[Taxacom] Angiosperm origins: Darwin's "abominable" mystery

[Barry Roth]

John,
?
Would it be possible for you to post in one or two paragraphs an abstract of what Dr. Croizat's morphogenetic and biogeographic evidence for that Paleozoic origin was?
?
Thanks for letting me lean on your knowledge of that very dense and voluminous oeuvre.
?
Barry
?
pa,--this is not meant as a fatuous challenge to your statement.? I really am interested in the basis, not least because the origins of high levels of land snail diversity seem to follow on the angiosperm "revolution."

--- On Fri, 3/19/10, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> wrote:


From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Angiosperm origins: Darwin's "abominable" mystery
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 10:12 AM


Well there is nothing much new in this as Croizat presented
biogeographic and morphogenetic evidence for the origin of angiosperms
in the Carboniferous-Permian period. Of course he got ignored by the
dominant botanical authorities. But it's nice to see the 'modern'
technology back him up on that (without acknowledgement I expect).

John Grehan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:28 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Angiosperm origins: Darwin's "abominable" mystery
> 
> Dear All,
>? ? ???No wonder Charles Darwin regarded the origin of angiosperms as
an
> "abominable mystery".? Even today we are hard pressed to pin it down,
> and the early fossil record before the Cretaceous remains sketchy at
> best.
>? ? ? ? However, new molecular evidence published in Proceedings of the
> National Academy of Sciences earlier this week indicates that even the
> crown clade of angiosperms may have originated as early as the Upper
> Triassic.? This most likely indicates that stem angiosperms (which
went
> extinct) occur earlier.? I don't yet have access to the article, but
you
> can at least read the abstract here:
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/15/1001225107
> 
>? ? ? ? So were the earliest angiosperms just earlier in the Triassic,
or
> back in the Paleozoic as some evidence seems to suggest????There is
> tantalizing evidence that they may have split off from gymnosperms in
> the Permian or even the late Carboniferous.? There is not only direct
> trace evidence of fossil biomolecules in the Permian, but also
indirect
> genetic evidence (the split between paleo AP3 and PI genes) which date
> angiosperm origins to the Permian or slightly before.? Whether
> gigantopterids (and/or Bennettitales) might be immediate sister groups
> of the angiosperms remains to be seen.? However, both those groups are
> extremely interesting in both their timing and morphology as possible
> gymnosperm sister groups to angiosperms (Phylum Magnoliophyta).
>? ? ? ? ???-----------Ken Kinman
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:? site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here