L. Hably szerk.: Studia Botanica Hungarica 19. 1986 (Budapest, 1986)

Bande, M. B.; Awasthi, N.: New thoughts on the structure and affinities of Viracarpon hexaspermum Sahni from the Deccan Intertrappean beds of India

of the fruit unknown. Six seeded groups, each evidently belonging to a single flower, closely packed around the axis. Seeds about 3 mm x ca 1 mm, form a compact ring, sessile on the axis.Several of them still covered by the remnants of the ovary wall, which on the distal end seems to have formed a 6 angular shield with a crown of long, narrow, tapering, more or less curved processes projecting outwards in a plant generally radial to the floral axis. The axis of the infructescence is almost 6 mm across and is divided into (a) a central core of lighter-coloured tissue containing scattered bundles and (b) outer darker zone with numerous crowded bundles, each enclosed in a fibre sheath." The other species Viracarpon elongatum was described by SAHNI (1944) as a cylindrical fructification with a slender stalk only 1 mm thick, the 'fruit' itself, is ca 4 cm long and only 4 mm broad. The six seeded groups are smaller (ca 1.5 mm across) than in the type species. Both these specimens were collected from Takli near Nagpur and SAHNI was definite that they belonged to one genus

. Based on her studies of some more specimens of Viracarpon hexaspermum

, CHITALEY (1954) for the first time gave the generic diagnosis of Viracarpon Sahni as: "Pedunculate, spiny, aggregate fructification, consisting of a central, unbranched axis continous with peduncle and bearing crowded fruits in longitudinal rows. Fruits sessile, ebracteate. Individual fruit prism-shaped 6 angular with 6 equal loculi around a central core; each loculus containing one pendulus seed. Top of ovay wall bearing projecting spines. Peduncle with monocotyledonous bundles." CHITALEY (1954) also gave the specific diagnosis of Viracarpon hexaspermum, as: "Peduncle 17 x 2.5 mm, body of fructification 30 x 19 mm (excluding spines). Individual fruits arranged on fructification axis in 8 or more vertical rows, each row containing at least 5 fruits. Individual fruits 5x5 mm in size, with a crown of 12 long, harrow, hairy, straight spines in two whorls, projecting outwards in a plane roughly radial to fructification axis; members of two adjoining whorls are opposite each other in six radial planes on the top of the fruit, fusing at base and free for rest of the length. Each spine at least 15 x 0.75 mm covered with more or less straight unicellular hair, each at least 2.5 mm in length. Fruit wall and fruit core with heavily thickened fibres. Inner epidermis of fruit wall consisting of cells with thick sinuous walls in surface view. Top of fruit marked with a central depression surrounded by 6 others in plane of septa, these also surrounded by 6 others, also in plane of septa. Seeds 3 x 1.5 mm. Inner ring of vascular bundles in peduncle comprising about nine bundles; central pith aerenchyrnatous." It is obvious from the above that the structures which were described by SAHNI as "a crown of long, narrow, tapering, more or less curved processes on the top of the individual fruit" have been interpreted by CHITALEY as a crown of 12 long, narrow, hairy, straight spines in two whorls. Another character not mentioned by SAHNI but described by CHITALEY is the presence of a central depression on the top of the fruit surrounded by twelve more depressions in two rings, each of six. Based on her studies, CHITALEY although gave reconstruction of an individual fruit, her interpretations were not supported by any photographs. The structure of the third species of Viracarpon, V. sahnii is almost the same as that of Viracarpon hexaspermum except for the fact that in V. sahnii the top of each loculè bears a hump and a short slightly curved spine for the outer stage and long hairy, spines are absent. NA MBU DIR I and TIDWELL (1978) considered these differences as due to different stages of preservation and merged the two species together. However, while giving an emended specific diagnosis of Viracarpon hexaspermum, NAMBUDIRI and TIDWELL have used the terms usually used for describing fructifications of Pandanaceae. This is obviously due to the fact that they have accepted this fossil as an extinct member of Pandanaceae. The reconstruction of the complete fructification given by them also appears to be influenced by this notion. The specific diagnosis given by them is as: "Cephalium solitary, terminal; phalanges usually in 6 (sometimes 8 or more) vertical rows arranged spirally on the fruit axis, individual phallanges sessile, obovate hexacarpellary,completely fused or partially fused (free below and united at the tips), phalanges made of 6 fused drupes developed from concentric, centrifugal carpels; pericarp differentiated into a thin epicarp,comparatively fibrous mesocarp and a thin endocarp; seeds one per locule, endospermic; embryo large with a pseudolateral plumule and a scutellum; thin testa; cephalia arising in the axil of bracts, pericarp with a dense indumentum of glandular and non-glandular trichomes, non-glandular trichomes branched or unbranched; style hollow, stigma glandular." PATIL (1972) described yet another species of Viracarpon

, V. chitaleyi from Mohgaonkalan using the same terminology as used by CHITALEY (1954). However, VERMA (1958) while describing Shuklanthus superbum considered it as an inflorescene and interpreted the structures accordingly.