| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
What's this? |
Invited Special Papers |
2Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, UK; 3Department of Biological Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052 USA; 4Department of Palaeobotany, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
Received for publication January 21, 2004. Accepted for publication June 17, 2004.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Key Words: angiosperms • fossils • paleobotany • phylogeny • spermatophytes • tracheophytes
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Fossils, like herbarium specimens and leaf fragments kept in silica gel for DNA analysis, are the remains of once-living organisms gathered at a particular time and from a particular place. There is no essential difference between a dried specimen collected a decade ago and a fossil specimen entombed within rocks for millions of years. Neither is a perfect sample of a complex living organism, but combined with knowledge from other samples of plant diversity and supplemented by information from living plants, both can help answer questions about the form of the botanical tree of life and the processes by which it has come about.
Even relatively recently, paleontological data have been considered by some (e.g., Hughes, 1976
, 1994
) to be the final arbiters in any effort to understand plant phylogeny. We do not subscribe to this view. Recent advances in systematic theory have developed a more sophisticated perspective and have helped to clarify exactly what information fossils can and cannot deliver (e.g., Hill and Crane, 1982
; Crane and Hill, 1987
; Patterson, 1981
; Doyle and Donoghue, 1987
; Gauthier et al., 1988
; Donoghue et al., 1989
). The result is a straightforward and uncompromising view of paleontological data. In a cladistic context, neither fossils nor their stratigraphic position have any special role in inferring phylogeny, and although more complex models have been developed (see Fisher, 1994
; Huelsenbeck, 1994
), these have not been widely adopted. But fossils do provide additional information on the diversity of plants, which must be accounted for by any comprehensive understanding of plant phylogeny and evolution (e.g., Doyle and Donoghue, 1987
). They also provide evidence on the timing of evolutionary events that is useful to develop and test ideas on how the variety of plant life may have arisen (e.g., Doyle and Donoghue, 1993
; Crane et al., 1995
).
In this paper, we discuss the contributions of paleobotanical data to understanding large-scale evolutionary patterns in the plant kingdom. We begin with a brief consideration of the nature of the paleobotanical record and the temporal information it provides. We then review three key areas of plant phylogeny with a particular focus on the contributions of paleobotanical data: the origin and diversification of vascular plants, the origin and diversification of seed plants, and the origin and diversification of flowering plants. The many other contributions of paleobotanical data, to areas of science as diverse as global environmental change, biostratigraphy, and paleogeography, are not considered in this paper.
|
FOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS FOR PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Pigg and Stockey, 1996
; Stockey et al., 1998
). Equivalent information for the extant relatives of these plants is frequently not readily available. Similarly, the quality of preservation of morphological and anatomical details in charcoalified flowers from Cretaceous fossil floras may exceed that seen in standard herbarium specimens (e.g., Friis, 1990
; Herendeen et al., 1994
, 1995
; Keller et al., 1996
; Magallón-Puebla et al., 1997
, 2001; Schönenberger et al., 2001
; Friis et al., 2003b
). In both these cases, detailed comparison of fossil and extant material often requires extensive morphological and anatomical surveys of different organs from living plants. These, and many other examples, show that frequently it is not the quality of preservation of fossil material that limits comparison with extant taxa. Often it is simply that detailed comparative, morphological, and anatomical studies of the relevant living plants have not been done. A much more significant problem, at least for most fossils of large and complex plants (e.g., shrubs or trees), is that the different organs derived from the same living plant rarely occur in attachment in fossil assemblages. Thus while the leaves, seeds, pollen grains, stems, and other parts of fossil plants can often be extremely well preserved, a central difficulty is determining which of these dispersed plant organs were produced by the same fossil species. Trying to understand which leaf "belongs to" which seed or pollen grain is not a straightforward undertaking.
Because attachment between different organs in the fossil record is the exception rather than the rule, attempts to reconstruct fossil plants generally lean heavily on a variety of indirect inferences (see for example the arguments used to reconstruct various fossil angiosperms; Dilcher and Crane, 1984
; Magallón-Puebla et al., 1997
; Manchester et al., 1999
). Unless done extremely carefully, such inferences are potentially subject to significant error, with obvious consequences for evolutionary interpretations. This problem is especially severe in fossil assemblages that are composed mainly of different plant parts from extinct taxa that lack close living relatives. In such circumstances, where living counterparts are not available, comparisons with living taxa provide no clues to aid the process of reconstruction. Consequently, the connections among different organs of the same plant species can only be worked out from first principles, for example, by patterns of association within and among fossil localities (see for example, the extinct Nordenskioldia plant, Crane et al., 1991
; Manchester et al., 1991
), structural similarities (e.g., the treatment of the Dicroidium fremouwensis plant, Taylor, 1996
), deductions based on a process of elimination (e.g., the treatment of extinct Bennettitales by Harris, 1932
, 1969
), or a combination of these approaches.
One result of the difficulty of reconstructing "whole fossil plants" from assemblages that consist mainly of isolated fossils of plant parts is that our understanding of many important groups of extinct plants is based frequently on a core of more or less reliably reconstructed "whole fossil plants" surrounded by a "halo" of other plant fossils that are not understood in equal detail. For example, Caytoniales are a key group of extinct Mesozoic seed plants. Based on occurrences of dispersed, isolated leaves assigned to Sagenopteris, this group appears to have been widespread in the Mesozoic. However, there are only a few convincingly reconstructed "Caytonia plants" (Thomas, 1925
; Harris, 1932
, 1964
). Most of what we know about extinct groups like Caytoniales or Bennettitales (Table 1) is based on unconnected bits and pieces: mainly isolated leaves and reproductive structures. Improving this situation will be slow and labor intensive. Nevertheless, such work is crucial if we are to improve significantly the extinct diversity that we know for seed plants and other groups.
|
|
THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
In broad terms, establishing the age of fossil plants is not problematic. Decades of geological and paleontological research have established that the fossil record is strongly internally consistent, just as there is pattern and internal consistency in the distribution of character states among organisms. This is well corroborated by many millions of individual observations of plant and animal fossils, as well as by geological evidence from superposition, correlation, and large-scale stratigraphic and structural geological patterns. Our current understanding of the geological column is supported by a wealth of interlocking geological data. The large-scale patterns of geological succession are well known. This is not to say that current knowledge of geology is infallible and should not be subject to revision in light of information from biology or paleontology. But to overthrow a significant body of geological data, inferences from biology or paleontology will themselves need to be highly corroborated and unambiguous.
However, it is also the case that determining the age of fossil assemblages is generally most straightforward for marine deposits where correlation is possible over large distances. Long-distance correlation is more difficult in nonmarine situations (e.g., river deposits, lake basins). Unfortunately, plant fossils are more often preserved in these nonmarine, continental settings. In cases where overlying or underlying marine rocks are not present or where these or other kinds of "controls" are widely spaced, determining a precise age for a particular plant fossil assemblage may be problematic. In some situations, pollen transported into marine sediments may be helpful, or direct radiometric dating may be possible for rocks closely associated with fossil occurrences (for example, where there is volcanic ash or other volcanic deposits), but in many geologic settings such opportunities are not available.
Therefore, the basis for establishing the age of particular fossil assemblages will vary, and it is in such details that the reliability of age determinations for fossil plant assemblages resides. For example, the age of many classic Tertiary paleobotanical localities in volcanic terrains is often well constrained by radiometric dates (e.g., Manchester, 1994
, 2000
), whereas the age of the classic Jurassic plant fossil assemblages of the Yorkshire coast is relatively well controlled based on the well-developed stratigraphy and overlying and underlying marine deposits (van Konijnenburg-van Cittert and Morgans, 1999
). But the important early angiosperm assemblages on the Atlantic Coastal Plain of eastern North America and Portugal are much more difficult to date precisely (e.g., Brenner, 1963
; Doyle and Hickey, 1976
; Hickey and Doyle, 1977
; Christopher, 1979
; Doyle, 1992
; Friis et al., 1999
, 2000
). Therefore, to a large extent, the age reported for any plant fossil assemblage is itself a hypothesis that is subject to test. In many cases, this hypothesis is highly corroborated by a large mass of paleontological and geological evidence, but in other cases, it may be weaker and based on less secure correlations of relatively few taxa over large distances. In most cases, the age of fossil plant assemblages in broad terms is clear (for example, at a level of tens of millions of years), but it is the precise age (millions of years) that is often much less certain. It is therefore important to understand the detailed evidence on which the age determination for a particular fossil assemblage is based.
|
COMPLETENESS OF THE PALEOBOTANICAL RECORD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
). The key to being able to use the paleobotanical record is to understand the nature of its incompleteness and whether or not it is adequate for the purposes for which it is being used. For example, certain kinds of plants, because of their biology and ecology, are more likely to be overrepresented or underrepresented in the paleobotanical record (e.g., see Herendeen and Crane, 1995
for comments on monocots, or Lidgard and Crane, 1990
for comments on different groups of seed plants). Similarly, different parts of the same plant also vary in the extent to which they are preserved. These and many other factors mean that different kinds of plants are represented in the fossil record to different extents. Therefore, the completeness of the record for different plants will vary considerably from group to group, and the temporal ranges of different taxa will have different levels of error associated with them (e.g., Marshall, 1990
).
In a phylogenetic context, it is also clear that the error bars for the ranges of fossil taxa in the same phylogenetic tree are not independent. If one node is fixed securely, then the others can only vary accordingly. As a result, the precise temporal scaling of a given phylogenetic tree is itself a complex interlocking hypothesis, with the age of different nodes established with different degrees of confidence. These in turn differentially constrain the potential age of other nodes within the tree of life. The situation is complex; nevertheless, almost 200 years of geological research has demonstrated that biostratigraphy works with rocks of different ages in many different places around the world. Furthermore, this biostratigraphic order is broadly consistent with the relative temporal sequence of the appearance of different groups or organisms that is predicted from independent estimates of phylogeny (e.g., Crane et al., 1995
; Kenrick and Crane, 1997
). This should give us confidence that well-corroborated patterns recognized in the fossil record are robust and likely to stand the test of time.
|
ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF VASCULAR PLANTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Edwards et al., 1995
). Detailed paleobotanical studies have documented the structure of many key fossils (e.g., Li and Edwards, 1992
), and careful comparative studies of living taxa have provided the essential framework in which studies of extinct taxa can be understood. The result has been an increasingly integrated understanding of the origin and diversification of tracheophytes (Fig. 1).
|
; see also Banks, 1992
). This work effectively dismantled the earlier concept of the Psilophyta that had been established by Kidston and Lang (1917)
and that subsequently had grown by accretion to accommodate a great variety of fossils from the Silurian and Devonian. Banks' key insight was that the Psilophyta had become increasingly unnatural and that within it, three clear groups could be recognized: Rhyniophytina, Zosterophyllophytina, and Trimerophytina. He also recognized the relationship between zosterophylls and extant lycopsids (Table 2).
|
).
Other key components of the modification of Banks' scheme were the recognition of the polysporangiophyte clade and also the protracheophyte grade below the point of divergence of all extant lineages of vascular plants (crown group vascular plants), recognition of the euphyllophyte clade and extinct stem groups, and the proposal of a moniliform clade (ferns plus Psilotales and Equisetales and relevant fossils; Kenrick and Crane, 1997
). Euphyllophytes were shown to be the sister group to zosterophylls plus lycopsids, whereas moniliforms were proposed as sister to lignophytes (Kenrick and Crane, 1997
).
Clarification of phylogenetic patterns in and around the origin of vascular plants has provided the framework to develop initial evolutionary hypotheses on the evolution of many of the characteristic features of land plants. For example, current phylogenetic patterns indicate that the heteromorphic alternation of generations seen in all extant vascular plants arose by reduction of an isomorphic alternation of generations seen in extinct (but not extant) vascular and nonvascular plants at the protracheophyte grade (not to be confused with the isomorphic alternation of generations seen among some "green algae"). It also permitted development of new hypotheses for the origin of conducting cells, microphylls, and many other features (Crane and Kenrick, 1997
; Kenrick and Crane, 1997
).
Key persistent phylogenetic questions
Despite the progress made with understanding the origin and diversification of vascular plants, many important questions persist. For example, the exact relationships of hornworts, liverworts, and mosses to the polysporangiophyte clade remain controversial (based on different molecular data sets; Qiu and Lee, 2000
; Shaw and Renzaglia, 2004
), and this may have implications for understanding patterns of evolution among tracheophytes. Similarly, the concept of moniliforms, which was first proposed based on studies of fossils (Kenrick and Crane, 1997
; but see Rothwell, 1999
), has received support from studies of extant taxa (Pryer et al., 2001
), but more detailed study is needed to understand exactly how these major lineages are interrelated. Many of the large number of fossils that seem to be relevant to this part of the vascular plant phylogeny also need to be understood in more detail, and their relationship to extant taxa and each other needs to be clarified. Resolving these and other uncertainties will be crucial to developing and testing hypotheses about the evolution of leaves, secondary xylem, and many other features.
Areas for future research
There is still much to be learnt about those fossil plants relevant to the early diversification of vascular plants (e.g., Edwards, 1996
), and further discoveries will provide an opportunity to confront current hypotheses (e.g., Kenrick and Crane, 1997
; Rothwell, 1999
) with new data. However, there is even more scope for increasing our current understanding of plants of the Middle and Late Devonian and Mississippian, which are related on the one hand to lignophytes and on the other to crown group moniliforms. In general, these plants are larger and more complex (especially in vegetative morphology and anatomy) than the small and relatively simple plants that predominate in the Silurian and Early Devonian, and as a result they are more difficult to characterize in detail. Nevertheless, a better knowledge of plants at this level will be crucial to an improved understanding of the diversification of crown group euphyllophytes (ferns, Psilotales, Equisetales, and seed plants).
It is also important to recognize that the Ordovician-Devonian radiation of embryophytes and vascular plants is of comparable importance to the "Cambrian explosion" in the evolution of Metazoa. The transition from an aquatic habit to a fully terrestrial existence had profound biochemical, physiological, developmental, anatomical, and morphological consequences (Bateman et al., 1998
). It was during this phase of evolution that the basic characteristics of land plants were established. Subsequently, various subgroups became still more complex over the next 400 million years. Careful study of the evolutionary transitions inherent in current phylogenetic hypotheses is likely to be productive. In particular, the potential to integrate information on developmental patterns among extinct early land plants (preserved in the anatomy of permineralized material) with a modern understanding of development in extant relatives is especially appealing. Research that has modeled the relationship between the form of stelar tissues and patterns of branching (Stein, 1993
; Hotton and Stein, 1994
) or sought to understand how microphylls differ in their developmental genetics from megaphylls (J. Langdale, Oxford University, work in progress) points the way forward. Comparing patterns of development in extant plants with historical patterns may also be informative (e.g., Friedman and Cook, 2000
). At the level of early land plant diversification, such work only makes sense in the broader comparative context provided by integrated studies of living and fossil plants.
|
ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF SEED PLANTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Hill and Crane, 1982
; Crane, 1985
; Doyle and Donoghue, 1986
; Nixon et al., 1994
; Rothwell and Serbet, 1994
; Doyle, 1996
, 1998
; Chaw et al., 2000
; Magallón and Sanderson, 2002
; Soltis et al., 2002
; Burleigh and Mathews, 2004
), these efforts have yet to converge on a widely accepted hypothesis of relationships. Nevertheless, some progress has been made, particularly in terms of understanding the diversity of extinct seed plants. For example, 50 years ago, discussions of seed plant phylogeny were held back by the concept that the seed ferns (pteridosperms) were a natural evolutionary unit. A key advance was the recognition that "seed ferns" are not a meaningful group and should not be treated as such in phylogenetic discussions (e.g., Crane, 1985
). The individual elements lumped into the traditional seed fern concept are of diverse relationships. The concept of seed ferns is at best paraphyletic and more likely polyphyletic. The information available for different seed plant groups has also expanded dramatically. Callistophytes, corystosperms, and glossopterids are all groups for which important new information has become available, including important studies of permineralized material (e.g., Rothwell, 1981
; Taylor and Taylor, 1992
; Yao et al., 1995
; Taylor, 1996
; Axsmith et al., 2000
; Klavins et al., 2002
). A further advance in terms of phylogeny has been the recognition that there are two grades of organization that have combinations of features that are unknown among extant taxa (Fig. 2). The first comprises early diverging lignophytes below the seed plant clade. The second comprises seed plant lineages that differentiated below the point at which the five extant groups diverge (crown group seed plants).
|
that resulted in the concept of the progymnosperms, it has become widely accepted that there is a grade of organization characterized by plants that produce secondary xylem and phloem but that reproduce like "pteridophytes" through the dispersal of free spores. Among extant plants, there is a one-to-one correspondence (except for some losses of secondary growth) between the production of secondary xylem and phloem, and reproduction by seeds. Among pteridophytes, only in some Ophioglossales is there any indication of secondary xylem and phloem in the form of a eustele. However, among extinct taxa, the correlation between seed plant reproduction and production of large woody stems breaks down. This important advance was made possible initially by a single fossil specimen that showed a connection between the wood of Callixylon and the leafy branch system of Archaeopteris (Beck, 1960
). It is also significant that almost all phylogenetic analyses of seed plants that include extinct and extant taxa have recognized hydraspermans, "lyginopterids," and medullosans as the seed plant lineages that were established prior to the divergence of extant seed plant groups. These stem lineages apparently retained sporelike pollen (prepollen, microspores) with proximal germination. They also retained tetrahedral megaspores with a trilete mark. All extant seed plants have pollen with (primitively) distal germination and a linear tetrad of megaspores, which precludes the development of megaspores with a trilete mark. It thus seems likely that the early stem lineages of seed plants had a reproductive biology much more like that of pteridophytes than living seed plants.
Another area of seed plant phylogeny in which there is emerging (but not universal) agreement concerns the monophyly of the five extant groups. Ginkgo is in any case monotypic, and as far as we are aware, no one has seriously questioned the monophyly of cycads. But at various points in the past, there have been suggestions that conifers, Gnetales, and angiosperms may be polyphyletic or paraphyletic.
There is now strong consensus based on both molecular and morphological data that angiosperms are monophyletic. Previous speculations of angiosperm polyphyly (e.g., Meeuse, 1961
, 1966
; Hughes, 1976
) have fallen by the wayside. Indeed, angiosperms appear to be one of the best-supported major groups among plants as a whole. There seems little doubt that all extant angiosperms are more closely related to each other than they are to any extant or currently known fossil "gymnosperm."
Similarly with Gnetales, previous implications of polyphyly (Eames, 1952
) are no longer supported, and phylogenetic studies that supported paraphyly as a possibility (Nixon et al., 1994
) now seem aberrant in the context of other studies. There also seems to be a broad consensus that Gnetum and Welwitschia are together sister to Ephedra. The rapid recent expansion in the known fossil record of Gnetales is also remarkable (Crane and Upchurch, 1987
; Krassilov and Bugdaeva, 1988
; Crane, 1996
; Guo and Wu, 2000
; Rydin et al., 2003
) and indicates that we still have much to learn about this group, which we now know was once much more diverse.
With regard to conifers, the situation is more complex. Since the earliest phylogenetic studies of seed plants (e.g., Crane, 1985
), it has been recognized that conifers are a difficult group to define based on morphological features. There have been two kinds of challenges to the conclusion that conifers are monophyletic: one based on morphological data and incorporating fossils; the other based solely on evidence from comparative studies of DNA sequences.
The challenge to standard concepts of conifer monophyly based on morphological data comes from analyses by Rothwell and Serbet (1994)
in which extant conifers and early fossil conifers (e.g., Lebachia) are widely separated in phylogenetic analyses that incorporate extant and fossil taxa. In broad terms, this result comes about (in the context of one particular selection of taxa and scoring of characters) because Lebachia associates with strong support with cordaites, whereas extant conifers (which remain monophyletic in these studies) are placed elsewhere. Such patterns, and contrary results obtained by others (e.g., Doyle, 1996
), emphasize the need for more detailed integrated research on conifer phylogeny, and even raise the possibility that the long-accepted relationship between conifers and cordaites established by Florin (e.g., 1939
, 1951
) may be worthy of reexamination using modern techniques.
The challenge to conifer monophyly based on molecular data comes from several analyses in which Gnetales are placed within conifers, which therefore become paraphyletic (the so-called "gnepine" hypothesis, e.g., Hansen et al., 1999
; Qiu et al., 1999
; Bowe et al., 2000
; Chaw et al., 2000
; Donoghue and Doyle, 2000
; Soltis et al., 2002
; Burleigh and Mathews, 2004
). Analyses by Rydin et al. (2002)
and Magallón and Sanderson (2002)
indicated that the gnepine hypothesis was not strongly supported, but Burleigh and Mathews (2004)
recovered well supported gnepine trees in analyses of combined data from 13 loci using parsimony (when fastest evolving sites are excluded) and maximum likelihood.
Key persistent phylogenetic questions
In many respects, our understanding of phylogenetic relationships among extant and fossil seed plants is much less satisfactory than for phylogenetic patterns among early-diverging tracheophytes or among major groups of angiosperms. Indeed, from a state of relative consensus that was reached in the late 1980s and early 1990s around the anthophyte hypothesis, the current situation is much more uncertain. Under the anthophyte hypothesis, angiosperms were grouped with Gnetales among extant taxa (and to Bennettitales, Pentoxylon, and sometimes Caytonia among fossils). Under this interpretation, extant "gymnosperms" are paraphyletic. In contrast, recent analyses of molecular data have proposed various alternative patterns of relationships among extant taxa. In some of these analyses, Gnetales are nested within conifers (discussed earlier), and according to several different sets of results, the four groups of extant gymnosperms form a monophyletic group sister to flowering plants (e.g., Bowe et al., 2000
; Chaw et al., 2000
; Magallón and Sanderson, 2002
; Soltis et al., 2002
; Burleigh and Mathews, 2004
).
Based on the apparent conflict between current molecular analyses that only sample extant taxa and analyses that are based on structural features and sample extant and fossil taxa, it would be easy to argue in support of one or other of these contrasting views. However, it may be more productive to recognize that both sets of results have inherent strengths and limitations. Seeking to identify the strengths, and dedicating efforts to minimize the limitations, would seem to be a sensible way forward.
Current morphological data sets incorporate only a "compromise" selection of fossil plants based on taxa that are relatively well understood (i.e., well preserved and at least partially reconstructed) and that maximize the possibilities for comparison with extant taxa, albeit solely based on morphological and anatomical characteristics. Successive analyses have also sought to increase the list of characters to maximize phylogenetic resolution (compare Crane, 1985
, with Doyle, 1996
). However, to the extent that these efforts result in weak interpretations of homology, it may be that this is not the most productive approach (Nixon, 1996
).
In the current seemingly confusing situation, it may be more helpful to strive for more limited, but more secure, resolution by focusing solely on those characters in the morphological– anatomical analyses that have been investigated in detail, and for which homology statements are most reliable. This will require the exercise of judgment, but similar judgments are inherent in the construction of any data matrix based on the structural characteristics of plants.
Such an approach might also generate more initial discussion of the characters themselves rather than the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses. For example, even among extant seed plants, it is uncertain exactly how best to compare the seed-bearing structures of Gnetales, conifers, and angiosperms. The situation is still more problematic for extinct groups such as Caytonia, corystosperms, glossopterids, and Bennettitales. Previous cladistic analyses of relationships have made various attempts to compare these structures, but if the hypotheses of homology are weak, then the estimates of relationships based on those comparisons will also be weak. A smaller set of characters for which homologies are more secure may have given more useful results. Exactly which characters are included in a morphological analysis and exactly how they are scored makes a big difference (see also Scotland et al., 2003
). It may also be valuable to increase the sampling of fossil taxa and to focus on specific fossil species (see Kenrick and Crane, 1997
), rather than restricting the paleobotanical sampling and using "composite" fossil taxa (see also Nixon, 1996
). Achieving the right balance in the selection and scoring of both characters and taxa will require both broad knowledge and good judgment.
However, the problems are not restricted to morphological data sets. Molecular analyses also have their own problems (e.g., Qiu and Palmer, 1999
), and we do not subscribe to the view that morphological studies are only useful in the context of a hypothesis based on molecular data (compare Scotland et al., 2003
). And in molecular studies, just as in morphology, there is a difficult cost-benefit trade-off between the competing priorities of maximizing sampling (albeit among only extant taxa) and maximizing characters (amount of sequence data). Again, it may be helpful to look for a new approach, for example by considering other kinds of changes in the genome (as opposed to just sequence data) as well as seemingly clear-cut morphological characters. For example, two apparently clear features of the reproductive biology of extant taxa (siphonogamy and the distinctive sperm type of cycads and Ginkgo) indicate a pattern of relationships (Fig. 3) that combines elements of both the morphological and molecular results. It rejects gymnosperm monophyly but resolves conifers and Gnetales as part of a clade with angiosperms. Arguments that suggest multiple origins of siphonogamy or that interpret the distinctive sperm structure of Ginkgo and cycads as plesiomorphic for seeds plants as a whole, should not be glossed over, but they do require more explicit and more critical discussion than they have received so far.
|
Another key priority should be improved synthesis of the existing paleobotanical record. The information on many interesting and potentially phylogenetically informative fossil plants remains scattered and poorly collated. There is considerable scope for renewed attempts at synthesis that build on earlier, but now outdated, efforts (e.g., Crane, 1985
, 1988
) and draw together the existing information in a standardized way that facilitates comparative analyses (see for example Hilton et al., 2003
).
|
ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF FLOWERING PLANTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Muller, 1970
; Hughes et al., 1979
; Hughes, 1994
), and then through increasingly careful comparisons of angiosperm megafossils with their extant relatives (e.g., Dilcher, 1974
), the potential of paleobotanical data to contribute to ideas of angiosperm evolution gradually became more widely appreciated. Especially influential were studies of fossil angiosperm pollen from the Early Cretaceous of southern England (Hughes, 1976
) and reinvestigations of the classic mid-Cretaceous floras of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Eocene floras of the Mississippi Embayment.
In southern England, Hughes and collaborators documented the increasing diversity and abundance of angiosperm pollen through Early Cretaceous Wealden and overlying sediments. On the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Doyle and Hickey (Doyle, 1969
; Doyle and Hickey, 1976
; Hickey and Doyle, 1977
) demonstrated a coordinated pattern of increasing diversity, abundance, and "advancement" of angiosperm leaves and pollen. In the Mississippi Embayment, Dilcher and collaborators carefully compared well-preserved fossil leaves, fruits, and flowers from the Eocene of Kentucky and Tennessee (Dilcher et al., 1976
) with their extant relatives and discovered new character combinations not seen in extant taxa. Hickey and Wolfe (1975)
showed that the leaves of extant and fossil angiosperms could be compared in detail using previously unrecognized characters of venation, serrations, and other features.
Taken together, these advances stimulated further interest in angiosperm paleobotany, which today is a well-established and flourishing subdiscipline. In the Tertiary, a continuing emphasis is on careful comparisons of fossil angiosperms with extant taxa, sometimes supplemented by reconstructions based on similarities in structure or patterns of co-occurrence (e.g., Manchester, 1987
, 1994
, 2000
). In the Cretaceous, there is increased emphasis on the study of fossil flowers (e.g., Friis, 1983
, 1984
, 1990
; Dilcher and Crane, 1984
; Herendeen et al., 1995
; Gandolfo et al., 1998a
, b
; Magallón et al., 2001
; Friis et al., 2003a
).
A further important development has been the discovery and study of small, exquisitely preserved, mummified, or charcoalified fossil flowers from the Cretaceous (Fig. 4). These studies were pioneered by Friis (e.g., Friis and Skarby, 1981
, 1982
; Friis, 1983
) based on bulk sieving of material from the Campanian-Santonian of Åsen, southern Sweden (see also Knobloch and Mai, 1986
), but have since been extended to the classic Potomac Group localities of eastern North America (e.g., Friis et al., 1988
, 1997a
; Crane and Herendeen, 1996
), other later Cretaceous localities on the Atlantic Coastal Plain (e.g., Gandolfo et al., 1998a
, b
; Herendeen et al., 1999
), the classic Cretaceous localities in Portugal (e.g., Friis et al., 1992
, 1999
), and fossil assemblages in Asia (e.g., Frumin and Friis, 1995
; Takahashi et al., 1999
, 2001
, 2003
) and Antarctica (Eklund, 2003
; Eklund et al., 2004a
). The discovery and study of this material has revolutionized our knowledge of angiosperm diversity during the Cretaceous. It has also provided valuable information on the parent plants of fossil angiosperm pollen grains that were previously only known as dispersed (e.g., Normapolles pollen now known in situ within flowers, e.g., Friis, 1983
; Sims et al., 1999
; Schönenberger et al., 2001
; Friis et al., 2003b
).
|
, 1989
) and Betulaceae (e.g., Crane, 1981
; Manchester and Crane, 1987
; Crane, 1989
; Manchester and Chen, 1998
; Fig. 5), the available fossil material has greatly improved knowledge of the true diversity of extant families. Similarly, fossil floral material has established the presence during the Cretaceous of many different families (and even genera) of extant angiosperms (Magallón-Puebla et al., 1999
). In other cases, fossils that are well understood in structural terms are clearly not referable to any family of extant angiosperms (e.g., Friis, 1990
; Friis et al., 1997a
).
|
), whereas angiosperm fossils help calibrate the age of individual units in this framework. Significantly, the overall temporal pattern in the fossil record is broadly consistent with the chronology implicit in the molecular results (Crane et al., 1995
; Doyle, 2001
).
Key persistent phylogenetic questions
Despite rapid and remarkable progress with understanding the relationships among different groups of angiosperms based on molecular data, significant questions still remain at many levels. Among the apparently later-diversifying groups (e.g., genera of Asteraceae or Lamiaceae), it seems unlikely that paleobotany will contribute significantly to understanding extinct diversity and thus to phylogenetic issues. At intermediate levels in the angiosperm hierarchy, paleobotany is likely to be more informative, and it has already significantly expanded knowledge of the diversity of some families and helped calibrate the timing of evolutionary events (e.g., Juglandaceae, Betulaceae). There is every reason to suspect that continued studies of well-preserved Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary material will continue to contribute in this way. However, it is at the base of the angiosperm tree that paleobotany is likely to prove most useful in terms of expanding the data available from extant plants.
In many analyses of extant taxa based on molecular data Amborellaceae, Nymphaeaceae, and Austrobaileyales are successive sisters to all other angiosperms, with the position of Chloranthaceae and Ceratophyllaceae uncertain with respect to three major clades, eudicots, magnoliids, and monocots (Qiu et al., 1999
; Soltis and Soltis, 2004
). Amborellaceae, Nymphaeaceae, and Austrobaileyales, and magnoliids are systematically depauperate (of 28 families recognized by APG II [2003]
in these clades, 23 have less than 10 genera, and 13 have less than 10 species). In only a few families (Annonaceae, Lauraceae, Piperaceae) are there more than a few hundred extant species, and in many cases, these reflect the presence of relatively large genera that in many respects are structurally stereotyped (e.g., Piper). In paleobotanical assemblages from the Barremian-Aptian (Early Cretaceous) phase of angiosperm evolution, it is fossils similar to Amborellaceae, Nymphaeaceae, Austrobaileyales, and Chloranthaceae, perhaps with a few early representatives of monocots and magnoliids, that dominate rich plant fossil assemblages, both in terms of diversity and abundance (Pedersen et al., 1991
; Friis et al., 1997b
, 1999
). Eudicots are sparse at this level, and "core eudicots" (Magallón et al., 1999) are not yet represented. In rare cases, some of these very early fossils may even be sister to or within modern genera (e.g., Hedyosmum–Asteropollis plant, Chloranthaceae; Eklund et al., 2004b
), but more usually these fossils cannot be assigned to extant taxa (at least at the level of families or below; Friis et al., 1999
). They show unusual combinations of features that are no longer represented among extant taxa. Continuing studies of these fossil plants from the Cretaceous will significantly expand our current understanding of diversity among early angiosperms. What remains to be determined is the extent to which the extant sample of Amborellaceae, Nymphaeaceae, Austrobaileyales, Chloranthaceae, and magnoliids, left to us by the vagaries of history, is truly representative of total diversity at this level of angiosperm evolution.
A particularly important question that may be elucidated by a combination of neobotanical and paleobotanical studies concerns the position of Chloranthaceae. Current phylogenetic analyses place this family in an uncertain position with respect to magnoliids, eudicots, and monocotyledons (e.g., Doyle and Endress, 2000
). Paleobotanical studies show that the family, and forms similar to it, are well represented in some of the earliest known assemblages of angiosperm fossils (Crane et al., 1989
; Pedersen et al., 1991
; Herendeen et al., 1993
; Eklund et al., 1997
, 2004b).
It may be that the prominence of Chloranthaceae in the early phases of angiosperm evolution is overestimated as a result of biases of representation and recognition in the fossil record. However, it is also possible that the extant family is merely part of a broader group that was once much more diverse and prominent during the early phases of angiosperm evolution. Understanding this extinct diversity may be helpful in resolving relationships among early diverging groups of angiosperms. A better understanding of the enigmatic floral construction of Choranthaceae may also be significant in understanding the evolution of angiosperm flowers (Doyle et al., 2003
).
A final set of persistent questions relating to angiosperm evolution concerns the origin of the group itself. Resolving this issue will require resolving phylogenetic relationships among the major groups of extant and extinct seed plants (Crane, 1985
). More specifically, experience based on the recognition of the protracheophyte and progymnosperm grades indicates that we might expect to recognize stem group angiosperms. More provocatively, experience also indicates that we may have already described such "proangiosperms," but have failed to recognize them for what they really are. Aglaophyton, the best known protracheophyte, was first described by Kidston and Lang in 1917
(as Rynia major), but its true significance was only realized much later (Edwards, 1986
; see also Kenrick and Crane, 1997
). Similarly, both Callixylon and Archaeopteris had been known and characterized in detail long before "progymnosperms" were recognized by Beck (1960)
.
Archaefructus is a recent candidate "proangiosperm" (Sun et al., 2002
), but alternative interpretations place it within the angiosperm crown group (Friis et al., 2003a
). Other candidate proangiosperms will undoubtedly be proposed in the future. They will stand or fall, based on the detail in which they are understood and, therefore, on the detail with which they can be compared to angiosperms and other seed plants.
Areas for future research
A key priority for future research with angiosperm fossils, in addition to the ongoing discovery and characterization of systematically informative material, is the continued integration of fossil taxa into morphology-based phylogenetic analyses of extant taxa. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Crane and Manchester, 1982
; Keller et al., 1996
; Magallón-Puebla et al., 1996
; Crepet and Nixon, 1998a
; Schönenberger and Friis, 2001
; Doyle et al., 2003
; Eklund et al., 2004b
), this has not yet become standard practice, in large part because structural data comparable to that obtainable from fossil material is rarely readily available. This situation reflects a fundamental problem in angiosperm phylogenetics. Our ability to acquire both genetic sequence data and high quality paleobotanical data has "run ahead" of "traditional" comparative studies of extant taxa based on morphological, anatomical, and other features. As a result, there have been insufficient tests of DNA-based phylogenetic hypotheses and too few analyses that combine morphological and molecular data. There is a clear ongoing need for careful comparative, morphological, and anatomical studies of extant taxa.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
For studies of the origin and diversification of flowering plants, the major patterns based on phylogenetic analyses of molecular data are now well established, and they are broadly consistent with paleobotanical data. The opportunity now is for further integration of neobotanical and paleobotanical data, especially at the Amborellaceae, Nymphaeaceae, Austrobaileyales, and Chloranthaceae level, to flesh out in detail the earliest phases of angiosperm diversification.
Key modes of progress
Reflecting on what has been accomplished in terms of palaeobotanical contributions to plant phylogeny over the last 50 years, it is clear that progress has come about in many ways, but especially by parallel efforts on three fronts: (i) continued efforts to expand the known diversity of plants through the discovery and description of informative fossil material (including the reconstruction of fossil plants); (ii) attempts to analyze the relationships of fossil plants to their living relatives using cladistic methods; and (iii) the progressive disassembly of paraphyletic groups.
The recent expansion of paleobotanical knowledge has been dramatic. New information continues to accumulate, and a vast amount of potentially informative material exists that has not yet been studied in detail (e.g., from the Triassic Molteno formation of South Africa, Anderson and Anderson, 2003
; Permian Angara floras of Russia, Meyen, 1987
). There have been some remarkable discoveries of new localities that have yielded impressive amounts of important new data on key fossil plants. For example, the discovery of permineralized Permian and Triassic peats from Antarctica has generated a wealth of new information on late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic plants (e.g., Taylor, 1996
), whereas extensive fieldwork in Europe and North America has yielded many new localities with well-preserved angiosperm reproductive structures (e.g., Crane and Herendeen, 1996
; Crepet and Nixon, 1998a
, b
). New discoveries from the Jehol biota of China are also of great interest (Sun et al., 1998
, 2002
; Zhou et al., 2003
). The application of new collecting techniques has also produced informative material from localities that in the past would have been regarded as unproductive for anything other than pollen and spores (e.g., in the Potomac Group and the Lower Cretaceous of Portugal). The technique has also been applied to Silurian and Devonian sediments with surprising results (e.g., Edwards, 1996
).
It is also notable that reinvestigations of classic fossil floras have also been exceptionally informative. For example, renewed study of the Rhynie Chert (e.g., Remy and Remy, 1980
; Lyon and Edwards, 1991
; Remy et al., 1993
) has yielded spectacular new information on gametophytes and life cycles of early land plants and helped clarify the vascular/nonvascular status of sporophytes. Similarly, reinvestigation of classic localities in the Potomac Group of eastern North America, first described in the nineteenth century, revealed a coordinated pattern of angiosperm leaf and pollen evolution (Doyle, 1969
; Doyle and Hickey, 1976
; Hickey and Doyle, 1977
) and then yielded a previously unsuspected diversity of angiosperm reproductive structures (Crane et al., 1989
; Drinnan et al., 1990
, 1991
; Pedersen et al., 1991
; Crane and Herendeen, 1996
; Herendeen et al., 1999
).
In these and other cases, an important factor has been the application of new paleobotanical techniques. In the Rhynie Chert, Remy and collaborators combined traditional studies of thin sections with new "wafering" approaches, whereas in the Potomac Group it was first the application of palynology to classic leaf floras and then the discovery and study of angiosperm reproductive structures using bulk sieving techniques (combined with scanning electron microscopy to study minute charcoalified and mummified material). These experiences indicate that the information retrievable from classic localities is not exhausted. New approaches and techniques are likely to produce much unsuspected and important additional information.
The quality of the paleobotanical data available for phylogenetic and evolutionary purposes has also been improved by painstaking efforts to reconstruct "whole" fossil plants from their dispersed and isolated individual fossil organs. This approach has been crucial in expanding the information available for extinct taxa and therefore in providing a more complete basis for comparisons both with extant and other fossil plants. In many cases, reconstructions of fossil angiosperms from the Cretaceous and Early Tertiary (e.g., Dilcher and Crane, 1984
; Manchester et al., 1999
) have highlighted important combinations of characters that are no longer represented among extant plants.
Among non-angiosperm taxa, reconstructions of fossil plants have also been important in recognizing novel character combinations that have called into question the homogeneity of previously recognized groups. For example, it was the reconstruction of a fossil seed plant with fernlike leaves (Oliver and Scott, 1904
) that led to the recognition of the pteridosperms, and it was Rothwell's (1975
, 1980)
classic reconstruction of Callistophyton that was especially influential in documenting the heterogeneity of seed ferns and thereby undermining the utility of the pteridosperm concept for evolutionary purposes.
A special case of efforts to reconstruct fossil plants has been the considerable progress in identifying the parent plants of fossil pollen grains that were previously only known as dispersed entities. For example, the inferred relationship between Asteropollis and Hedyosmum, first suggested based on palynological similarities (e.g., Walker and Walker, 1984
), has been confirmed by recognition of Asteropollis grains on the apices of unequivocal fossil Hedyosmum-like fruits and also in Hedyosmum-like stamens (Friis et al., 1997b
). Similarly, much has been learnt about the parent plant of dispersed Eucommiidites pollen (originally misinterpreted as an angiosperm pollen grain) through its discovery in situ within pollen organs and also inside the micropyles of dispersed seeds (Pedersen et al., 1989
; Friis and Pedersen, 1996
; Kvacek and Pacltová, 2001
). All these studies have significantly expanded the information available for plants that were otherwise only known from dispersed pollen and provide a more secure basis for a better understanding of interrelationships.
The accumulation of new and high quality fossil data has been the core preoccupation of paleobotany since its inception, but over the last three decades a key development has been increased emphasis on analyzing the relationships of fossil plants using implicit or explicit cladistic techniques. This reflects increased recognition that from the standpoint of evolutionary studies paleobotany cannot be viewed as a separate subdiscipline: fossil plants can only be understood in comparison to their living relatives. For example, Banks's (1975)
incorporation of lycopsids into his treatment of Devonian fossil plants was crucial to the recognition and widespread acceptance of two main lines of vascular plant evolution. Similarly, critical comparisons of fossil angiosperms with extant taxa (e.g., Dilcher, 1973
, 1974
; Dilcher et al., 1976
) documented inadequacies in earlier approaches and opened the possibility of recognizing extinct taxa among angiosperm fossils, thereby greatly increasing the potential value of such paleobotanical research.
The extent of extant-fossil comparisons has increased dramatically in the last two decades at all levels from vascular plants (e.g., Kenrick and Crane, 1997
) to seed plants (e.g., Zhou et al., 2003
) and angiosperms (e.g., Schönenberger et al., 2001
). This is a positive trend that has already produced new insights and shows the way for future paleobotanical research. Even seemingly "extinct groups" can be compared with extant taxa at some level, and this will be important if they are to be integrated into the tree of life.
A third key mode of progress has been the gradual disassembly of polyphyletic and paraphyletic groups, as has also been the case with studies of extant taxa. Important paleobotanical examples include rejection of the seed fern concept (e.g., Crane, 1985
), dismantling Psilophytales (e.g., Banks, 1975
), and disassembly of Rhyniophytes and some of the genera therein (e.g., Kenrick and Crane, 1997
; Table 3). Much progress with plant phylogenetics in recent years reduces to this. Because many of these polyphyletic and paraphyletic groups have themselves been the creation of paleobotany, it could be argued that this merely reflects the cleaning up of problems created by paleobotanists in the past. However, such iterative advances have greatly enhanced our understanding of extant taxa and their place in the broader context of plant phylogeny and evolution (Figs. 1, 2). They also help us understand how the characteristic features of extant taxa may have arisen. Recognition of fossil plants as stem relatives of extant taxa helps establish the order in which particular characters have been acquired. For example, recognition of progymnosperms indicates that the bifacial cambium was acquired prior to the seed habit in the seed plant lineage (Fig. 6A), and the recognition of protracheophytes (Kenrick and Crane, 1997
) supports the hypothesis that a branched sporophyte evolved prior to the origin of typical tracheids (Fig. 6B).
|
|
The amount of paleobotanical information available depends to a large extent on the geographic and stratigraphic "spread" of paleobotanical sampling, and this can always be improved. For example, there is a clear need for paleobotanical exploration outside Laurasia in the Silurian–Devonian. Similarly, in the Cretaceous it will be important to explore low paleolatitudes (e.g., Africa, Brazil, China). Exploratory fieldwork is slow and often relatively high risk, but it must ultimately occur if geographic sampling of the available paleobotanical data is to be broadened.
The ability to compare extant and fossil material depends on the availability of comparable information for extant and fossil taxa. On the paleobotanical side, the amount of information available is limited by preservation. Localities with exceptional preservation are therefore disproportionately important. On the neobotanical side, the amount of information available is limited more by accidents of history in terms of what features may have been studied in which taxa. The detailed and comprehensive studies of extant taxa that are necessary for full comparison with fossil taxa have not often been done. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that comparative molecular studies have quickly overtaken comparative morphological studies. Thus, from some perspectives, there is little incentive to develop morphological data sets for extant taxa or, indeed, to train practitioners with the necessary skills. However, detailed morphological studies of extant plants are fundamental. They are needed to test and supplement analyses based on molecular data and to facilitate the integration of paleobotanical information. Truly integrated studies that incorporate morphological data from fossils and living plants and combine these data with information from molecular analyses are still relatively rare. But they are necessary if all the available evidence is to be brought to bear on key phylogenetic problems.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
). Without the additional diversity provided by fossil plants, it will be impossible to develop a deeper and more particularized understanding. Our knowledge of the processes involved will be incomplete, and many of the key issues will inevitably be overlooked. A key challenge for the future will be dealing with the problem of missing data on the true diversity of life over evolutionary time. We are trapped in a paradox. Extant taxa can, in principle, be studied in enormous detail, for example, down to the totality of their genetic sequences. But on some branches of the botanical tree of life, the living sample of all the diversity that has ever existed is very poor. This sample can be expanded by paleobotanical data, but under such circumstances the selection of characters is limited and the possibilities for full phylogenetic resolution are reduced. Therefore, in many cases, it will be possible to have good sampling of characters but only for relatively few of the relevant taxa. Equally, we can achieve better sampling of the relevant taxa but only for a few characters. Unfortunately, around the divergence of the deep major branches in the tree of life, we will not achieve good sampling of both taxa and characters.
In the future, we can expect paleobotany to contribute as it has in the past by expanding our knowledge of plant diversity and thereby documenting new combinations of characters not seen among extant taxa. The discovery of new localities, the application of new techniques of study, and the reexamination of classic localities will all play their part.
There may be areas on the tree where it is possible to have both good sampling of taxa and characters, for example, in recently diversified groups where most of the total diversity is still extant, but this is not the case for lineages that have long evolutionary history and where the tree has been extensively pruned of diversity by extinction. In these circumstances, attempts to integrate data and interpretations from extant and fossil plants as closely as possible in a collaborative and creative way, combined with thoughtful interpretation of the results, stand the best chance of success. For that to be possible, there is no substitute for thorough descriptions of fossil material, rigorous analysis of characters, and careful comparison of extant and fossil taxa as a basis for determining their systematic interrelationships.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONFOSSIL PLANTS AND CHARACTERS...THE AGE OF PALEOBOTANICAL...COMPLETENESS OF THE...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF...DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
APG II. 2003 An update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 399-436[CrossRef]
Axsmith B. J. E. L. Taylor T. N. Taylor N. R. Cuneo 2000 New perspectives on the Mesozoic seed fern order Corystospermales based on attached organs from the Triassic of Antarctica. American Journal of Botany 87: 757-768
Banks H. P. 1975 Reclassification of Psilophyta. Taxon 24: 401-413[CrossRef]
Banks H. P. 1992 The classification of early land plants—revisited. Geophytology 22: 49-64
Bateman R. M. P. R. Crane W. A. DiMichele P. R. Kenrick N. P. Rowe T. Speck W. E. Stein 1998 Early evolution of land plants: phylogeny, physiology, and ecology of the primary terrestrial radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 263-292[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Bateman R. M. W. A. DiMichele 1994 Heterospory: the most iterative key innovation in the evolutionary history of the plant kingdom. Biological Reviews 69: 345-417[CrossRef]
Beck C. B. 1960 The identity of Archaeopteris and Callixylon. Brittonia 12: 351-368[CrossRef]
Bowe L. M. G. Coat C. W. de Pamphilis 2000 Phylogeny of seed plants based on all three genomic compartments: extant gymnosperms are monophyletic and Gnetales' closest relatives are conifers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 4092-4097
Brenner G. J. 1963 The spores and pollen of the Potomac Group of Maryland. Maryland Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources Bulletin 27: 1-215
Brown R. W. 1962 Paleocene flora of the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 375: 1-119, 69 pls
Burleigh J. G. S. Mathews 2004 Phylogenetic signal in nucleotide data from seed plants: implications for resolving the seed plant tree of life. American Journal of Botany 91: 1599-1613
Cevallos-Ferriz S. R. R. A. Stockey 1991 Fruits and seeds from the Princeton Chert (middle Eocene) of British Columbia: Rosaceae (Prunoideae). Botanical Gazette 152: 369-379[CrossRef]
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
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]
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. 1988 Major clades and relationships in the "higher" gymnosperms. In C. B. Beck [ed.], Origin and evolution of gymnosperms, 218– 272. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA
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. 1996 The fossil history of the Gnetales. International Journal of Plant Sciences 157: (Supplement) S50-S57[CrossRef]
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. E. M. Friis K. R. Pedersen 1995 The origin and early diversification of angiosperms. Nature 374: 27-33[CrossRef]
Crane P. R. P. S. Herendeen 1996 Cretaceous floras containing angiosperm flowers and fruits from eastern North America. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 90: 319-337
Crane P. R. C. R. Hill 1987 Cladistic and paleobotanical approaches to plant phylogeny. In H. N. Hoenigswald [ed.], Biological metaphor and cladistic classification: an interdisciplinary perspective, 139–154. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Crane P. R. P. Kenrick 1997 Diverted development of reproductive organs: a source of morphological innovation in land plants. Plant Systematics and Evolution 206: 161-174[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[CrossRef]
Crane P. R. S. R. Manchester D. L. Dilcher 1991 Reproductive and vegetative structure of Nordenskioldia (Trochodendraceae), a vesselless dicotyledon from the early Tertiary of the Northern Hemisphere. American Journal of Botany 78: 1311-1334[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Crane P. R. G. R. Upchurch 1987 Drewria potomacensis gen. et sp. nov., an Early Cretaceous member of Gnetales from the Potomac Group of Virginia. American Journal of Botany 74: 1722-1736
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]
Dilcher D. L. 1973 A revision of the Eocene flora of southeastern North America. The Palaeobotanist 20: 7-18
Dilcher D. L. 1974 Approaches to the identification of angiosperm leaf remains. Botanical Review 40: 1-157
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. 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
Donoghue M. J. J. A. Doyle 2000 Seed plant phylogeny: demise of the anthophyte hypothesis?. Current Biology 10: R106-R109[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Donoghue M. J. J. A. Doyle J. Gauthier A. G. Kluge T. Rowe 1989 The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 431-460
Doyle J. A. 1969 Cretaceous angiosperm pollen of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and its evolutionary significance. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 50: 1-35
Doyle J. A. 1978 Origin of angiosperms. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 365-392
Doyle J. A. 1992 Revised palynological correlation of the lower Potomac Group (USA) and the Cocobeach sequence of Gabon (Barremian–Aptian). Cretaceous Research 13: 337-349[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Doyle J. A. 1996 Seed plant phylogeny and the relationships of Gnetales. International Journal of Plant Sciences 157: (6 Supplement) S3-S39[CrossRef]
Doyle J. A. 1998 Phylogeny of vascular plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Evolution 9: 448-462
Doyle J. A. 2001 Significance of molecular phylogenetic analyses for paleobotanical investigations o the origin of angiosperms. The Palaeobotanist 50: 167-188
Doyle J. A. M. J. Donoghue 1986 Seed plant phylogeny and the origin of angiosperms: an experimental cladistic approach. Botanical Review 52: 321-431[CrossRef]
Doyle J. A. M. J. Donoghue 1987 The importance of fossils in elucidating seed plant phylogeny and macroevolution. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 50: 63-95[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Doyle J. A. M. J. Donoghue 1993 Phylogenies and angiosperm diversification. Paleobiology 19: 141-167[Abstract]
Doyle J. A. H. Eklund P. S. Herendeen 2003 Floral evolution in Chloranthaceae: implications of a morphological phylogenetic analysis. International Journal of Plant Sciences 164: (Supplement) S365-S382[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Doyle J. A. P. K. Endress 2000 Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular data. International Journal of Plant Sciences 161: (Supplement) S121-S153[CrossRef]
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
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]
Eames A. J. 1952 Relationships of the Ephedrales. Phytomorphology 2: 79-100[Web of Science]
Edwards D. 1996 New insights into early land plant ecosystems: a glimpse of a Lilliputian world. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 90: 159-174
Edwards D. J. E. Duckett J. B. Richardson 1995 Hepatic characters in the earliest land plants. Nature 374: 635-636
Edwards D. S. 1986 Aglaophyton major, a non-vascular land-plant from the Devonian Rhynie Chert. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 93: 177-188
Eklund H. 2003 First Cretaceous flowers from Antarctica. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 127: 187-217[CrossRef]
Eklund H. D. J. Cantrill J. E. Francis 2004a Late Cretaceous plant mesofossils from Table Nunatak, Antarctica. Cretaceous Research 25: 211-228
Eklund H. J. A. Doyle P. S. Herendeen 2004b Morphological phylogenetic analysis of living and fossil Chloranthaceae. International Journal of Plant Sciences 165: 107-151[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]
Fisher D. C. 1994 Stratocladistics: morphological and temporal patterns and their relation to phylogenetic process. In L. Grande and O. Rieppel [eds.], Interpreting the heirarchy of nature, 133–171. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA
Florin R. 1939 The morphology of the female fructifications in Cordaites and conifers of Palaeozoic age. Botaniska Notiser 36: 547-565
Florin R. 1951 Evolution in cordaites and conifers. Acta Horti Bergiani 15: 285-388
Friedman W. E. M. E. Cook 2000 The origin and early evolution of tracheids in vascular plants: integration of paleobotanical and neobotanical data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 355: 857-868[CrossRef]
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 of the 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: 1-35
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 Anacostia, a new basal angiosperm from the Early Cretaceous of North American and Portugal with trichotomocolpate/monocolpate pollen. Grana 36: 225-244
Friis E. M. P. R. Crane K. R. Pedersen 1997b Fossil history of magnoliid angiosperms. In K. Iwatsuki and P. H. Raven [eds.], Evolution and diversification of land plants, 121–156. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, Japan
Friis E. M. J. A. Doyle P. K. Endress Q. Leng 2003a Archaefructus—angiosperm precurser or specialized early angiosperm?. Trends in Plant Science 8: 363-373[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Friis E. M. K. R. Pedersen 1996 Eucommiitheca hirsuta, a new pollen organ from the Early Cretaceous of Portugal. Grana 35: 104-112[Web of Science]
Friis E. M. K. R. Pedersen P. R. Crane 1992 Esgueiria 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 1999 Early angiosperm diversification: the diversity of pollen associated with angiosperm reproductive structures in Early Cretaceous floras from Portugal. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 86: 259-296[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Friis E. M. K. R. Pedersen P. R. Crane 2000 Fossil floral structures of a basal angiosperm with monocolpate, reticulate–acolumellate pollen from the Early Cretaceous of Portugal. Grana 39: 226-239[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Friis E. M. K. R. Pedersen J. Schönenberger 2003b Endressianthus, a new Normapolles-producing plant genus of fagalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of Portugal. International Journal of Plant Sciences 164: (Supplement) S201-S223[CrossRef]
Friis E. M. A. Skarby 1981 Structurally preserved angiosperm flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of southern Sweden. Nature 291: 485-486
Friis E. M. A. Skarby 1982 Scandianthus gen. nov., angiosperm flowers of saxifragalean affinity from the Upper Cretaceous of southern Sweden. Annals of Botany, new series 50: 569–583
Frumin S. E. M. Friis 1995 Liriodendroid seeds from the Late Cretaceous of Kazakhstan and North Carolina. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 94: 39-55[CrossRef]
Gauthier J. A. G. Kluge T. Rowe 1988 Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4: 105-209
Gandolfo M. A. K. C. Nixon W. L. Crepet 1998a A new fossil flower form 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 1998b Tylerianthus crossmanensis gen. et sp. nov. (aff. Hydrangeaceae) from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. American Journal of Botany 85: 376-386[Abstract]
Guo S. X. X.-W. Wu 2000 Ephedrites from latest Jurassic Yixian Formation in western Liaoning, northeast China. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica 39: 81-91
Hansen A. S. Hansmann T. Samigullin A. Antonov W. Martin 1999 Gnetum and the angiosperms: molecular evidence that their shared morphological characters are convergent rather than homologous. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16: 1006-1009[Web of Science]
Harris T. M. 1932 The fossil flora of Scoresby Sound, East Greenland, part 3, Caytoniales and Bennettitales. Meddelelser om Grønland 85: 1-133
Harris T. M. 1964 The Yorkshire Jurassic flora. II. Caytoniales, Cycadales and Pteridosperms. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK
Harris T. M. 1969 The Yorkshire Jurassic flora. III. Bennettitales. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK
Herendeen P. S. P. R. Crane 1995 The fossil history of the monocotyledons. In P. J. Rudall, P. Cribb, D. F. Cutler, and C. J. Humphries [eds.], Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution, 1–21. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK
Herendeen P. S. P. R. Crane A. N. Drinnan 1995 Fagaceous flowers, fruits and cupules from the Campanian (Late Cretaceous) of central Georgia, USA. International Journal of Plant Sciences 156: 93-116[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Herendeen P. S. 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]
Hickey L. J. J. A. Doyle 1977 Early Cretaceous fossil evidence for angiosperm evolution. Botanical Review 43: 2-104
Hickey L. J. J. A. Wolfe 1975 The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: vegetative morphology. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 62: 538-589[CrossRef][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 reconstruction, 269–361. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA
Hilton J. S.-J. Wang B. Tian 2003 Reinvestigation of Cardiocarpus minor (Wang) Li nomen nudum from the Lower Permian of China and its implications for seed plant taxonomy, systematics and phylogeny. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 151-175[CrossRef]
Hotton C. L. W. E. Stein 1994 An ontogenetic model for the Mississippian seed plant family Calamopityaceae. International Journal of Plant Sciences 155: 119-142[CrossRef]
Hughes N. O. 1976 Palaeobiology of angiosperm origins. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Hughes N. O. 1994 The enigma of angiosperm origins. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Hughes N. O. G. E. Drewry J. F. Laing 1979 Barremian earliest angiosperm pollen. Palaeontology 22: 513-535
Huelsenbeck J. P. 1994 Comparing the stratigraphic record to estimates of phylogeny. Paleobiology 20: 470-483[Abstract]
Keller J. A. P. S. Herendeen P. R. Crane 1996 Fossil flowers and fruits of the Actinidiaceae from the Campanian (Late Cretaceous) of Georgia. American Journal of Botany 83: 528-541[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Kenrick P. P. R. Crane 1997 The origin and early diversification of land plants. A cladistic study. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., USA
Kidston R. W. H. Lang 1917 On Old Red Sandstone plants showing structure from the Rhynie chert bed, Aberdeenshire. I. Rhynia gwynne-vaughanii, Kidston and Lang. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 51: 761-784
Klavins S. D. T. N. Taylor E. L. Taylor 2002 Anatomy of Umkomasia (Corystospermales) from the Triassic of Antarctica. American Journal of Botany 89: 664-676
Knobloch E. D. H. Mai 1986 Monographie der Fruchte und Samen in der Kreide von Mitteleuropa. Rozpravy úst
edního ústavu geologické ho, Praha 47: 1-219
Krassilov V. A. E. V. Bugdaeva 1988 Gnetalean plants from the Jurassic of Ust–Balej, east Siberia USSR. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 53: 359-374[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Kvacek J. B. Pacltová 2001 Bayeritheca hughesii gen et sp. nov., a new Eucommiidites-bearing pollen organ from the Cenomanian of Bohemia. Cretaceous Research 22: 695-704[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Li C.-S. D. Edwards 1992 A new genus of early land plants with novel strobilar construction from the Lower Devonian Posongchong Formation, Yunnan Province, China. Palaeontology 35: 257-272[Web of Science]
Lidgard S. P. R. Crane 1990 Angiosperm diversification and Cretaceous floristic trends: a comparison of palynofloras and leaf macrofloras. Paleobiology 16: 77-93[Abstract]
Lyon A. G. D. Edwards 1991 The first zosterophyll from the Lower Devonian Rhynie chert, Aberdeenshire. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences 82: 323-332[Web of Science]
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, U.S.A. International Journal of Plant Sciences 158: 373-394[CrossRef]
Magallón S. P. S. Herendeen P. R. Crane 2001 Floral diversity in Hamamelidoideae (Hamamelidaceae): Androdecidua endressi gen. et sp. nov. from the late Santonian (Late Cretaceous) of Georgia, U.S.A. International Journal of Plant Sciences 162: 963-983[CrossRef]
Magallón-Puebla S. P. S. Herendeen P. K. Endress 1996 Allonia decandra: floral remains of the tribe Hamamelideae (Hamamelidaceae) from Campanian strata of southeastern USA. Plant Systematics and Evolution 202: 177-198[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Magallón 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
Manchester S. R. 1987 The fossil history of the Juglandaceae. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 21: 1-137
Manchester S. R. 1989 Early history of the Juglandaceae. Plant Systematics and Evolution 162: 231-250
Manchester S. R. 1994 Fruits and seeds of the middle Eocene Nut Beds flora, Clarno Formation, Oregon. Palaeontographica Americana 58: 1-205
Manchester S. R. 2000 Late Eocene fossil plants of the John Day Formation, Wheeler County, Oregon. Oregon Geology 62: 51-63
Manchester S. R. Z.-D. Chen 1998 A new genus of Coryloideae (Betulaceae) from the Paleocene of North America. International Journal of Plant Sciences 159: 522-532[CrossRef]
Manchester S. R. P. R. Crane 1987 A new genus of Betulaceae from the Oligocene of western North America. Botanical Gazette 148: 263-273[CrossRef]
Manchester S. R. P. R. Crane D. L. Dilcher 1991 Nordenskioldia and Trochodendron (Trochodendraceae) from the Miocene of northwestern North America. Botanical Gazette 152: 357-368[CrossRef]
Manchester S. R. P. R. Crane L. B. Golovneva 1999 An extinct genus with affinities to extant Davidia and Camptotheca (Cornales) from the Paleocene of North America and eastern Asia. International Journal of Plant Sciences 160: 188-207[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Marshall C. R. 1990 Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 16: 1-10[Abstract]
McKinney M. L. 1991 Completeness of the fossil record: an overview. In S. K. Donovan [ed.], The processes of fossilization, 66–83. Belhaven Press, London, UK
Meeuse A. D. J. 1961 The Pentoxylales and the origin of the monocotyledons. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse, Akademie van Wentsenschappen 64: 543-559
Meeuse A. D. J. 1966 Fundamentals of phytomorphology. Ronald, New York, New York, USA
Meyen S. V. 1987 Fundamentals of palaeobotany. Chapman and Hall, London, UK
Muller J. 1970 Palynological evidence on early differentiation of angiosperms. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 45: 417-450[CrossRef]
Nixon K. C. 1996 Paleobotany in cladistics and cladistics in paleobotany: enlightenment and uncertainty. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 90: 361-373
Nixon K. C. W. L. Crepet D. Stevenson E. M. Friis 1994 A reevaluation of seed plant phylogeny. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 81: 484-533[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Oliver F. W. D. H. Scott 1904 On the structure of the Palaeozoic seed Lagenostoma lomaxi, with a statement of the evidence upon which it is referred to Lyginodendron. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 197: 193-247[CrossRef]
Patterson C. 1981 Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12: 195-223
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. P. R. Crane E. M. Friis 1989 Pollen organs and seeds with Eucommiidites pollen. Grana 28: 279-294[Web of Science]
Pigg K. B. R. A. Stockey 1996 The significance of the Princeton chert permineralized flora to the Middle Eocene upland biota of the Okanogan Highlands. Washington Geology 24: 32-36
Pryer K. M. H. Schneider A. R. Smith R. Cranfill P. G. Wolf J. S. Hunt S. D. Sipes 2001 Horsetails and ferns are a monophyletic group and the closest living relatives to seed plants. Nature 409: 618-622[CrossRef][Medline]
Qiu Y.-L. J. Lee 2000 Transition to a land flora: a molecular phylogenetic perspective. Journal of Phycology 36: 799-802[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Qiu Y.-L. J. Lee F. Bernasconi-Quadroni D. E. Soltis P. S. Soltis M. Zanis E. A. Zimmer Z. Chen V. Savalainen M. W. Chase 1999 The earliest angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes. Nature 402: 404-407
Qiu Y.-L. J. D. Palmer 1999 Phylogeny of basal land plants: insights from genes and genomes. Trends in Plant Science 4: 26-30[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Remy W. P. G. Gensel H. Hass 1993 The gametophyte generation of some early Devonian land plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 154: 35-58[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Remy W. R. Remy 1980 Lyonophyton rhyniensis nov. gen. et nov. sp., ein Gametophyt aus dem Chert von Rhynie (Unterdevon, Schottland). Argumenta Palaeobotanica 6: 37-72
Rothwell G. W. 1975 The Callistophytaceae (Pteridospermopsida). I. Vegetative structures. Paleontographica B 151: 171-196
Rothwell G. W. 1980 The Callistophytaceae (Pteridospermopsida). II. Reproductive features. Paleontographica B 173: 85-106
Rothwell G. R. 1981 The Callistophytales (Pteridospermopsida): reproductively sophisticated Paleozoic gymnosperms. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 32: 103-121
Rothwell G. R. 1999 Fossils and ferns in the resolution of land plant phylogeny. Botanical Review 65: 188-218[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Rothwell G. R. R. Serbet 1994 Lignophyte phylogeny and the evolution of spermatophytes: a numerical cladistic analysis. Systematic Botany 19: 443-482[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Rydin C. M. Källersjö E. M. Friis 2002 Seed plant relationships and the systematic position of Gnetales based on nuclear and chloroplast DNA: conflicting data, rooting problems, and the monophyly of conifers. International Journal of Plant Sciences 163: 197-214[CrossRef]
Rydin C. M. B. Mohr E. M. Friis 2003 Cratonia cotyledon gen. et sp. nov.: a unique Cretaceous seedling related to Welwitschia. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, B, Biological Sciences (Supplement) 270: S29–S32
Schönenberger J. E. M. Friis 2001 Fossil flowers of ericalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of southern Sweden. American Journal of Botany 88: 467-480
Schönenberger J. E. M. Friis M. L. Matthews P. K. Endress 2001 Cunoniaceae in the Cretaceous of Europe: evidence from fossil flowers. Annals of Botany 88: 423-437
Scotland R. W. R. G. Olmstead J. R. Bennett 2003 Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Systematic Biology 52: 539-548
Shaw J. K. Renzaglia 2004 The phylogeny and diversification of bryophytes. American Journal of Botany 91: 1557-1581
Sims H. J. P. S. Herendeen P. R. Crane 1998 New genus of fossil Fagaceae from the Santonian (Late Cretaceous) of central Georgia, U.S.A. International Journal of Plant Sciences 159: 391-404[CrossRef]
Soltis D. E. P. S. Soltis M. J. Zanis 2002 Phylogeny of seed plants based on evidence from eight genes. American Journal of Botany 89: 1670-1681
Soltis P. S. D. E. Soltis 2004 The origin and diversification of angiosperms. American Journal of Botany 91:
Stein W. 1993 Modeling the evolution of stellar architecture in vascular plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 154: 229-263[CrossRef]
Stockey R. A. B. A. LePage K. B. Pigg 1998 Permineralized fruits of Diplopanax (Cornaceae, Mastixiodeae) from the middle Eocene Princeton chert of British Columbia. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 103: 223-234[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Sun G. D. L. Dilcher S. Zhen 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. Zheng K. C. Nixon X. Wang 2002 Archaefructaceae, a new basal angiosperm family. Science 296: 899-904
Takahashi M. P. R. Crane H. Ando 1999 Fossil flowers and associated plant fossils from the Kamikitaba locality (Ashizawa Formation, Futuba Group, lower Coniacian, Upper Cretaceous) of northeast Japan. Journal of Plant Research 112: 187-206[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Takahashi M. P. R. Crane S. R. Manchester 2003 Hironoia fusiformis gen. et sp. nov.: a cornalean fruit from the Kamikitaba locality (Upper Cretaceous, Lower Coniacian) in northeastern Japan. Journal of Plant Research 115: 463-473[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Takahashi M. P. S. Herendeen P. R. Crane 2001 Lauraceous fossil flowers from the Kamikitaba locality (Lower Coniacian; Upper Cretaceous) in northeastern Japan. Journal of Plant Research 114: 429-434[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Taylor E. L. 1996 Enigmatic gymnosperms? Structurally preserved Permian and Triassic seed ferns from Antarctica. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 90: 303-318
Taylor E. L. T. N. Taylor 1992 Reproductive biology of the Permian Glossopteridales and their suggested relationship to the flowering plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 89: 11495-11497
Thomas H. H. 1925 The Caytoniales, a new group of angiospermous plants from the Jurassic rocks of Yorkshire. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 213: 299-363[CrossRef]
van Konijnenburg-van Cittert J. H. A. H. S. Morgans 1999 The Jurassic flora of Yorkshire. The Palaeontological Association, London, UK
Walker J. W. A. G. Walker 1984 [1985] Ultrastructure of Lower Cretaceous angiosperm pollen and the origin and early evolution of flowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 464-521[CrossRef]
Yao X. T. N. Taylor E. L. Taylor 1995 The corystosperm pollen organ Pteruchus from the Triassic of Argentina. American Journal of Botany 82: 535-546[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Zhou Z. P. M. Barrett J. Hilton 2003 An exceptionally preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem. Nature 421: 807-814
CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Schonenberger, M. von Balthazar, and K. J. Sytsma Diversity and evolution of floral structure among early diverging lineages in the Ericales Phil Trans R Soc B, February 12, 2010; 365(1539): 437 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Wang and H. W. Pfefferkorn Nystroemiaceae, a new family of Permian gymnosperms from China with an unusual combination of features Proc R Soc B, January 22, 2010; 277(1679): 301 - 309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Wang, M. J. Moore, P. S. Soltis, C. D. Bell, S. F. Brockington, R. Alexandre, C. C. Davis, M. Latvis, S. R. Manchester, and D. E. Soltis Rosid radiation and the rapid rise of angiosperm-dominated forests PNAS, March 10, 2009; 106(10): 3853 - 3858. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. M. Friis, K. R. Pedersen, and P. R. Crane Early Cretaceous mesofossils from Portugal and eastern North America related to the Bennettitales-Erdtmanithecales-Gnetales group Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 252 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. W. Rothwell, W. L. Crepet, and R. A. Stockey Is the anthophyte hypothesis alive and well? New evidence from the reproductive structures of Bennettitales Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 296 - 322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. R. Crane and P. S. Herendeen Bennettitales from the Grisethorpe Bed (Middle Jurassic) at Cayton Bay, Yorkshire, UK Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 284 - 295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Mathews Phylogenetic relationships among seed plants: Persistent questions and the limits of molecular data Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 228 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W. Graham and W. J. D. Iles Different gymnosperm outgroups have (mostly) congruent signal regarding the root of flowering plant phylogeny Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 216 - 227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Wilson, A. H. Knoll, N. M. Holbrook, and C. R. Marshall Modeling fluid flow in Medullosa, an anatomically unusual Carboniferous seed plant Paleobiology, December 1, 2008; 34(4): 472 - 493. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. M. Bateman, J. Hilton, and P. J. Rudall Morphological and molecular phylogenetic context of the angiosperms: contrasting the 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches used to infer the likely characteristics of the first flowers J. Exp. Bot., October 1, 2006; 57(13): 3471 - 3503. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. S. Soltis and D. E. Soltis The origin and diversification of angiosperms Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2004; 91(10): 1614 - 1626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. L. Crepet, K. C. Nixon, and M. A. Gandolfo Fossil evidence and phylogeny: the age of major angiosperm clades based on mesofossil and macrofossil evidence from Cretaceous deposits Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2004; 91(10): 1666 - 1682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. E. Friedman, R. C. Moore, and M. D. Purugganan The evolution of plant development Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2004; 91(10): 1726 - 1741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. M. Pryer, E. Schuettpelz, P. G. Wolf, H. Schneider, A. R. Smith, and R. Cranfill Phylogeny and evolution of ferns (monilophytes) with a focus on the early leptosporangiate divergences Am. J. Botany, September 1, 2004; 91(10): 1582 - 1598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
