Dear Otto,
I don't think it looks like R. chamaemorus ... the seeds are usually
more rounded in general. I don't know if your specimen is missing the
outer layer? If not, the color and surface pattern is unusual as well.
Wether I'm right or not, I would be glad to send you (and any other who
may be interested) R. chamaemorus seeds once they're in season. Just
e-mail me off list.
I'm also a bit sceptic to R. fruticosus, although I think those seeds
could vary a lot. I'm used to them having a thinner reticulate pattern,
and often a larger width to height ratio.
I'm very interested in the outcome of this as the vegetation resemble
parts of present day Norway. I enclose what I have with me on the
computer right now if it's any help - a charred R. fruticosus (R. sect.
rubus) and some R. chamaemorus, both modern and medieval.
Best regards,
Maria Sture
Den 06.07.2017 19:55, skrev Brinkkemper, Otto:
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Currently, I am involved in a project for which the RCE reference
> collection is highly inadequate: plant remains from the Allerod/Younger
> Dryas transition of a site named Den Treek. Attached are three photos,
> one I think may well be Rubus chamaemorus (without reticulate pattern),
> another is clearly Rubus, but maybe not fruticosus s.l., and the third
> is likely a Rosaceae as well of which I don’t even now the genus. There
> is mm-paper on the background. The vegetation in those days was
> dominated by Pinus and Betula, the latter most likely B. nana as well as
> tree birches. I reduced the size of the photos to what I think is
> adequate. If you need larger ones for a good identification, I can send
> this off-list on request.
>
> All suggestions are highly welcomed!
>
>
>
> oTTo
>
|