Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Difference in the Behaviour of Tissues in Ancient Plant Remains and during Chemical Treatment

Abstract

ALTHOUGH considerable work has been done on the cell wall structures of ancient and buried woods1 and their degradation2 from chemical, physical and botanical aspects3, little attention has so far been paid to the differential behaviour of the main tissues of such woods. While studying the minute anatomy of fossil woods and buried woods, we noted the peculiar behaviour of the two important tissues of the dicotyledonous woods. During long submersion of wood in water or soil, parenchyma cells and rays are usually found to retain their original structure better than the fibres (Fig. 1). This was reported by two of us (K. A. C. and S. S. G.), but no definite reason for such behaviour could be put forward except the nature of pits on the walls of fibres, vertical parenchyma cells and wood rays4. The main obstacle to chemical investigation has so far been the difficulty of obtaining pure samples of parenchyma and fibres from fresh woods. Recently, while working on bamboo, it has been possible to separate mechanically its parenchymatous and prosenchymatous tissues. This led us to think that it might be worth while analysing chemically these pure tissues and at the same time examining them microscopically at different stages of delignification, with the view of getting a clearer picture of the nature of the cell wall.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bailey, I. W., and Barghoorn, E. S., Pap. Peabody Found. Arch., 2, 82 (1942). Muller-Stoll, W. R., “Mikroskopie des Zersetzten und fossilisierten Holzes”, in “Handbuch der Mikroskopie in der Technik”, 5, pt. 2 (1952). Varossieau, W. W., in Beekman, W. B., “Hout in alle tijden”, 1/5, 331 (1949); English summary.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barghoorn, E. S., Pap. Peabody Found. Arch., 4, 49 (1949). Bot. Mus. Leaflets, Harvard Univ., 14, 1 (1949); “Sedimentary Petrology”, 22, 34 (1952).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jahn, E. C., and Harlow, W. M., Pap. Peabody Found. Arch. 2, 90 (1942). Sen, J., Bot. Rev., 22, 343 (1956).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chowdhury, K. A., and Ghosh, S. S., Proc. Nat. Inst. Sci. India, 12, 440 (1946). Ghosh, S. S., Ancient India, 6, 18 (1950). Chowdhury, K. A., Abstract. VII Int. Bot. Cong., Sect. Palseobot Stockholm (1950).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

CHOWDHURY, K., GHOSH, S., BHAT, R. et al. Difference in the Behaviour of Tissues in Ancient Plant Remains and during Chemical Treatment. Nature 180, 612–613 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1038/180612b0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/180612b0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing