| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Invited Special Papers |
228 Plant Science Building, L. H. Bailey Hortorium, Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-4301 USA
Received for publication February 2, 2004. Accepted for publication June 17, 2004.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Key Words: angiosperms • fossil history • minimum age • node dating
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
). This special issue of the American Journal of Botany reveals that progress is being made in understanding these problems and that there is imminent hope for more detailed and accurate understanding of these events. It also illustrates that three broad areas in particular have contributed to our improved understanding of angiosperm history and relationships: new data and methods for molecular genetics (Palmer and Zamir, 1982
; Matthews and Donoghue, 1999
), renewed interest in paleontology (Crane et al., 1989
; Crepet and Nixon, 1996
; Gandolfo et al., 1998a
; Zhou et al., 2001
), and new developments in the analysis of phylogenetic relationships (Nixon, 1996
, 1999
; Goloboff, 1999
). There is also an invigorated interest in methods for dating of diversification events (Sanderson et al., 2004
). What is distinctive about this moment and also raises the prospect that problems in understanding angiosperm history and relationships will ultimately be resolved is that there is increasing synthesis of these disparate approaches and resultant heightening of insights into the "abominable mystery." This special issue illustrates the momentum of this growing synthesis. Our contribution is intended to provide a perspective on one aspect of the potential importance of paleontological data: timing.
The fossil record, as a body of knowledge that incorporates morphology, biogeography, and ecology in a temporal context, has both informative potential and the capacity to serve as a corroborative mechanism for a variety of hypotheses about evolution, development/homology, relationships, biogeography, and generally about the evolutionary play in the ecological theater (sensu Hutchinson, 1965
). In addition, the fossil record, as representative of the history of life, holds the potential for clarifying relationships among extant taxa by revealing extinct mosaic taxa that link modern ones, in addition to providing the general pattern of evolution of taxa through time. Historically, and in the context of evolutionary biology, the fossil record has played both informative and corroborative roles and continues to be called upon to do both. However, the advent of modern methodologies for comparative studies of extant taxa invites a reassessment of the primacy and scope of the fossil record in addressing questions of evolution and systematic relationships.
The fossil record post evolutionary theory: utility and limitations in phylogenetic studies
Whereas in a "pre-evolutionary" world scientists struggled to understand the meaning of the fossil record and were ultimately informed by it and post evolutionary-theory scientists sought fossils to confirm and understand the process of evolutionary change and to clarify relationships among extant taxa, in this genomics era, scientists have an additional tendency to look to the fossil record to confirm increasingly accurate hypotheses of evolutionary relationships based on comparative studies of extant taxa. These relationships have become increasingly clear and accurate through analyses of multiple gene sequences made possible principally through pioneering innovations by, for example, Palmer and Zamir, 1982
; Palmer et al., 1983
, 1985
; Downie and Palmer, 1992
, who later, through multi gene analysis, suggested along with others that Amborella and Nymphaeales were among basal extant angiosperms (e.g., Parkinson et al., 1999
; Matthews and Donoghue, 1999
; Qiu et al., 1999
; Soltis et al., 1999
; Chaw et al., 2000
; Graham and Olmstead, 2000
; Soltis et al., 2000
; and Barkman et al., 2000
, who in contrast to the others, placed Amborella + waterlilies as a sister group to the remainder of angiosperms; also see Zanis et al., 2002
, and Soltis and Soltis, 2004
, for a detailed discussion). Notable among these analyses is the most inclusive, based on numbers of taxa simultaneously analyzed and made possible via various powerful algorithms that allow the rapid analysis of large matrices representing numerous taxa (Goloboff, 1999
; Nixon, 1999
) supporting the basal placement of Amborella and Nymphaeales (Soltis et al., 2000
). These analyses contribute to a growing consensus about the major relationships in angiosperms (e.g., Graham and Olmstead, 2000
; Savolainen et al., 2000
; Zanis et al., 2002
, 2003
; Borsch et al., 2003
; Hilu et al., 2003
; Magallón and Sanderson, 2002
; Chase, 2004
; Judd and Olmstead, 2004
; Soltis and Soltis, 2004
). Such comprehensive cladograms (e.g., Soltis et al., 2000
) provide additional opportunities for evaluating the fossil record or vice-versa. Corroborative use of fossil evidence in supporting such hypotheses can be as straightforward as observing broad correlations between the fossil record and ordinal sequences implied by hypotheses of phylogeny (Friis et al., 2001
) or more complicated and sophisticated as in statistically checking the fit of the fossil record to model-based expectations derived from phylogenies based on comparative analyses of extant taxa (e.g., Benton, 2001
). These latter approaches and others (e.g., Norell and Novacek, 1992
) have been somewhat controversial and variously have additional qualifications (e.g., those that limit the field of the comparisons to make it more compatible with available fossil data; Benton, 1998
).
Another approach is to use fossil data to calibrate molecular rate substitution models (often popularly called "molecular clock" models—e.g., Soltis and Soltis, 2003
; Hedges and Kumar, 2004
; and see Sanderson et al., 2004
) that are then used to date evolutionary events with any one of several methods including most commonly "rate smoothing" or maximum likelihood. When estimates based on substitution models differ from observed fossil ages, the molecular estimates are typically accepted as "better" (more accurate) due to the inherent underestimation and variability of an incomplete fossil record. This has resulted in extremely disparate and sometimes outlandish estimates of the ages of major clades (see Graur and Martin, 2004
; but also Hedges and Kumar, 2004
, for a response). The purpose of this paper is not to review such methods in detail (see Sanderson et al., 2004
, for relevant discussion); the reader is also referred to Graur and Martin (2004
; but also see the response to it by Hedges and Kumar, 2004
) for cogent criticisms of both the methods and some interesting and celebrated specific applications and for the responses. Both of these publications point out two important factors that have relevance to this paper and will be discussed further: weaknesses in the fossil record and the overriding importance of accurate fossil identifications. Absent the alleged hyperbole of Graur and Martin (according to Hedges and Kumar, 2004
), from our perspective, molecular rate substitution methods, although recently extremely popular (Wikström et al., 2001
; Davies et al., 2004
; Yoo et al., 2004
), are complicated by numerous factors including but not limited to assumptions about constant substitution rates among different lineages, problems with calibration due to incomplete fossil records, and/or the complexity of models that attempt to compensate for substitution variability (e.g., discussion in Sanderson, 1997
; Bremer, 2000
; Soltis and Soltis, 2003
; Sanderson et al., 2004
) and what have been called deceptively "errorless" numbers (Graur and Martin, 2004
). These methods also usually suffer from the need to simplify calculations by using a single divergence point (i.e., often a single fossil or related fossils; see Wikström et al., 2001
; Davies et al., 2004
; Yoo et al., 2004
; see Sanderson et al., 2004
, for relevant discussion) for calculating rates that are then applied throughout the tree, compounding the potential problem of incorrect calibration and problems with error due to an incomplete fossil record (Graur and Martin, 2004
). With all of these potential problems, given the present state of the art, even very careful and comprehensive analyses can be dramatically inaccurate and misleading. A relevant and striking example of a failure of molecular rate estimation even with an apparently careful analysis is provided by a recent preliminary study of Nymphaeaceae using three of the most common estimation methods: rate smoothing (NPRS), penalized likelihood (PL), and a "Bayesian" approach (Yoo et al., 2004
). Although their study estimated the age of modern ("crown-group") Nymphaeaceae to be ca. 40 million years old, extremely well-preserved fossils that nest within modern Nymphaeaceae based on careful phylogenetic analysis are now known from ca. 90 million-year-old deposits (see Microvictoria discussed later; Gandolfo et al., 2004
). In this case, the failure of molecular substitution rate methods is probably at least in part from poor calibration based on an incomplete understanding of the fossil record, emphasizing the need for precisely identified fossils in this context. Projecting such models over larger trees based on single calibration points (e.g., Wikström et al., 2001
), therefore, is highly suspect and raises questions about the efficacy of using calculated timing of angiosperm radiation events in assessing ecological factors in their radiation (e.g., Davies et al., 2004
).
Thus, attempts to use molecular substitution rate analyses to assess timing in angiosperm evolution (Sanderson, 1997
; Magallón et al., 1999
; Wikström et al., 2001
; Davies et al., 2004
; Yoo et al., 2004
), controversial in and of themselves (e.g., Graur and Martin, 2004
; see discussion in Sanderson et al., 2004
), are, in any case, unavoidably compromised by the inherently imperfect nature of the fossil record manifest in:
Given the limitations noted, the fossil record is likely to be biased, both ecologically and phylogenetically relative to modern diversity. Thus, in addition to the potential dangers in attempting to use the fossil record to calibrate rates of evolution based on molecular data [especially in cases where the choice of fossil(s) for calibration might be problematical], there is no reasonable expectation that available fossils will accurately reflect the evolutionary history of every group, and certainly, the fossil records of some groups (e.g., vertebrates, shelled mollusks) are likely to be much more reliable than others. Therefore, we believe that efforts to "test" the congruence of the fossil record with cladograms of modern and/or fossil taxa (e.g., Norell and Novacek, 1992
) are of ambiguous value. If such a test revealed that the fossil record was congruent (or consistent) with the cladograms of modern taxa, the possibility would remain that such congruence was illusory due to sampling error. Alternatively, if the test reveals incongruence, it would be unwise to reject cladograms based on molecular and/ or morphological evidence of extant, observable taxa due to incongruence with an admittedly incomplete and thus possibly biased fossil record. Furthermore, using this "congruence" approach to discriminate between alternative extant taxon-based hypotheses of phylogeny might be useful in certain instances today (e.g., Benton, 1998
), but one might speculate that, as analyses of modern taxa become more inclusive and complete, there will be fewer instances of conflicting hypotheses until there is general agreement, as seems to be the trend in estimating angiosperm relationships (see papers in this volume and references therein e.g., Parkinson et al., 1999
; Chaw et al., 2000
; Savolainlen et al., 2000
; Soltis et al., 2000
; Hilu et al., 2003
).
We believe that a straightforward and informative approach to combining fossil evidence with hypotheses of phylogeny based on comparative studies of extant taxa is available through the simple exercise of minimum age node mapping. We use this methodology herein to assess timing in the history of the angiosperms and to explore some of the broad implications of the results.
Goals—minimum age mapping—a means for the fossil record of angiosperms to retain the potential to be both informative and corroborative
By mapping estimated minimum ages for all possible clades on a large comprehensive angiosperm cladogram, we intend to provide estimates for some of the more important angiosperm clades based on the best available mesofossil (middle-sized fossils), macrofossil and, in a few cases, palynological evidence. We have taken a selective approach, using only the fossils that have either been assigned through direct cladistic analysis or have clearly identifiable characters to place them "unequivocally" (i.e., with high confidence) in an identifiable clade of modern angiosperms. As will be discussed in Materials and Methods, we have excluded some fossils from our analysis, following the caveats raised by the original authors related to ambiguity, conflicting placements, or low confidence in their taxonomic assignments. This does not mean that these excluded fossils should be ignored in future analyses; indeed, many are merely in need of careful analysis in a phylogenetic context in order to place them in a broader phylogeny of angiosperms.
Because the evidence for both extant and fossil taxa is much more complete for certain clades, we devote sections to some of the more important ones (assessed subjectively) and deal with these and the fossils that represent them in greater detail.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Lawrence, 1951
), had with occasional exceptions (Conwentz, 1886
) been essentially unstudied from the perspective of fossils because they were generally regarded as too rare and/or poorly preserved to make substantial contributions to our understanding of angiosperm history and relationships. Now they are the principal foci of many research laboratories, and have been since the beginning of a concerted and continuing effort on investigations of fossil flowers (Crepet et al., 1974
), which have been followed by a sustained and continuing line of investigations based on fossil flowers by the same authors and others (e.g., Crepet et al., 1975
, 1980
; Crepet and Dilcher, 1977
; Tiffney, 1977
; Crepet, 1978
, 1979a
, b
, 1984a
, b
, 1989
; Crepet and Stuessy, 1978
; Crepet and Daghlian, 1980
, 1982a
, b
; Daghlian et al., 1980
; Zavada and Crepet, 1981
; Krassilov et al., 1983
; Crepet and Taylor, 1985
, 1986
; Crepet and Friis, 1987
; Friis and Crepet, 1987
; Taylor and Crepet, 1987
; Stockey, 1987
; Crepet and Feldman, 1991
; Stockey and Pigg, 1991
; Pedersen et al., 1994
; Stockey and Rothwell, 1997
; Hernández-Castillo and Cevallos-Ferris, 1999
; Boucher et al., 2003
).
A very significant development within fossil flower studies has been the investigation of charcoalified fossils preserved in three dimensions. These fossils have been of particular importance because their detailed three-dimensional preservation captures numerous characters that are often unavailable in compressed specimens and because their ages—ranging from Early to Late Cretaceous—represent a critical interval in angiosperm radiation. Since their first discovery on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, USA by Tiffney (1977)
and later in southern Sweden by Friis and Skarby (1981)
, such fossils have been the object of numerous significant continuing investigations as have similar fossils from North America and Portugal (e.g., Friis, 1983
, 1984
, 1990
; Friis et al., 1986
, 1988
, 1992
, 1994
, 1997a
, b
; Crane et al., 1989
; Drinnan et al., 1990
, 1991
; Crepet et al., 1991
, 1992
; Herendeen et al., 1993
, 1994
; Nixon and Crepet, 1993
; Crepet, 1996
, 1999
, 2000
, 2001
; Crepet and Nixon, 1996
, 1998a
, b
; Eklund et al., 1997
; Gandolfo et al., 1998a
, b
, c
, 2000
, 2002
, 2004
; Magallón-Puebla et al., 1997
; Zhou et al., 2001
; Eklund, 2003
; Hermsen et al., 2003
; and others). In aggregate, these fossils have made substantial contributions to our understanding of Cretaceous angiosperm history and they continue to be the objects of sustained inquiries. Yet, it is important to note that compressed and even petrified flowers have also continued to make contributions to our understanding and constitute a significant element of angiosperm paleobotany to this day (e.g., Dilcher et al., 1976a,
b,
1978
; Doyle and Hickey, 1976
; Crane, 1981
, 1989
; Basinger and Dilcher, 1984
; Crane and Stockey, 1985
; Dilcher and Kovach, 1986
; Dilcher and Manchester, 1988
; Dilcher and Basson, 1990
; Call and Dilcher, 1992
; Manchester, 1992
; Mohr and Friis, 2000
; Sun et al., 2002
; Taylor and Hickey, 1990
, 1992
).
Flower fossil studies would have failed to reach their full potential without the second major development—that of algorithms for evaluating phylogenetic relationships based on character arrays. The general topic of phylogenetics and fossils has been addressed by Nixon (1996)
and is discussed by Crane et al. (2004)
, but the need for precise and reliable identification of fossils that often represent extinct taxa requires that they be identified through a phylogenetic context. Such an approach makes the process of identifying a fossil transparent and includes an explicit illumination of the characters attributed to it. This process adds objectivity to identifications that may be inherently difficult, as in cases where the fossils might be mosaics relative to extant taxa. Overall phylogenetic approaches to understanding plant relationships by means of modern cladistic methods were initiated by Parenti (1980)
followed by Young and Seigler (1981
; angiosperms), Hill and Crane (1982)
, Crane (1985)
, Doyle and Donoghue (1986)
, Loconte and Stevenson (1990)
, Nixon et al. (1994)
, Rothwell and Serbet (1994)
and by subsequent reanalyses by the same authors. Most recently, there have been analyses of molecular-based or combined data sets, which are noted later (e.g., Soltis et al., 2000
). Use of phylogenetic analysis to identify fossil flowers has a separate, but more or less parallel history and issues specific to including fossil evidence in phylogenetic analysis have been discussed by Nixon (1996)
. Early applications of phylogenetic context for identification of fossils included Crane and Manchester (1982
, fruits of Juglandaceae) and Crepet and Nixon (1989a
, b)
on Tertiary Fagaceae. And, this methodology has now become standard in identifying charcoalified flowers as in the Turonian taxa Tylerianthus and Dressiantha (Gandolfo et al., 1998a
, b
) and others (e.g., Sims et al., 1999
). There is additional and interesting potential for illuminating the fossil history of plants through the use of phylogenetic analysis as seen in Gandolfo et al. (1997)
—that of assembling the dispersed organs of a taxon through their relative placements in phylogenetic context.
One of the major problems with attempts to rationalize the fossil record with phylogenies based on modern taxa [either by various means of direct comparison testing for congruence (e.g., Norell and Novacek, 1992
; Benton, 2001
)] or by using fossils as a basis for timing the rate of substitution in lineages and extrapolating that to other groups to assess the pattern on timing in angiosperms clades (Bremer, 2000
) is the circumscription of the set of fossil taxa that will be used in the analysis. Indeed, this selection dramatically alters the outcome of any analysis, given that fossil reports of almost any existing angiosperm taxon can be found in the paleobotanical literature. Many taxa have been misidentified over the years as revealed by new analytical methodologies and investigatory tools. In other cases, perfectly reasonable but too general assessments of affinities have been constrained by the nature of the fossil evidence. Because selection of fossil taxa that are reliably identified is critical to this analysis and to the utility of fossil evidence in related applications (e.g., Yoo et al., 2004
), we have been conservative in selecting taxa to be included in determining the minimum ages of modern clades (Table 1). Consequently, we restrict our analysis to taxa whose presence in the Cretaceous is supported by the strongest fossil evidence. We define the latter as having affinities based upon the outcome of phylogenetic analysis that includes the fossils or alternatively, the presence of a suite of unequivocally demonstrated fossil characters that uniquely matches the taxonomic unit to which the fossil is assigned.
|
|
; Harley and Zavada, 2000
), we have used such evidence sparingly in this analysis. In cases where the pollen identification seems relatively strong, based on unique combinations of characters that are found only in one modern clade, we have accepted determinations and used these records for our estimates. The caveats and problems associated with literature references to ostensibly identified fossils outlined earlier apply to fossil pollen as well, due to fewer distinctive characters. A cogent example of this phenomenon is the early record of supposed monocot pollen, but difficulties in pollen identification extend to various modern dicotyledonous families.
Criteria for inclusion of fossils for determining the ages of modern clades (i.e., through minimum age mapping)
(1) Fossil identifications are dependent on either cladistic morphological analyses or the presence of well-documented synapomorphies. (2) Accurate aging of fossil sites is required. We selected sites whose geology and ages are well known and are not controversial and have interpreted the ages conservatively by assigning the youngest of the suggested range of ages. (3) A high quality cladogram of modern taxa is required. We used the widely accepted Soltis et al. (2000)
three-gene 567-taxon cladogram as the basis for mapping major clades of angiosperms. This cladogram was selected because it provides sufficient detail and resolution to map the most important Cretaceous fossils of angiosperms that can be reasonably identified.
Magnoliid groups
We have found it most challenging to delimit the number of fossil taxa included in magnoliid groups (sensu Soltis et al., 2000
, as opposed to the more restrictive use of "magnoliid" in APG II, 2003). These taxa are significant because they are relevant to early branches in the angiosperms, thus the timing of their history ramifies significantly throughout the rest of the angiosperms. They are difficult because they include some of the earliest fossil evidence of the angiosperms, and these fossils are often imperfectly or incompletely preserved, making them the most difficult group to identify and thus the most likely group to be inadequately identified. The monocots too are nested within the broadly defined magnoliid group (sensu Soltis et al., 2000
), and although many claims have been made regarding Early Cretaceous monocot fossils, their early fossil record is generally problematical (Gandolfo et al., 2000
). Although the actual number of magnoliid/monocot fossils that we include in this analysis based on our criteria is relatively low, available evidence suggests that a large portion of the modern diversity within the "magnoliid" families, including the basal monocots, had developed by about 90 million years ago (mya). There have been a remarkable number of significant fossil discoveries of mesofossils or compressions of flowers of Cretaceous age during the past 25 years (e.g., Dilcher and Crane, 1984
; Crane et al., 1993
; Nixon and Crepet, 1993
; Crepet and Nixon, 1994
, 1998a
, b
; Friis et al., 1997a
, b
). Even more recently, the number of reports of Early Cretaceous angiosperm mesofossils of flowers has increased. We have been very careful in accepting purported affiliations for the fossils using the criteria delineated because it is our intention to make the dating as reliable as possible (for example, all records of Early Cretaceous monocots have been excluded based on the limited characters available; Gandolfo et al., 2000
). Several reports of Early Cretaceous angiosperms that support fossil record congruence with phylogenies based on nucleic acid sequences in key aspects or that are relevant in the timing of monocot history have not been included in our analysis and deserve additional discussion.
Included/excluded fossils
We have included as many Cretaceous fossils as possible that conform with the criteria delineated (Table 1). Fossil reports have been excluded if, based on the available evidence (including caveats raised by the original authors regarding their affinities), their taxonomic placements are too ambiguous to provide minimum age estimates with sufficient confidence. The sum of excluded + included fossils is not exhaustive relative to all known Cretaceous angiosperms, and in many cases where younger fossils occur for a clade, we have neither accepted nor rejected these because, in either case, they would not affect the estimated age of the nodes ancestral to them. We provide next a brief discussion of the most prominent of the explicitly excluded fossils (predominantly fossils that have been assigned to the magnoliids/monocots). Note that it is quite possible that some of these taxa do indeed have affinities suggested for them in the literature (and in fact, as will also be noted, our methodology has the potential of providing some indirect support for these assignments), but the number of characters present in the fossils precludes definitive assignments by our criteria, thus it would be potentially misleading to include them in our analysis. Moreover, in some cases, as will be noted, uncertainty about their affinities is expressed in the original descriptions.
Lesqueria elocata Crane and Dilcher (1984)
Mid Cretaceous. This is a fruiting axis with magnoliid affinities, but could represent a taxon that would be placed on a lower node of the cladogram. The authors do not place it in any particular family. They agreed that this fossil taxon has some characters of the Magnoliidae; however, they pointed out that "we know of no Recent plant that has the combination of numerous helically arranged, dehiscent follicles with bifid tips borne in a swollen head at the apex of a long receptacle bearing numerous, persistent, spirally arranged, laminar structures" (p. 398).
Archaeanthus linnenbergeri Dilcher and Crane (1984)
Uppermost Albian or lowermost Cenomanian. This also represents an infructescence of magnoliid affinity but cannot be placed in any particular clade without further analysis. In the original paper, the authors concluded, "Archaeanthus is clearly most similar to extant Magnoliidae and share features with supposedly primitive members of the Hamamelidae and Dilleniidae... However, we do not believe that Archaeanthus usefully can be assigned to any extant family; Archaeanthus is a unique and extinct genus of fossil angiosperms" (p. 378).
Prisca reynoldsii Retallack and Dilcher (1981)
Mid Cretaceous. Another fructification is, Prisca reynoldsii, a raceme of unisexual multifollicles. The authors did not place these fossils within any modern family and suggested the erection of the family Priscaceae in order to place the fossils ("Subclass and order incertae sedis, Family Priscaceae fam. nov. This family is intended for fructifications like Prisca reynoldsii and other organs, such as leaves, pollen organs, staminate inflorescences and woods, which appear related to and distinctive of plants with such fructifications," p. 107). Later, Drinnan et al. (1990)
tentatively referred Prisca to Lauraceae, based on gross similarities to the fossil Mauldinia, but provided no evidence of diagnostic features of Lauraceae in Prisca, nor did they provide any synapomorphies or cladistic analysis.
Protomonimia kasai-nakajhongii Nishida and Nishida (1988)
Turonian (Late Cretaceous). This is a reproductive structure similar to Archaeanthus and Lesqueria. However, the authors did not place it within any family and considered that Protomonimia represents a magnolioid ancestor from which some modern Magnoliales may have been derived. In the diagnosis, the authors said that it is an "Angiosperm fructification consisting of a globose head and a woody peduncle; apocarpous and apistillate." They also pointed out, "Judging from the polycarpelous floral structure, presence of oil cells and relatively primitive wood structure composed mainly of scalariform vessels with steep scalariform perforation plates, the specimen can be related to the Magnoliales (sensu Cronquist, 1968)" (p. 419), and "... the direct connection between Protomonimia and Monimiaceae is still based more on speculation than on unequivocal evidence" (p. 422). This fossil requires a cladistic placement prior to inclusion for dating nodes.
Elsemaria kokubunii H. Nishida (1994)
Coniacian–Santonian. An angiosperm permineralized fruit that has affinities to some extant taxa formerly placed in the Dilleniidae, but the lack of stamens and other floral parts prevent placement within a family. It is in need of cladistic reevaluation. Nishida presented the following systematics: Subclass Dilleniidae, Order and Family incertae sedis, and indicated that "However, the lack of other floral parts in Elsemaria and the possible polyphyletic nature of multilocular capsules make it difficult to attribute Elsemaria to a particular order or family" (p. 133).
Appomattoxia ancistrophora Friis et al. (1995)
Early or Middle Albian. Well-preserved fossilized fruits and pollen are known, but these have never been placed in a cladistic analysis. The pollen bears similarity to modern Piperales, but the authors discuss other possible relationships and do not conclude with a definite taxonomic placement. The authors stated, "Detailed evaluation of the phylogenetic position of Appomattoxia will require a much clearer understanding of relationships among extant ‘basal’ angiosperms than is currently available, as well as additional information on the floral and vegetative structure in the fossil material" (p. 294).
Anacostia Friis et al. (1997b)
Albian? Although the pollen found adhering to fossilized unicarpellate fruits has some features usually associated with monocotyledons (finer reticulum at the ends of the grains), the combined features of the fruits and pollen are not found in any extant monocotyledonous family, and the authors leave open the possibility that this fossil is a magnoliid (=dicotyledonous). Anacostia comprises four species, A. marylandensis, A. virginiensis, A. portugallica, and A. teixeirae; all are new species. Explicitly, the authors remarked, "The character combination in the fossil material, with unicarpellate fruiting units containing a single anatropous seed and trichotomocolpate/monocolpate pollen, indicates a relationship between Anacostia and extant Magnoliidae or monocotyledons" (p. 241). They also pointed out, "The available characters for Anacostia are not sufficient to assign the fossil material to any extant family. The weight of the evidence from the fruiting units and seeds, as well as the pollen indicates a relationship with the magnoliids, but affinity with extant monocotyledons cannot be ruled out" (p. 242). Until the fossil is placed in a cladistic analysis, its taxonomic position cannot be evaluated.
Couperites Pedersen et al. (1991)
Mid-Cretaceous. Although these fossils are likely chloranthaceous, they were characterized as incertae sedis by the authors and need to be evaluated in a cladistic context. In the original paper, the authors presented doubts about where this fossil taxon should be placed taxonomically as indicated by the following quotation: "The chloranthaceous affinity of Couperites is also strongly supported by similarities in fruit and seed structure. However, differences in seed organization preclude unequivocal assignment of Couperites to the family (table 1)" (p. 588). Couperites is compared by the authors with selected families of the Laurales, Magnoliales and Piperales (table 1, p. 587).
Silvanthemum Friis (1990)
Late Cretaceous, Santonian–Campanian. Silvanthemum was originally considered to have strong affinities with Escalloniaceae, but that placement was not verified by subsequent analyses (Backlund, 1996
). Because the reanalysis did not include all taxa included here and there are significant differences in the topologies, it is not possible to place this fossil definitively. Evaluation in a broader, more complete analysis is necessary. In the original paper, Friis (1990, p.15)
pointed out, "The great similarity between Silvianthemum and modern Escalloniaceae further suggests that the woody taxa of the saxifragalean complex constitute an ancient stock," and also mentioned, "the close relationship to members of the Escalloniaceae, particularly to species of Quintinia, is documented not only by morphological and organizational similarities, but also by anatomical features including cellular details of the trichomes" (p. 15). However, when Silvianthemum was included in a phylogenetic analysis for the Dipsacales, it did not appear closely related to Quintinia (Backlund, 1996
). Backlund (1996)
clearly stated, "Analysis of the matrix shows that Silvianthemum occupies a stable but not strongly supported position as somewhat more advanced than the extant Quintinia (see fig. 3), and just outside the basal node of the Dipsacales" (p. 18).
Nymphaeaceae
The putative key phylogenetic position within angiosperms of the Nymphaeales and Amborella, as a sister group or sister groups of the remainder of angiosperms in DNA-based hypotheses of angiosperm phylogeny including the 567-taxon three-gene tree (Soltis et al., 2000
) and others (e.g., Parkinson et al., 1999
; Chaw et al., 2000
), makes the fossil record of Nymphaeales potentially important to understanding angiosperm origins and the nature of the earliest flowering plants. Thus, the occurrence of early nymphaeaceous fossils is critical in dating the lowest nodes in the angiosperm phylogeny, so it is important for the date to be based on unequivocal fossil evidence.
Archaefructus, an Early Cretaceous angiosperm from China, has been interpreted both as sister group to the rest of the angiosperms (Sun et al., 1998
, 2002
) or as an aberrant member of the Nymphaeales, morphologically distant from any modern member of that group (Friis et al., 2003
). The latter interpretation is based on a phylogenetic reanalysis of the original matrix of Sun et al. (2002)
that includes an additional taxon (Cabombaceae) and has several changed and unconventional character codings. As in the Sun et al. analysis, the results of Friis et al. (2003)
place Archaefructus as the sister group to the remainder of the angiosperms in some of the most parsimonious trees, but Archaefructus is placed with Cabomba in the Nymphaeales in other trees of the same length. We are skeptical of the latter interpretation because it was executed with one empirically verifiable character miscoding (in their revised matrix, Friis et al. coded Cabomba as having only dichotomously veined dissected leaves, while in fact it also has entire floating leaves with numerous clearly anastomosing veins). When the Friis et al. matrix is modified to reflect the actual variation in leaf form within Cabomba by changing only the single matrix cell from dichotomous to polymorphic, Archaefructus again becomes a sister group to the angiosperms in 100% of the shortest trees and is never placed with Cabomba or in the Nymphaeales, thus conforming with the results of Sun et al. (2002)
. This restoration of the outcome of the original analysis by Sun et al. (2002)
has been achieved by making only that one change even though other matrix modifications by Friis et al. (2003)
, including a somewhat unorthodox coding of a perianth as possibly present in Ginkgo (which has naked stalked ovules intermixed with leaves), were left in the matrix. The resultant stability of the phylogenetic position of Archaefructus as a sister taxon of modern angiosperms is thus ultimately reinforced, not refuted, by a careful examination of the Friis et al. (2003)
analysis. While Friis et al. (2003)
appealed to the possibility that any morphologically simple taxon could owe its structure to evolutionary reduction (and thus to the notion that relationships of structurally simple aquatics can at times be difficult to determine based on morphology alone), there is absolutely no evidence to support this possibility. The fossil is indeed unusual relative to modern taxa and thus remains enigmatic, but even with available state-of-the-art techniques for identification, analysis only provides one result. Further insights into the affinities or support for the phylogenetic position indicated by analysis of the morphological characters now available from the fossils will most likely come from additional fossil evidence and its analysis. In addition, placement within the Nymphaeales as suggested by Friis et al. requires a number of ad hoc hypotheses to explain the dramatic morphological contrast between Archaefructus and flowers of modern Nymphaeales, but such speculation is not necessary given the results of the reanalysis. Thus, based on the best available evidence, we do not accept the notion that Archaefructus is an extinct nymphaealean, consistent with our criterion that it shares no identifiable synapomorphies with any extant member of that clade.
Another report of fossil Nymphaeaceae (sensu Les et al., 1999
) from the Early Cretaceous (approximately 100–125 mya) sediments in Portugal (Friis et al., 2001
), while not definitive, is still significant in dating angiosperm history. The actual character suite demonstrated in the fossil is, upon phylogenetic reanalysis that includes additional relevant taxa (Gandolfo et al., 2004
), equally compatible with Illiciaceae as well as with other angiosperm families. The incomplete preservation of the fossil in combination with the absence of definitive synapomorphies of Nymphaeaceae argue against its precise placement in any particular clade of angiosperms. We have reflected this ambiguity by including it as an estimator of the youngest node that subtends both Nymphaeaceae and Illiciaceae in the three-gene tree, aged at 113 mya (Fig. 16). Because these two clades are sister taxa of the remainder of angiosperms (excluding Amborella), it provides the oldest record of the extant clade, or "crown group" of angiosperms. The most conclusive, earliest fossil evidence for Nymphaeaceae fossil flowers is from the Turonian (90 mya) of the USA, and these fossils have floral structures almost identical to those of modern Victoria (Nymphaeaceae). These fossil flowers have been placed as unequivocally nested within modern Nymphaeaceae by explicit phylogenetic analysis (Gandolfo et al., 2004
).
|
). Monocots have a traditionally sparse Cretaceous fossil record, and recent critical analysis of Lower Cretaceous fossils suggests that none are definitively monocotyledonous (Gandolfo et al., 2000
). There are relatively few reports of Upper Cretaceous monocots that conform to the criteria we employ for this study. There have been several reviews of the fossil record of the monocotyledons (Horwood, 1912 a
, b
; Doyle, 1973
; Daghlian, 1981
; Muller, 1981
; Herendeen and Crane, 1995
; Gandolfo et al., 2000
), and in each case, selected fossils have been helpfully discussed. However, as mentioned in all of these reviews, it is sometimes difficult to recognize fossils with monocotyledonous affinities, particularly, we now realize, due to a frequent lack of monocot synapomorphies in supposed monocot fossils. Without such synapomorphies, it is impossible to distinguish some monocots from a number of magnoliid dicots, compromising the early fossil record of monocots and defeating the purpose and utility of a review of the early monocot record. Thus, as with other fossil evidence used in this analysis, we excluded reports of fossil taxa that could not be unequivocally related to monocotyledons based on the presence of diagnostic synapomorphies. For example, in the latest review by Gandolfo et al. (2000)
, the genera Liliacidites Couper (pollen taxon) and Acaciaephyllum Fontaine (leaves) were included in a cladistic analysis because these two fossil taxa had previously been considered to be the oldest examples of monocots. However, both fossils actually lack monocot synapomorphies, and the most parsimonious placement of these purported early monocotyledonous taxa was among dicot clades.
Recently, Bremer (2000)
drew attention to a subset of Cretaceous fossils with purported monocotyledonous affinities by using them to date nodes on a plastid rbcL-based phylogeny of monocot taxa, providing the means for calculating the rate of change (base substitution rate) in particular lineages. The results of such a combined approach, while potentially informative, depend on the quality of the identification of the fossils. While it was certainly appropriate for Bremer to choose relevant fossil evidence from the paleobotanical literature, we are using a different and more stringent set of standards for fossil identification and do not include the same fossil taxa in this analysis for reasons discussed next.
Dicolpopollis Pflanzl was used to provide the minimal age for the family Tofieldiaceae (Chmura, 1973
) and Milfordia Erdtman for the age of the Restoniaceae-Flagellariaceae-Joinvillaceae complex. These assignments, however, were made in the absence of comparative ultrastructural data necessary to definitively identify these taxa on the basis of palynological evidence alone (Zavada, 1984
; Harley and Zavada, 2000
).
As with many other fossil assignments that have not been included in the present analysis, lack of synapomorphic characters does not necessarily preclude the possibility that the suggested affinities may be accurate (as in the suggested affinity of Dicolpopollis to Tofieldiaceae), but it would be premature and potentially misleading to use such unsupported identifications for dating particular clades. Indeed, in the absence of additional characters, credibility of these identifications can ultimately be assessed best in the context of a temporal framework provided by the methodology used herein.
Another very important complex of monocots has been placed temporally on the basis of the fossil palynomorph Milfordia, but Linder (1986)
indicated that there are three pollen morphs of Maastrichtian-Oligocene age related to Restoniaceae and Poaceae. They are Monoporites annulatus Hammen, Milfordia hungarica (Kedves) W. Kr., and Milfordia incertae (Th. & Pf.) W. Kr. None are adequately characterized (they lack comparative ultrastructural features); thus it is difficult and complicated to determine their affinities with certainty.
Pistia corrugata Lesquereux
The oldest confirmed fossil record of P. corrugata dates from the Paleocene of southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada (McIver and Basinger, 1993
); earlier fossils assigned to Pistia are suspect (Hickey, 1991
).
Cymodocea Koenig
The record of Cymodocea presented by Bremer is based on the fossil Thalassocharis bosqueti Debey ex Miquel collected from Upper Maastrichtian sediments of the Kunrade region, Netherlands (Voigt and Domke, 1955
). However, Voigt (1981
, p. 283) notes that "Thalassocharis seems to show some affinities with the recent genus Cymodocea but because flowers and fructifications are not known the exact phylogenetic and systematic position of Thalassocharis is still uncertain," a reservation shared by Daghlian (1981)
.
Typha L
Bremer (2000)
used the fossil seeds T. ochreacea Knobloch and Mai and T. protogaea Knobloch and Mai, from the Maastrichtian of Eisleben, (Knobloch and Mai, 1986
) to date the node for bur-weeds and cat-tails. However, these fossils have no unique characters to unequivocally relate them to the extant genus Typha and have not been evaluated in a cladistic analysis.
As in the cases of the putatively monocotyledonous palynomorphs, the preceding assessments do not exclude the possibility that any or all of these early fossils are monocots or even that they belong to the groups used to support Bremer's analysis, but they have not been shown to have sufficient characters to justify such specific taxonomic assignments. Until the relationships are confirmed, they cannot reliably be used as a basis for estimating the ages of monocot clades.
Thus by default, the oldest unequivocal evidence for fossil monocots is embodied in charcoalified fossil flowers from the Turonian of New Jersey that bear a combination of features found today only in the achlorophyllous Triuridaceae. These fossil flowers were described and placed phylogenetically in extensive detail (but after the publication of Bremer, 2000
), and their relationships within the monocots have been well established through parsimony-based phylogenetic analysis (Gandolfo et al., 2002
). Based on these analyses, they are well nested within the Triuridaceae as the sister group to the clade that encompasses the tribe Triurideae. Although these flowers constitute the earliest unequivocal record for monocots, the group is well nested within the monocot clade, and there is no reason to assume that triurids are morphologically similar to the basal monocot condition. The lack of other verified meso—and macrofossils of monocots from similarly aged or older Cretaceous sediments is likely due to preservational bias, assuming that early monocots were herbaceous, as discussed later. The Late Cretaceous also includes several fossils of Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous) age with unmistakable monocot synapomorphies (Hickey and Petersen, 1978
; Daghlian, 1981
; Herendeen and Crane, 1995
; Harley, 1996
; Herendeen et al., 1999
). These will be analyzed in greater detail in another paper (Gandolfo et al., unpublished manuscript).
Methods
Fossil data from both the literature and unpublished sources were entered into a relational database structure, and the program Winclada (Nixon, 2003
) was utilized to automatically map minimum ages for each node on the consensus of the 567-taxon three-gene tree (Soltis et al., 2000
). The procedure for optimizing node ages was simple: each node was assigned the greatest minimum age of any node that had been assigned above it. Ages for modern taxa with no fossil record were initially assigned an age of zero. Fossils were positioned on the 567-taxon tree according to their most likely identification based on assignment either by published cladistic analyses or the occurrence of definite synapomorphies and/or of unique character combinations.
The resulting cladogram with nodes assigned minimum ages was then reduced by collapsing nodes to show a more tractable view, emphasizing major clades for which fossil evidence is available. Estimated minimum ages are only mapped in these trees for nodes that have at least one fossil that can be associated with at least one descendant branch (0 age estimates are not shown).
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
.
|
; Bremer, 2000
). It is not a method per se for evaluating congruence of the hypothesis of phylogeny of angiosperms and the fossil record; nonetheless, it does place the phylogeny in a temporal framework and does have the potential to reveal inconsistencies between the fossil record and the best estimates of phylogenetic relationships based on comparative studies of nucleic acid sequences of living taxa. It also allows comparison of the temporal framework implied by the technique with the background fossil record of organs that are inconclusively assignable to particular taxa but that may give broader indications of the general pattern of timing in angiosperm diversification. Thus for example, although our analysis illustrates that the node that precedes the divergence of Nymphaeaceae and Illiciaceae is at a minimum 113 million years old, this is not based on a model of gene substitution, nor does it suppose an unbiased sample. This estimate is dependent only on the identification of the fossil that is the basis for the estimate and of course the veracity of the phylogeny.
The estimates provided here are consistent with a major diversification of several important angiosperm clades by the Turonian (
90 mya) that included numerous magnoliids, the monocots, and several tricolpate clades. Extensive Early Cretaceous monocot diversification is suggested by the presence of Triuridaceae floral evidence in the Turonian, but this diversification is not reflected in the mesofossil or megafossil records, most likely due to preservational bias. Monocot fossil pollen reports from the pre-Turonian are all based on characters that are mostly not exclusive to monocots or on the single feature of gradation in the size of the reticulum of the pollen wall (also found on some fossil pollens that may best be placed outside the monocots based on attached organs see Couperites; Pedersen et al., 1991
). While it is likely that some of these early Cretaceous palynomorphs do represent monocots, verification must be deferred until diagnostic leaf and floral materials are available. We must face the possibility that for certain herbaceous groups (probably including early monocots), the likelihood of preservation is so low that we may never have unequivocal early examples of these clades, and our direct estimates will remain conservative.
The occurrence of platanoid fossils (leaves, flowers, fruits, and pollen), among the oldest representatives of the "tricolpate" clade (or "eudicots" of some authors) at about 100– 108 mya (we always use the youngest age of a range in this paper) may seem puzzling at first, given the supposed "derived" nature of this group. However, as can be seen in Fig. 16, the age of the platanoids is actually consistent with the minimum age estimate for its sister group (the remainder of tricolpates at 98 mya).
Because of the highly resolved structure of the phylogenetic tree used in this analysis, minimum ages for the "stem groups" of some families that lack a fossil record can still be calculated, and the minimum ages for the stem lineages of some families are calculated as greater than the ages of the oldest known fossils for the particular families. This is the case, for instance, with Sabiaceae, which has a calculated minimum age of 98 mya for its divergence from other extant angiosperms, based on fossils assignable to other families (Fig. 16), even though the oldest putative fossils known for Sabiaceae, seeds from the Late Cretaceous, are at least 27 million years younger (Knobloch and Mai, 1986
; used by Magallón-Puebla et al., 1999
). It should be noted that the estimated age of the minimal clade that includes Sabiaceae does not imply that the "crown group" or modern Sabiaceae had diverged by this time, but that the divergence of any Sabiaceae from any other extant angiosperm not in the Sabiaceae (which includes all other extant angiosperms) occurred at least 98 mya. The modern family may have diverged much more recently. Although Magallón-Puebla et al. (1999)
aged modern Sabiaceae at 67.5 mya, this conclusion is not supported by cladistic analysis of the fossil nor by synapomorphies, and we have not included it in our tree. If correct, the first known occurrence of sabiaceous fossils more than 20 million years after the estimated divergence of the group is neither consistent nor inconsistent with the proposed molecular phylogeny (Soltis et al., 2000
), because the perceived hiatus may be explained by numerous factors, including lack of sufficient diversity in the clade for the first 27 million years, lack of identifiable features of modern Sabiaceae in the early members of the clade, preservational bias due to morphology, mode of pollination or ecological distribution, or random events that might affect the preservation of fossils. We see no way to tease apart such explanations and thus view with some skepticism the idea that any realistic or useful models can be applied to the supposed "fit" of fossil data to phylogenetic trees.
The Magallón-Puebla et al. (1999)
paper is distinguished by its inclusion of numerous fossils in addition to fossil Sabiaceae and as observable before, it illustrates how selection of fossils and criteria used in fossil identification can affect the outcomes of such analyses. The results of their analysis differ from our own in other ways partly and perhaps most substantively due to different fossil selection. Employing criteria for including fossil evidence that we apply would eliminate some of the fossils utilized in the Magallón-Puebla et al. analysis. For example, the age of the Trochodendrales is based on leaves assigned to the modern genus Tetracentron (Tetracentraceae); however, Collinson et al. (1993
, the reference used by Magallón-Puebla et al.) explicitly stated that "Confirmation of a fossil record for the Tetracentraceae must await complete revision of all the leaf fossils and recovery of appropriate reproductive material" (p. 835), and we would not have included it based on the criteria discussed previously. There are other leaves assigned to the family Trochodendraceae, Trochodendroides rhomboideus (Lesquereux) E. W. Berry 1922, from sediments of upper Cretaceous age; however, these leaves are poorly preserved and lack diagnostic characters. However, such differences in approaches to fossil selection are not the only reasons for different results. We use more conservative dating of clade ages in angiosperms (Fig. 17). For example, Esgueiria adenocarpa Friis, Pedersen and Crane from the Late Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian, 85–65 mya) was used in both analyses; however, we selected the youngest date (as we have throughout), while Magallón-Puebla et al. used the older one (85 mya). In addition, when possible, we use the exact ages as proposed by the original author(s) for each specific taxon. For example, the fossil flower Spanomera was used in both analyses for dating the Buxaceae; however, Magallón-Puebla et al. dated it as mid-Albian (104.5 mya), while we followed the original authors suggestion of a Late Albian age (99 mya; Drinnan et al., 1991
). There has been only one additional effort to assess clade ages over an entire angiosperm phylogeny (Davies et al., 2004
), and we will compare their results and those of Magallón-Puebla et al. to our findings in more depth in a subsequent manuscript.
|
).
Another important clade within the "Rosid I" group includes Rosaceae, Fabaceae, Urticales, Cucurbitales, and the families formerly included in the "Higher Hamamelididae" (e.g., Fagaceae, Nothofagaceae, Juglandaceae, Myricaceae, Betulaceae, Casuarinaceae). This clade is of great interest in part because there are no obvious morphological features that unite this clade, and it includes a diverse assemblage of economically important taxa with an exceptional fossil record. The minimum age of the stem group of the clade that includes Rosaceae and Fagales but excludes Fabaceae and Polygalaceae is estimated at 94 mya, while the first identifiable fossil of Fabaceae is from the Tertiary, ca. 51 mya (Herendeen and Crane, 1992
), or at least 40 million years after the minimum estimated divergence for the clade. It should be noted in this context that strongly zygomorphic flowers are not present in the best-known Late Cretaceous deposits, and the radiation of both Polygalaceae and zygomorphic Fabaceae (e.g., papilionoid and caesalpinoid flowers) may have been a Tertiary event, possibly in response to the increased availability of specialized hymenopteran pollinators (apparently available at some level since Turonian times; Crepet, 2000
). It is likely that members of the "stem group" subtending Polygalaceae-Fabaceae were actinomorphic and closely resembled modern Rosaceae, and thus identification of such taxa would be problematic without extensive characters for evaluation, typically unavailable for fossils. This provides yet another example of how disparity (incongruence) in the fossil record should not be the basis for acceptance or rejection of particular phylogenetic trees and of how gaps in the fossil record, once characterized through this methodology, do not necessarily detract from the overall informative value of fossil evidence that does exist. In a sense, the utility of the fossil record is enhanced by a methodology that points to clear gaps in a context that helps to understand them and thus, to understand the rest of the fossil record and its imperfections and to validate its utility in assessing various aspects of angiosperm evolution.
The extensive record of the Normapolles palynomorphs in the Late Cretaceous (e.g., Christopher, 1979
; Schönenberger et al., 2001
) seems to reflect diversification of the Juglandales lineage, which is well nested within the group that has recently been dubbed "Fagales" (sensu lato) by the APG II (2003)
. The complexity of assigning phylogenetic positions to the majority of Normapolles types is seen in the various taxonomic placements that have been proposed, including various "Higher Hamaelididae" families with pororate apertures and granular wall structure, as well as in some cases to Urticales. However, there seems little doubt that at least some of the Normapolles palynomorphs are correctly placed in the broad clade that includes Juglandaceae, Betulaceae, and Myricaceae (Table 1), and we have assigned the minimum age of that clade accordingly at 83 mya. Mesofossils and megafossils identifiable to particular families do not occur until later, with the exception of cupulate Fagaceae from the Turonian of New Jersey (Crepet et al., 2001
; Nixon et al., 2001
).
Notably absent are fossils of the Cucurbitales clade, which is mostly herbaceous, and for which the "stem group" should have been present at least by 90 mya. The pattern within these clades nicely illustrates the probable effect of depositional, preservational, and ecological bias in the fossil record. The largely herbaceous and insect-pollinated Cucurbitales is essentially without a fossil record [with the exception of Tertiary fossils of the woody genus Tetrameles (Datiscaceae); Lakhanpal and Verma, 1966
], while the concomitant "Fagales" group, which is entirely woody and mostly wind-pollinated has one of the most extensive fossil records for angiosperms, in terms of leaf, pollen, and reproductive structures, beginning in the Late Cretaceous and extending throughout the Tertiary (Crepet and Nixon, 1989a
, b
). Another factor that might contribute to the abundance of fossil Fagaceae and other members of the woody "Fagales" clade is their tendency to form extensive dominant forests (or riparian forests), while the Cucurbitales (e.g., Cucurbitaceae and Begoniaceae in particular) are generally scattered individuals with far less cumulative biomass.
Ericanae ("Asterid III") and "Asterid IV"
The Ericales are well represented in the Turonian of New Jersey (Nixon and Crepet, 1993
; Crepet, 2000
), providing an estimate of 90 mya for the minimum divergence of that group, as well as the broader group known as "Asterid III" in recent works. Because both Asterid III and Asterid IV are made up of families mostly not originally placed in the Asteridae, and mostly lacking fused corollas, we prefer the name "ERICANAE" for the former group, which is much more descriptive. The "Asterid IV" group includes Hydrangeales, for which a well-established fossil occurs in the Turonian of New Jersey, again providing an estimate of ca. 90 mya for the divergence of this group. This is consistent with Magallón-Puebla et al. (1999)
, who estimated the minimum age at 89.5 mya based on the same fossils.
Asterids ("Asterid I" and "Asterid II")
The traditional Asteridae of Cronquist (1981)
, with typically gamopetalous, often tubular and/or zygomorphic flowers, are mainly found in what have recently been called the "Asterid I" and "Asterid II" clades and lack a fossil record in the Cretaceous. This includes Asteraceae, Solanaceae, Lamiaceae, Rubiaceae, and a host of other families that together contain an enormous species diversity, particularly in the tropics. As is the case with the zygomorphic legumes, the diversification of these asterids, with the associated features of tubular flowers, extensive zygomorphy, and various often highly specialized pollination syndromes, very likely took place in the Tertiary. Alternatively, if the early asterids were herbaceous, in low population densities, and insect-pollinated, they may have had an earlier diversification but have been relatively "invisible" in the fossil record. Nonetheless, the apparently parallel radiation of legumes, a group with generally similarly specialized pollinators, is consistent with a radiation of asterids in the Tertiary (e.g., Herendeen and Crane, 1992
), possibly for similar reasons.
As pointed out in previous papers, various complex pollination syndromes likely were present by 90 mya as evidenced by the diversity of Turonian floral morphologies (Nixon and Crepet, 1993
; Crepet and Nixon, 1998b
; Gandolfo et al., 1998a
, b
, 2004
; Crepet, 2000
). These include features that imply high pollinator specificity, such as viscin threads (Nixon and Crepet, 1993
), enclosed floral chambers that imply entrapment pollination (Gandolfo et al., 2004
), non-nectar floral rewards (Crepet and Nixon, 1998b
), and at least some sympetaly (Nixon and Crepet, 1993
). The lack of strongly zygomorphic and/or bilabiate flowers at this time suggests that floral zygomorphy is an ultimate refinement in pollination syndrome that followed the development of other features. It is worth noting that the groups that later developed zygomorphy (probably almost entirely in the Tertiary, based on current evidence) have become some of the most diverse and successful clades of modern angiosperms, including a large portion of the "asterids" (I and II) as well as the papilionoid and caesalpinoid legumes. Just as striking, however, is the success and persistence of numerous clades in which zygomorphic floral presentation is absent or rare and which generally have less stringent pollinator specificity (or passive pollination syndromes), such as the majority of rosid and ranunculid lineages, including the mimosoid legumes.
Overall pattern implications
The overall pattern seen in the estimated times of divergence of major angiosperm clades in the Cretaceous suggests either a rapid diversification of groups between 113 and 80 mya, or alternatively, an earlier diversification with an extremely poor fossil record for these groups. In some cases, such as that of the platanoids, we believe that it is likely that the fossil record is "good" (i.e., reflective of reality) because the modern equivalents of these taxa occupy prime habitats for fossil deposition, they are large deciduous trees with extensive populations, they are wind-pollinated and produce numerous flowers, and their leaves are large and coriaceous. Given that the minimum ages provided by platanoids are relatively consistent with those of the sister group of the platanoids (which includes numerous other tricolpates), we see no reason to assume a much greater age for the divergences at that level in the phylogeny. The greater question that arises is whether identifiable fossils that might be placed on the "stem lineage" below angiosperms but above their divergence with other gymnosperms might be identified from existing fossil materials and while controversial, based on all available evidence and no doubt subject to validation from future fossil evidence, it appears that Archaefructus may be the first such fossil angiosperm.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
2 Author for correspondence (wlc1@cornell.edu).
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Backlund A. 1996 Phylogeny of Dipsacales. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 243: 1-34
Barkman T. J. G. Chenery J. R. McNeal J. Lyons-Weiler W. J. Ellisens G. Moore A. D. Wolfe C. W. de Pamphilis 2000 Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 13166-13171
Basinger J. F. D. L. Dilcher Ancient bisexual flowers. Science 224: 511-513
Benton M. J. 1998 Molecular and morphological phylogenies of mammals: congruence with stratigraphic data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9: 398-407[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Benton M. J. 2001 Finding the tree of life: matching phylogenetic trees to the fossil record through the 20th century. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, Biological Sciences 268: 2123-2130
Borsch T. K. W. Hilu D. Quandt V. Wilde C. Neinhuis W. Barthlott 2003 Noncoding plastid trnT-trnF sequences reveal a well resolved phylogeny of basal angiosperms. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16: 558-576[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Boucher L. D. S. R. Manchester W. S. Judd 2003 An extinct genus of Salicaceae based on twigs with attached flowers, fruits, and foliage from the Eocene Green River Formation of Utah and Colorado, USA. American Journal of Botany 90: 1389-1399
Bremer K. 2000 Early Cretaceous lineages of monocots flowering plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 4707-4711
Call V. B. D. L. Dilcher 1992 Investigations of Angiosperms from the Eocene of southeastern North America: Samaras of Fraxinus wiilcoxiana Berry. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 74: 249-266[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Chase M. W. 2004 Monocot relationships: an overview of the best characterized major angiosperm clade. American Journal of Botany 91: 1645-1665
Chaw S.-M. C. L. Parkinson Y. Cheng T. M. Vincent J. D. Palmer 2000 Seed plant phylogeny inferred from all three plant genomes: monophyly of extant gymnosperms and origin of Gnetales from conifers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 4086-4091
Chmura C. A. 1973 Upper Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) angiosperm pollen from the western San Joaquin Valley, California, USA. Paleaontographica B 141: 89-171
Christopher R. A. 1979 Normapolles and triporate pollen assemblages from the Raritan and Magothy Formations (Upper Cretaceous) of New Jersey. Palynology 3: 73-121[Abstract]
Collinson M. E. M. C. Boulter P. L. Holmes 1993 Magnoliophyta (‘Angiospermae’). In M. J. Benton [ed.], The fossil record 2, 809–849. Chapman and Hall, London, UK
Conwentz H. 1886 Die Flora des Bernsteins, 2. Die Angiospermen des Bernsteins. Wilhelm Engelman, Leipzig, Germany
Crane P. R. 1981 Betulaceous leaves and fruits from the British Upper Palaeocene. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 83: 103-136
Crane P. R. 1985 Phylogenetic analysis of seed plants and the origin of angiosperms. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 72: 716-793[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crane P. R. 1989 Early fossil history and evolution of the Betulaceae. In P. R. Crane and S. Blackmore [eds.], Evolution, systematics and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, vol. 2, 87–116. Systematics Association Special Volume 40. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK
Crane P. R. D. L. Dilcher 1984 Lesqueria: and early angiosperm fruiting axis from the mid-Cretaceous. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 384-402[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crane P. R. E. M. Friis K. R. Pedersen 1989 Reproductive structure and function in Cretaceous Chloranthaceae. Plant Systematics and Evolution 165: 211-226[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crane P. R. S. R. Manchester 1982 An extinct juglandaceous fruit from the Upper Paleocene of Southern England. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 89-101
Crane P. R. P. Herendeen E. M. Friis 2004 Fossils and plant phylogeny. American Journal of Botany 91: 1683-1699
Crane P. R. K. R. Pedersen E. M. Friis A. N. Drinnan 1993 Early Cretaceous (early to middle Albian) platanoid inflorescences associated with Sapindopsis leaves from the Potomac Group of eastern North America. Systematic Botany 18: 328-344[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crane P. R. R. A. Stockey 1985 Growth and reproductive biology of Joffrea speirsii gen. et sp. nov., a Cercidiphyllum-like plant from the Late Paleocene of Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 63: 340-364[Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. 1978 Investigations of angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: an aroid spadix. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 25: 241-252[CrossRef]
Crepet W. L. 1979a Insect pollination: a paleontological perspective. BioScience 29: 102-108
Crepet W. L. 1979b Some aspects of the pollination biology of Middle Eocene angiosperms. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 27: 213-238[CrossRef]
Crepet W. L. 1984a Advanced (constant) insect pollination mechanisms: patterns of diversification and implications vis a vis angiosperm diversity. Annals Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 607-630[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. 1984b Ancient flowers for the faithful. Natural History 93: 39-45
Crepet W. L. 1989 The history and implications of the early North American Fossil record of Fagaceae. In P. R. Crane [ed.], The Hamamelidae, 45–66. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Crepet W. L. 1996 Timing in the evolution of derived floral characters: Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) taxa with tricolpate and tricolpate-derived pollen. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 90: 339-360
Crepet W. L. 1999 Early bloomers. Natural History 108: 40-41
Crepet W. L. 2000 Progress in understanding angiosperm history, success, and relationships: Darwin's abominably "perplexing phenomenon.". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 12939-12941
Crepet W. L. 2001 Plant–animal interactions: insect pollination. In D. E. G. Briggs and P. R. Crowther [eds.], Palaeobiology II, 426–429. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK
Crepet W. L. C. P. Daghlian 1980 Castaneoid inflorescences from the Middle Eocene of Tennessee and the diagnostic value of pollen (at the subfamily level) in the Fagaceae. American Journal of Botany 67: 739-757[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. C. P. Daghlian 1982a Euphorbioid inflorescences from the Middle Eocene Claiborne Formation. American Journal of Botany 69: 258-266[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. C. P. Daghlian 1982b Lower Eocene and Paleocene Gentianaceae: floral and palynological evidence. Science 214: 75-77[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. C. P. Daghlian M. Zavada 1980 Investigations of angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: a new juglandaceous catkin. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 30: 361-370
Crepet W. L. D. L. Dilcher 1977 Investigations of angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: a mimosoid inflorescence. American Journal of Botany 64: 714-725[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. D. L. Dilcher F. W. Potter 1974 Eocene angiosperm flowers. Science 185: 781-782
Crepet W. L. D. L. Dilcher F. W. Potter 1975 Investigations of angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: a catkin with juglandaceous affinities. American Journal of Botany 62: 813-823[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. G. D. Feldman 1991 Earliest fossil evidence of grasses in the fossil record. American Journal of Botany 78: 1010-1014[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. E. M. Friis 1987 The evolution of insect pollination in the angiosperms. In E. M. Friis, W. G. Chaloner, and P. R. Crane [eds.], Angiosperm origins and biological consequences, 181–201. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon 1989a Earliest megafossil evidence of Fagaceae: phylogenetic and biogeographic implications. American Journal of Botany 76: 842-855[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon 1989b Extinct transitional Fagaceae from the Oligocene and their phylogenetic implications. American Journal of Botany 76: 1493-1505[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon 1994 Flowers of Turonian Magnoliidae and their implications. In P. K. Endress and E. M. Friis [eds.], Early evolution of flowers, Plant Systematics and Evolution (Supplement) 8: 73–92
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon 1996 The fossil history of stamens. In W. G. D'Arcy and R. C. Keating [eds.], The anther: form, function and phylogeny, 25–57. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon 1998a Two new fossil flowers of magnoliid affinity from the Late Cretaceous of New Jersey. American Journal of Botany 85: 1273-1288
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon 1998b Fossil Clusiaceae from the Late Cretaceous (Turonian) of New Jersey and implications regarding the history of bee pollination. American Journal of Botany 85: 1122-1133[Abstract]
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon E. M. Friis 1991 Fossil evidence for the evolution of biotic pollination. Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, Biological Sciences 333: 187-195[CrossRef]
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon E. M. Friis J. Freudenstein 1992 Oldest fossil flowers of hamamelidaceous affinity, from the late Cretaceous of New Jersey. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, USA 89: 8969-8989
Crepet W. L. K. C. Nixon M. A. Gandolfo 2001 Turonian flora of New Jersey, USA. VII International Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems, Asociación Paleontológica Argentina, Publicación Especial 7: 61-69
Crepet W. L. T. F. Stuessy 1978 A reinvestigation of the fossil Viguiera cronquistii (Compositae). Brittonia 30: 483-491[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crepet W. L. D. W. Taylor 1985 The diversification of the Leguminosae: first fossil evidence of the Mimosoideae and Papilionoideae. Science 288: 1087-1089
Crepet W. L. D. W. Taylor 1986 Primitive mimosoid flowers from the Paleocene-Eocene and their systematic and evolutionary implications. American Journal of Botany 73: 548-563[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Cronquist A. 1981 An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA
Daghlian C. P. 1981 A review of the fossil record of monocotyledons. The Botanical Review 47: 517-555
Daghlian C. P. W. L. Crepet 1982 The evolutionary significance of Quercus sect. Erythrobalanus from the Oligocene of East Texas. American Journal of Botany 70: 639-649[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Daghlian C. P. W. L. Crepet T. Delevoryas 1980 Investigations of Tertiary angiosperms: Eomimosoidea plumosa from the Lower Oligocene of eastern Texas. American Journal of Botany 67: 309-320[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Davies T. J. T. G. Barraclough M. W. Chase P. S. Soltis D. E. Soltis V. Savolainen 2004 Darwin's abominable mystery: insights from a supertree of the angiosperms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 1904-1909
Dilcher D. L. P. Basson 1990 Mid-Cretaceous angiosperm leaves from a new fossil locality in Lebanon. Botanical Gazette 151: 538-547[CrossRef]
Dilcher D. L. P. R. Crane 1984 Archaeanthus: an early angiosperm from the Cenomanian of the western interior of North America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 351-383[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Dilcher D. L. W. L. Crepet C. D. Beeker H. C. Reynolds 1976 Reproductive and vegetative morphology of a Cretaceous angiosperm. Science 191: 854-856
Dilcher D. L. W. L. Kovach 1986 Early angiosperm reproduction: a new fruitification from the Dakota Formation (Cenomanian) of Kansas. American Journal of Botany 73: 1228-235
Dilcher D. L. S. R. Manchester 1988 Investigations of the angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: a fruit belonging to Euphorbiaceae. Tertiary Research 9: 45-68
Dilcher D. L. F. W. Potter W. L. Crepet 1976 Investigations of angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: Juglandaceous winged fruits. American Journal of Botany 63: 532-544
Dilcher D. L. F. Potter H. Reynolds 1978 Preliminary account of middle Cretaceous angiosperm remains from interior of North America. Courier Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg 30: 9-15
Drinnan A. N. P. R. Crane E. M. Friis K. R. Pedersen 1990 Lauraceous flowers from the Potomac Group (mid-Cretaceous) of eastern North America. Botanical Gazette 151: 370-384[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Drinnan A. N. P. R. Crane E. M. Friis K. R. Pedersen 1991 Angiosperm flowers and tricolpate pollen of buxaceous affinity from the Potomac Group (mid-Cretaceous) of eastern North America. American Journal of Botany 78: 153-176[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Downie S. R. J. D. Palmer 1992 Use of chloroplast DNA rearrangements in reconstructing plant phylogeny. In P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and J. J. Doyle [eds.], Molecular systematics of plants, 14–35. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York, USA
Doyle J. A. 1973 The monocotyledons: their evolution and comparative biology. V. Fossil evidence on early evolution of the monocotyledons. The Quarterly Review of Biology 48: 399-413[CrossRef]
Doyle J. A. M. J. Donoghue 1986 Seed plant phylogeny and the origin of angiosperms: an experimental cladistic approach. Botanical Review 52: 321-431
Doyle J. A. L. J. Hickey 1976 Pollen and leaves from the mid-Cretaceous Potomac Group and their bearing on early angiosperm evolution. In C. B. Beck [ed.], Origin and early evolution of angiosperms, 139–206. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA
Eklund H. 2003 First Cretaceous flowers from Antarctica. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 127: 187-217[CrossRef]
Eklund H. E. M. Friis K. R. Pedersen 1997 Chloranthaceous floral structures from the Late Cretaceous of Sweden. Plant Systematics and Evolution 207: 13-42[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Friis E. M. 1983 Upper Cretaceous (Senonian) floral structures of juglandalean affinity containing Normapolles pollen. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 39: 161-188[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Friis E. M. 1984 Preliminary report of Upper Cretaceous angiosperm reproductive organs from Sweden and their level of organization. Annals Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 403-418[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Friis E. M. 1990 Silvianthemum suecicum gen. et. sp. nov., a new saxifragalean flower from the Late Cretaceous of Sweden. Biologiske Skrifter 36: 5-21
Friis E. M. P. R. Crane K. R. Pedersen 1986 Floral evidence for Cretaceous chlorantoid angiosperms. Nature 320: 163-164[CrossRef]
Friis E. M. P. R. Crane K. R. Pedersen 1988 Reproductive structures of Cretaceous Platanaceae. Biologiske Skrifter 31: 1-55
Friis E. M. P. R. Crane K. R. Pedersen 1997a Fossil history of magnoliid angiosperms. In K. Iwatsuki and P. H. Raven [eds.], Evolution and diversification of land plants, 121–156. Springer Verlag, New York, New York, USA
Friis E. M. P. R. Crane K. R. Pedersen 1997b Anacostia, a new basal angiosperm from the Early Cretaceous of North America and Portugal with trichotomocolpate/monocolpate pollen. Grana 36: 225-244
Friis E. M. W. L. Crepet 1987 Time of appearance of floral features. In E. M. Friis, W. G. Chaloner, and P. R. Crane [eds.], Angiosperm origins and biological consequences, 145–179. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Friis E. M. J. A. Doyle P. K. Endress Q. Leng 2003 Archaefructus—angiosperm precursor or specialized early angiosperm?. Trends in Plant Science 8: 369-373[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Friis E. M. H. Eklund K. R. Pedersen P. R. Crane 1994 Virginianthus calycanthoides gen. et sp. nov.—a calycanthaceous flower from the Potomac Group (Early Cretaceous) of eastern North America. International Journal of Plant Sciences 155: 772-785[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Friis E. M. K. R. Pedersen P. R. Crane 1992 Esqueiria gen. nov., fossil flowers with combretaceous features from the Late Cretaceous of Portugal. Biologiske Skrifter 41: 1-45
Friis E. M. K. R. Pedersen P. R. Crane 1995 Appomattoxia ancistrophora gen. et sp. nov., a new Early Cretaceous plant with similarities to Circaeaster and extant Magnoliidae. American Journal of Botany 82: 933-943[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Friis E. M. K. R. Pedersen P. R. Crane 2001 Fossil evidence of water lilies (Nymphaeales) in the early Cretaceous. Nature 410: 357-360[CrossRef][Medline]
Friis E. M. A. Skarby 1981 Structurally preserved angiosperm flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of Southern Sweden. Nature 291: 485-486
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet 1998a Tylerianthus crossmanensis gen. et sp. nov. (aff. Hydrangeaceae) from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. American Journal of Botany 85: 376-386[Abstract]
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet 1998b A new fossil flower from the Turonian of New Jersey: Dressanthia bicarpellata gen. et sp. nov. (Capparales). American Journal of Botany 85: 964-974[Abstract]
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet 2000 Monocotyledons: a review of their Early Cretaceous record. In K. Wilson and D. Morrison [eds.], Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons, CSIRO, Sydney, Australia, 44– 52
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet 2002 Triuridaceae fossil flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. American Journal of Botany 89: 1940-1957
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet 2004 The oldest complete fossil flowers of Nymphaeaceae and implications for the complex insect entrapment pollination mechanisms in early angiosperms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 8056-8060
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet G. E. Ratcliffe 1997 A new fossil fern assignable to Gleicheniaceae from late cretaceous sediments of New Jersey. American Journal of Botany 84: 483-493[Abstract]
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet D. W. Stevenson E. M. Friis 1998c Oldest known fossil flowers of monocotyledons. Nature 394: 532-533[CrossRef]
Goloboff P. A. 1999 NONA (Parsimony program for IBM compatibles and SUN workstations). Distributed by the author, website: www.cladistics.com
Graham S. W. R. G. Olmstead 2000 Utility of 17 chloroplast genes for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms. American Journal of Botany 87: 1712-1730
Graur D. W. Martin 2004 Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision. Trends in Genetics 20: 80-86[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Harley M. M. 1996 Palm pollen and the fossil record, vols. 1 and 2. Ph.D. dissertation, University of East London and The Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, UK
Harley M. M. M. S. Zavada 2000 Pollen of monocotyledons: selecting characters for cladistic analysis. In K. Wilson and D. Morrison [eds.], Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Comparative Biology of the Monocotyledons. CSIRO, Sydney, Australia, 194–213
Hedges S. B. S. Kumar 2004 Precision of molecular time estimates. Trends in Genetics 20: 242-247[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Herendeen P. S. P. R. Crane 1992 Early caesalpiniod fruits from the Palaeogene of southern England. In P. S. Herendeen and D. L. Dilcher [eds.], Advances in legume systematics, vol. 4, The fossil record, 57– 68
Herendeen P. S. P. R. Crane 1995 The fossil history of the monocotyledons. In P. J. Rudall, P. J. Cribb, D. F. Cutler, and C. J. Humphries [eds.], Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution, 1–21. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK
Herendeen P. H. W. L. Crepet K. C. Nixon 1993 Chloranthus-like stamens from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. American Journal of Botany 80: 865-871
Herendeen P. S. W. L. Crepet K. C. Nixon 1994 Fossil flowers and pollen of Lauraceae from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. Plant Systematics and Evolution 189: 29-40[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Herendeen P. S. S. Magallón-Puebla R. Lupia P. R. Crane J. Kobylinska 1999 A preliminary conspectus of the Allon flora from the Late Cretaceous (late Santonian) of central Georgia, U.S.A. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 86: 407-471[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Hermsen E. M. A. Gandolfo K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet 2003 Divisestylus gen. nov. (aff. Iteaceae), a fossil saxifrage from the Late Cretaceous of New Jersey, USA. American Journal of Botany 90: 1373-1388
Hernandez-Castillo G. R. S. R. S. Cevallos-Ferriz 1999 Reproductive and vegetative organs with affinities to Haloragaceae from the Upper Cretaceous Huepac Chert locality of Sonora, Mexico. American Journal of Botany 86: 1717-1734
Hickey L. J. 1991 Preliminary report on the flora of the Meeteetse Formation (late Cretaceous) of Wyoming and Montana. American Journal of Botany 78: 115- (Abstract)
Hickey L. J. R. K. Peterson 1978 Zingiberopsis, a fossil genus of the ginger family from the Late Cretaceous to Early Eocene sediments of western interior North America. Canadian Journal of Botany 56: 1136-1152[Web of Science]
Hill C. R. P. R. Crane 1982 Evolutionary cladistics and the origin of angiosperms. In K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday [eds.], Problems of phylogenetic reconstructions, 269–361. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA
Hilu K. W. T. Borsch K. Müller D. E. Soltis P. S. Soltis V. Savolainen M. W. Chase M. P. Powell L. A. Alice R. Evans H. Saquet C. Neinhuis T. A. B. Slotta J. G. Rohwer C. S. Campbell L. W. Chatrou 2003 Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence information. American Journal of Botany 90: 1758-1776
Horwood A. R. 1912a The past history of the monocotyledons, with remarks on their origin. The Scottish Botanical Review 1: 164-180
Horwood A. R. 1912b The past history of the monocotyledons, with remarks on their origin. The Scottish Botanical Review 1: 216-234
Hutchinson G. E. 1965 The ecological theater and the evolutionary play. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Judd W. S. R. G. Olmstead 2004 A survey of tricolpate (eudicot) phylogenetic relationships. American Journal of Botany 91: 1627-1644
Krassilov V. A. P. V. Shilin V. A. Vachrameev 1983 Cretaceous flowers from Kazakstan. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 40: 91-113[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Knobloch E. D. H. Mai 1986 Monographie der früchte und samen in der Kreide von Mitteleuropa. Edice Rozpravy úst
edniho ústavu Geologického 47: 1-219
Lakhanpal R. N. J. K. Verma 1966 Fossil wood of Tetrameles from the Deccan Intertrappean beds of Mohgaonkalan, Madhya Pradesh. The Paleobotanist 14: 209-213
Lawrence G. H. M. 1951 Taxonomy of vascular plants. The Macmillan Company, New York, New York, USA
Les D. H. E. L. Schneider D. J. Padgett P. S. Soltis D. E. Soltis M. Zanis 1999 Phylogeny, classification and floral evolution of water lilies (Nymphaeaceae; Nymphaeales): a synthesis of non-molecular, rbcL, matK, and 18S rDNA data. Systematic Botany 24: 28-46[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Linder H. P. 1986 The evolutionary history of the Poales/Restoniales—a hypothesis. Kew Bulletin 42: 297-318[CrossRef]
Loconte H. D. W. Stevenson 1990 Cladistics of the Spermophyta. Brittonia 42: 197-211[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Magallón-Puebla S. M. J. Sanderson 2002 Relationships among seed plants inferred from highly conserved genes: sorting conflicting phylogenetic signals among ancient lineages. American Journal of Botany 89: 1991-2006
Magallón-Puebla S. P. R. Crane P. S. Herendeen 1999 Phylogenetic pattern, diversity, and diversification of eudicots. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 86: 297-372[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Magallón-Puebla S. P. S. Herendeen P. R. Crane 1997 Quadriplatanus georgianus gen. et sp. nov.: staminate and pistillate platanaceous flowers from the Late Cretaceous (Coniacian-Santonian) of Georgia, USA. International Journal of Plant Sciences 158: 373-394[CrossRef]
Manchester S. R. 1992 Flowers fruits and pollen of Florissantia an extinct malvalean genus from the Eocene and Oligocene of western North America. American Journal of Botany 79: 996-1008[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Matthews S. M. J. Donoghue 1999 The root of angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochrome genes. Science 286: 947-950
McIver E. E. J. F. Basinger 1993 Flora of the Ravenscrag Formation (Paleocene), southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada. Palaeontographica Canadiana 10: 1-167
Mohr B. A. R. E. M. Friis 2000 Early angiosperms from the Lower Cretaceous Aptian Crato Formation (Brazil), a preliminary report. International Journal of Plant Sciences 161: (6 Supplement) 155-167[CrossRef]
Muller J. 1981 Fossil pollen records of extant angiosperms. The Botanical Review 47: 1-141
Nishida H. 1994 Elsemaria, a Late Cretaceous angiosperm fructification from Hokkaido, Japan. Plant Systematic and Evolution (Supplement) 8: 123–135
Nishida H. M. Nishida 1988 Protomonimia kasai-nakajhongii gen et sp. nov.: a permineralized magnolialean fructification from the mid-Cretaceous of Japan. The Botanical Magazine 101: 397-426[CrossRef]
Nixon K. C. 1996 Paleobotany in cladistics and cladistics in paleobotany: enlightenment and uncertainty. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 90: 361-373[CrossRef]
Nixon K. C. 1999 The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15: 407-414[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Nixon K. C. 2003 Winclada. Computer program for phylogenetic analysis distributed by the author, Windows 95/98/NT version, website: www.cladistics.com
Nixon K. C. W. L. Crepet 1993 Late Cretaceous fossil flowers of ericalean affinity. American Journal of Botany 80: 616-623[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Nixon K. C. M. A. Gandolfo W. L. Crepet 2001 Origins of Fagaceae: a review of relevant Turonian fossil material from New Jersey. American Journal of Botany 88: 68 (Abstract)
Nixon K. C. W. L. Crepet D. M. Stevenson E. M. Friis 1994 A reevaluation of seed plant phylogeny. Annals Missouri Botanical Garden 81: 484-533[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Norell M. A. M. J. Novacek 1992 The fossil record and evolution: comparing cladistic and paleontologic evidence for vertebrate history. Science 255: 1690-1693
Palmer J. D. D. Zamir 1982 Chloroplast DNA evolution and phylogenetic relationships in Lycopersicon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 79: 5006-5010
Palmer J. D. C. R. Shields D. B. Cohen T. J. Orten 1983 Chloroplast DNA evolution and the origin of Brassica species. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 65: 181-189
Palmer J. D. R. A. Jorgensen W. F. Thompson 1985 Chloroplast DNA variation and evolution in Pisum: patterns of changes and phylogenetic analysis. Genetics 109: 195-213
Parenti L. R. 1980 A phylogenetic analysis of the land plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 13: 225-242[CrossRef]
Parkinson C. L. K. L. Adams J. D. Palmer 1999 Multigene analyses identify the three earliest lineages of extant flowering plants. Current Biology 9: 1485-1488[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Pedersen K. R. P. R. Crane A. N. Drinnan E. M. Friis 1991 Fruits from the mid-Cretaceous of North America with pollen grains of the Clavatipollenites type. Grana 30: 577-590[Web of Science]
Pedersen K. R. E. M. Friis P. R. Crane A. N. Drinnan 1994 Reproductive structures of an extinct platanoid from the Early Cretaceous (Latest Albian) of eastern North America. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 80: 291-303[CrossRef]
Qiu Y.-L. J. Lee F. Bernasconi-Quadroni D. E. Soltis P. S. Soltis M. Zanis E. A. Zimmer Z. Chen V. Savolainen M. W. Chase 1999 The earliest angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes. Nature 402: 404-407
Retallack G. J. D. L. Dilcher 1981 Early angiosperm reproduction: Prisca reynoldsii, gen. et sp. nov. from the mid-Cretaceous coastal deposits in Kansas, USA. Palaeontographica B 179: 103-137
Rothwell G. W. R. Serbet 1994 Lignophyte phylogeny and the evolution of spermatophytes: a numerical cladistic analysis. Systematic Botany 19: 443-482[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Sanderson M. J. 1997 A nonparametric approach to estimating divergence times in the absence of rate constancy. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14: 1218-1232[Web of Science]
Sanderson M. J. J. L. Thorne N. Wilk K. G. Bremer 2004 Molecular evidence on plant divergence times. American Journal of Botany 91: 1656-1665
Savolainen V. M. F. Fay D. C. Albach A. Backlund M. van der Bank K. M. Cameron S. A. Johnson M. D. Lledo J. C. Pintaud M. Powel M. C. Sheahan D. E. Soltis P. S. Soltis P. Weston W. M. Whitten K. J. Wurdack M. W. Chase 2000 Phylogeny of the eudicots: a nearly complete familial analysis based on rbcL gene sequences. Kew Bulletin 55: 257-309[CrossRef]
Schönenberger J. K. R. Pedersen E. M. Friis 2001 Normapolles flowers of fagalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of Portugal. Plant Systematics and Evolution 226: 205-230[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Sims H. J. P. S. Herendeen R. Lupia R. A. Christopher P. R. Crane 1999 Fossil flowers with Normapolles pollen from the Upper Cretaceous of southeastern North America. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 106: 131-151[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Soltis D. E. P. S. Soltis 2003 The role of phylogenetics in comparative genetics. Plant Physiology 132: 1790-1800
Soltis P. S. D. E. Soltis 2004 The origin and diversification of angiosperms. The American Journal of Botany 91: 1614-1626[CrossRef]
Soltis D. E. P. S. Soltis M. W. Chase M. E. Mort D. C. Albach M. Zanis V. Savolainen W. H. Haun S. B. Hoot M. F. Fay M. Axtell S. M. Swensen L. M. Prince W. J. Kress K. C. Nixon J. S. Farris 2000 Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 133: 381-461[CrossRef]
Soltis P. S. D. E. Soltis M. W. Chase 1999 Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402: 402-403
Stockey R. A. 1987 A permineralized flower from the Middle Eocene of British Columbia. American Journal of Botany 74: 1878-1887[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Stockey R. A. K. B. Pigg 1991 Flowers and fruits of Princetonia allenbyensis from the Middle Eocene chert of British Columbia. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 70: 163-172[CrossRef]
Stockey R. A. G. W. Rothwell 1997 The aquatic angiosperm Trapago angulata from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) St. Mary River Formation of southern Alberta. International Journal of Plant Sciences 158: 83-94[CrossRef]
Sun G. D. L. Dilcher S. Zheng Z. Zhou 1998 In search of the first flower: a Jurassic angiosperm, Archaefructus, from northeast china. Science 282: 1692-1695
Sun G. Q. Ji D. L. Dilcher S. L. Zheng K. Nixon X. F. Wang 2002 Archaefructaceae, a new basal angiosperm family. Science 296: 899-904
Takhtajan A. 1997 Diversity and classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA
Taylor D. W. W. L. Crepet 1987 Fossil floral evidence of Malpighiaceae and an early plant–pollinator relationship. American Journal of Botany 74: 274-286
Taylor D. W. L. J. Hickey 1990 An Aptian plant with attached leaves and flowers: implications for angiosperm origin. Science 247: 702-704
Taylor D. W. L. J. Hickey 1992 Phylogenetic evidence for the herbaceous origin of angiosperms. Plant Systematics and Evolution 180: 137-156[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Tiffney B. H. 1977 Upper Cretaceous angiosperm flower from Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Nature 265: 136-137[CrossRef]
Voigt E. 1981 Upper Cretaceous bryozoan –seagrass association in the Maastrichtian of The Netherlands. In G. P. Larwood and C. Nielsen [eds.], Recent and fossil bryozoa, 281–298. Olsen and Olsen, Fredensburg, Denmark
Voigt E. W. Domke 1955 Thalassocaris bosqueti Debey ex Miquel, ein strukturell erhaltenes Seegras aus der holländischen. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologischen Staatsinstitut in Hamburg 24: 87-102
Wikström N. V. Savolainen M. W. Chase 2001 Evolution of the angiosperms: calibrating the family tree. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, Biological Sciences 268: 2211-2220
Yoo M.-J. C. D. Bell P. S. Soltis D. E. Soltis 2004 Estimation of divergence times and biogeography of major clades of Nymphaeales. American Journal of Botany 90 (Abstract)
Young D. A. D. S. Seigler 1981 Phytochemistry and angiosperm phylogeny. Praeger Publishers, New York, New York, USA
Zanis M. J. D. E. Soltis P. S. Soltis S. Mathews M. J. Donoghue 2002 The root of the angiosperms revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 99: 6848-6853
Zanis M. J. P. S. Soltis Y.-L. Qiu E. Zimmer D. E. Soltis 2003 Phylogenetic analyses and perianth evolution in basal angiosperms. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 90: 129-150[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Zavada M. S. 1984 Angiosperm origins and evolution based on dispersed fossil pollen ultrastructure. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 444-463[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Zavada M. W. L. Crepet 1981 Investigations of angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: flowers of the Celtidoideae. American Journal of Botany 68: 924-933[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Zhou Z. W. L. Crepet K. C. Nixon 2001 The earliest fossil evidence of the Hamamelidaceae: Late Cretaceous (Turonian) inflorescences and fruits of Altingioidea. American Journal of Botany 88: 753-766
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. K. Endress and J. A. Doyle Reconstructing the ancestral angiosperm flower and its initial specializations Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 22 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. S. Soltis, S. F. Brockington, M.-J. Yoo, A. Piedrahita, M. Latvis, M. J. Moore, A. S. Chanderbali, and D. E. Soltis Floral variation and floral genetics in basal angiosperms Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 110 - 128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. L. Crepet and K. J. Niklas Darwin's second 'abominable mystery': Why are there so many angiosperm species? Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 366 - 381. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. E. Pfeil and M. D. Crisp The age and biogeography of Citrus and the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) in Australasia and New Caledonia Am. J. Botany, December 1, 2008; 95(12): 1621 - 1631. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. R. Mast, C. L. Willis, E. H. Jones, K. M. Downs, and P. H. Weston A smaller Macadamia from a more vagile tribe: inference of phylogenetic relationships, divergence times, and diaspore evolution in Macadamia and relatives (tribe Macadamieae; Proteaceae) Am. J. Botany, July 1, 2008; 95(7): 843 - 870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Moore, C. D. Bell, P. S. Soltis, and D. E. Soltis Using plastid genome-scale data to resolve enigmatic relationships among basal angiosperms PNAS, December 4, 2007; 104(49): 19363 - 19368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Calvillo-Canadell and S. R. S. Cevallos-Ferriz Reproductive structures of Rhamnaceae from the Cerro del Pueblo (Late Cretaceous, Coahuila) and Coatzingo (Oligocene, Puebla) Formations, Mexico Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2007; 94(10): 1658 - 1669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. S. Manos, P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, S. R. Manchester, S.-H. Oh, C. D. Bell, D. L. Dilcher, and D. E. Stone Phylogeny of Extant and Fossil Juglandaceae Inferred from the Integration of Molecular and Morphological Data Sets Syst Biol, June 1, 2007; 56(3): 412 - 430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. L. Dilcher, G. Sun, Q. Ji, and H. Li An early infructescence Hyrcantha decussata (comb. nov.) from the Yixian Formation in northeastern China PNAS, May 29, 2007; 104(22): 9370 - 9374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Wu, L. A. Mueller, D. Crouzillat, V. Petiard, and S. D. Tanksley Combining Bioinformatics and Phylogenetics to Identify Large Sets of Single-Copy Orthologous Genes (COSII) for Comparative, Evolutionary and Systematic Studies: A Test Case in the Euasterid Plant Clade Genetics, November 1, 2006; 174(3): 1407 - 1420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. O. Poinar Jr. and B. N. Danforth A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science, October 27, 2006; 314(5799): 614 - 614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. J. HERMSEN and J. R. HENDRICKS THE HIERARCHY OF TIME Palaios, October 1, 2006; 21(5): 403 - 405. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. Hermsen, T. N. Taylor, E. L. Taylor, and D. Wm. Stevenson Cataphylls of the Middle Triassic cycad Antarcticycas schopfii and new insights into cycad evolution Am. J. Botany, May 1, 2006; 93(5): 724 - 738. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. L. Crepet, K. C. Nixon, and M. A. Gandolfo An extinct calycanthoid taxon, Jerseyanthus calycanthoides , from the Late Cretaceous of New Jersey Am. J. Botany, September 1, 2005; 92(9): 1475 - 1485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. L. SEAGO JR, L. C. MARSH, K. J. STEVENS, A. SOUKUP, O. VOTRUBOVA, and D. E. ENSTONE A Re-examination of the Root Cortex in Wetland Flowering Plants With Respect to Aerenchyma Ann. Bot., September 1, 2005; 96(4): 565 - 579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Palmer, D. E. Soltis, and M. W. Chase The plant tree of life: an overview and some points of view Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2004; 91(10): 1437 - 1445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
