Returned mail: User unknown

[Una Smith]

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

--HAA06262.881758470/mars.its.yale.edu

The original message was received at Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:54:28 -0500 (EST)
from una at localhost

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<taxacom at pantheon.yale.edu>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to pantheon-po03.its.yale.edu.:
>>> RCPT To:<taxacom at pantheon.yale.edu>
<<< 550 <taxacom at pantheon.yale.edu>... User unknown
550 <taxacom at pantheon.yale.edu>... User unknown

--HAA06262.881758470/mars.its.yale.edu
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; mars.its.yale.edu
Arrival-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:54:28 -0500 (EST)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; taxacom at pantheon.yale.edu
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; pantheon-po03.its.yale.edu
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 <taxacom at pantheon.yale.edu>... User unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:54:30 -0500 (EST)

--HAA06262.881758470/mars.its.yale.edu
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <una at pantheon.yale.edu>
Received: from localhost (una at localhost)
        by mars.its.yale.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id HAA06260;
        Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:54:28 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: mars.its.yale.edu: una owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:54:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Una Smith <una at pantheon.yale.edu>
X-Sender: una at mars.its.yale.edu
To: Zhiwei Liu <liu.zhiwei at ENTOM.SLU.SE>
cc: taxacom at pantheon.yale.edu
Subject: Re: origin of angiosperms
In-Reply-To: <01bd055e$0e033d80$366fee82 at lzhiwei.entom.slu.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.971210074238.5449B-100000 at mars.its.yale.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Zhiwei Liu wrote:

>...a new fossil species of Juglandaceae, Pterocarya sinoptera Kuang has
>been described from ***Middle Jurassic*** ... (Kuang, 1996, Rheedea 6(1):
>141-151).
...
>How the paleobotanist community interprete the new discovery and
>'incorporate' it in the general framework of the accepted angiosperm
>origination scenario.

Either the conventional scenario (not everyone accepts it) is wrong or
the fossil is not an angiosperm, OR BOTH.

As I have not seen the paper in question, I cannot say whether this new
fossil is an angiosperm.  However, there have been numerous reports of
Jurassic angiosperms, all based on poor or ambiguous material, none of
them widely accepted.  Check either of the recent paleobotany textbooks
for references.  There are 3 lines of evidence (macrofossils, pollen,
and molecular "clocks"), and interesting new papers in all three areas
have appeared in the past few years.

        Una Smith               Department of Biology
                                Yale University
        una.smith at yale.edu      New Haven, CT  06520-8104  USA


--HAA06262.881758470/mars.its.yale.edu--