I found and read a
number of articles, notes, and personal letters that were written about
the Shroud. After finishing all of that research, I remain skeptical and
note that rarely have I seen so many try to cast so much doubt on the
personal character and professional integrity of others working on this
project! In short, because I do not personally know most
of the people who are still working on, or who originally worked on the
analysis of the Shroud, I have no way of assessing which ones are the
"good guys" and which ones are the "bad guys!" Regardless, one thing
is certain. The mystery, authenticity, and, controversy surrounding the
Shroud of Turin are not yet resolved. This leaves room for more research
and more books on this topic, which still captures the interest and
fascination of many people.
Is the book worth the price? I suspect it is. If you are one of the faithful and are interested in the controversy that surrounds the Shroud of Turin, you will want this book for your library shelf. If you are a palynologist who wants to use this study as an example of what pollen data can, and can't tell us about past events and geographical places, then you also need a copy. If you are a skeptic, however, this book is unlikely to convince you that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.
Vaughn M. Bryant
Texas A&M University
Frei-Sulzer, Max 1979
Wissenschaftliche Probleme um das Grabtuch von Turin. Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau 32 (4): 133-135.
Garza-Valdes, L. 1999
The DNA of God: The True Story of the Scientist who Reestablished the Case for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and Discovered its Incredible Secrets. Doubleday, New York. 206p.
Lavoie, G.R. 1998
Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud. Thomas More Publishers, Allen, Texas. 224p.
McCrone, W. 1996
Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud. Microscope Publications, Chicago. 341p.
Wilson, I. 1978
The Shroud of Turin: the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ? Doubleday & Company. New York. 272 p.
Sampling the Layer Cake that Isn't: The Stratigraphy and Paleontolo of the Type - Cincinnatian, 1998, Richard A. Davis and Roger J. Cuffey, editors, Guidebook No. 13, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 194 pages, two appendices, US $16 plus handling.
I (the Editor) intended to have a formal review of Sampling the Layer Cake in time for this issue of PALYNOS. Since a comprehensive review isn't available to me, I bring this informal analysis to your attention for your own review. Sampling the Layer Cake is the formally published version of a field guide that was written for a field trip that was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the
Geological Society of America in 1992. The meeting was held in Cincinnati, Ohio,
so the field trip was certainly appropriate to the venue. I myself am not a
"Friend of the Ordovician", so to speak, but the content of the field trip
and the volume that has followed from it deserve some mention because this
has made the Ordovician very interesting indeed.
For those readers who may not be familiar with the English idiom "layer cake", the term is used, or misused in geology as a metaphor for the supposedly orderly stacking of strata that appear to occupy such places as the American Midwest. "Layer cake" stratigraphy carries with it the suggestion of homogeneity and boredom in the most strictly interpreted sense of Steno's Principle of Lateral Continuity. The authors of the many articles in Sampling the Layer Cake have done a marvelous job of illustrating, literally and figuratively how mistaken that notion is. Paleoenvironmental descriptions based upon careful analysis of fossils, stratigraphy, and petrology reveal a dynamic world of tropical super-storms, quiet coral reefs, and constantly shifting communities of invertebrates. The text is clearly written and easily understood, a tour de force when it comes to making carbonate stratigraphy and paleontology understandable. The illustrations of specimens and field localities are clear, and even the reproduction of topographic maps is remarkably good. inasmuch as this is a field guide that is indeed intended to guide the willing geologist to the many localities that are discussed, the map quality is important. Additionally, the 1ine drawings and stratigraphic sections are as clear and crisp as any I've seen in much more expensive books.
I estimate that there are over 1000 bibliographic citations in Appendix B alone. That, plus the wealth of information that is available elsewhere in this guide book make it well worth the very modest cost. I refer to the new interpretations concerning Ordovician stratigraphy and environmental analysis in introductory classes, and will surely turn to this publication as I try to explain Paleozoic carbonates in my stratigraphy class. I am confident that those palynologists who work in the early Paleozoic section will find this publication very instructive for technical reasons.
I have rarely seen fieldguides of this quality, and I urge readers of PALYNOS
to give this publication serious consideration as an addition to your libraries.
Sampling the Layer Cake That Isn't: The Stratigraphy and Palenotology of the
Type Cincinnatian can be purchased from the Division of Geological Survey,
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 4383 Fountain Square Drive, Columbus,
Ohio 43224-1362, e-mail email@example.com
Frederick J. Rich
One final word: It has been my pleasure to serve as editor of this newsletter since December 1996. I have enjoyed hearing from the many contributors as it has helped me to stay abreast of events in this s science as they take place around the world. I wish to express my thanks to i immediate past editor John Wrenn for his help in getting me started. I also wish to thank all of you readers who submitted material for inclusion in this publication. Without your help, of course, my job would have been impossible. Please show the same helpful consideration to the new editor, Anne-Marie Lezine. FJR
PALYNOS (ISSN 0256-1670) is published semiannually (June and December) and is distributed to all individual members of the scientific organizations affilated with the International Federation of Palynological Societies (IFPS). News items, photos, member and society activities are welcome. (Scientific papers will not be published in PALYNOS.) Please forward materials for PALYNOS to the Editor:
Dr. Frederick J. Rich
Department of Geology and Geography
P.O. Box 8149, Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, Georgia 30460 U.S.A.
Phone: (912) 681-5361 FAX: (912) 681-5361