Taxacom: "Early Permian" angiosperms... real or not real taxa/names?

[John Grehan]

Ken - you state that "  If their sister group is Gnetales, then angiosperms
very likely arose in the Triassic " What is your supporting evidence for
that probabilistic assertion? Cheers, John

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 6:20 PM Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Hi All,
>       I mentioned the problem of what taxon is the sister group of
> angiosperms.  If their sister group is Gnetales, then angiosperms very
> likely arose in the Triassic (making Permian angiosperms, much less Permian
> "flowers", just wishful thinking).  If their sister group is gymnosperms as
> a whole, then Permian angiosperms would be expected (but, as I noted,
> probably so primitive that they would most likely be mistakenly identified
> as primitive gymnosperms).  Anyway, I found a recent diagram showing both
> possible sister groups and what each would mean for the time that
> angiosperms arose:
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fedition%2FEncyclopedia_of_Geology%2FlcfrDwAAQBAJ%3Fhl%3Den%26gbpv%3D1%26dq%3D%2522ghost%2Blineage%2522%2B%2522angiosperm%2522%26pg%3DRA2-PA505%26printsec%3Dfrontcover&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qp2j%2FZBB%2ByzzS0KQ1HrDMvewsqYfYR7%2BljeAg1xc8Vg%3D&reserved=0
> <
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fedition%2FEncyclopedia_of_Geology%2FlcfrDwAAQBAJ%3Fhl%3Den%26gbpv%3D1%26dq%3D%2522ghost%2Blineage%2522%2B%2522angiosperm%2522%26pg%3DRA2-PA505%26printsec%3Dfrontcover&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qp2j%2FZBB%2ByzzS0KQ1HrDMvewsqYfYR7%2BljeAg1xc8Vg%3D&reserved=0
>
>  GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iH7PY7%2BiNS6is3wwiEUGWKEiZqBsLe0W%2BYym6L2Shs0%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of Kenneth Kinman
> via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:52 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: "Early Permian" angiosperms... real or not real
> taxa/names?
>
> Hi Tony,
>        I guess it partially depends on how one defines "angiosperm", but I
> think it is much broader than "flowering plant".   Stem angiosperms
> (proto-angiosperms, if you will) were likely around in the Triassic, but
> both their bodies and pollen would have probably been very hard to
> distinguish from gymnosperms.  Even more so if stem-angiosperms were around
> in the Permian.
>       Another problem is that the sister group of angiosperms (sensu lato)
> is also a matter of debate (is the sister group gymnosperms as a whole or
> some subset of gymnosperms?).  In any case, I am rather skeptical that
> Wachtler's Permian fossils are stem-angiosperms.
>                                      -------------------Ken
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of Tony Rees via
> Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:12 PM
> To: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: "Early Permian" angiosperms... real or not real
> taxa/names?
>
> Hi Michael, yes but unless I am mistaken, these are only hypothetical dates
> based on suggestions from molecular evidence. So far as I am aware there
> are still no "accepted" pre-Cretaceous angiosperm fossils. Were
> Mr/Dr Wachtler's "Early Permian angiosperms" to be authenticated by other
> workers the results would be a paleobotanical sensation, which is I suspect
> why they have been published outside the mainstream literature, more than
> likely without peer review...
>
> I still wonder what it is he is describing, though...
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vA7Qf9RXTHHfo33Hv4kXsJLP4wjz1Oj%2FIEgYlqaqjak%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 07:10, Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tony,
> >
> > Dates for angiosperms in recent studies include:
> > Triassic to Late Permian (Beaulieu et al., 2015); Triassic-Permian (Zhang
> > et al., 2020); Triassic-Carboniferous (Salomo et al., 2017), and Permian
> > (Yang et al., 2020).
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:09 AM Tony Rees via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Taxacomers,
> >>
> >> As some of you will be aware, with IRMNG (the Interim Register of Marine
> >> and Nonmarine Genera) I attempt to compile a synoptic list of published
> >> genus names, arranged in a "management classification" (an attempt at
> >> synthesis of what seems to be current practise in the literature), for
> all
> >> life i.e. animals, plants and more (including the most obscure
> >> microfossils, viruses and prokaryotes).
> >>
> >> Currently I am attempting to back fill some gaps in recently published
> >> fossil plant names and came across this work and some of its associated
> >> publications: "The Evolution of the First Flowers Early Permian
> >> Angiosperms" by Michael Wachtler, apparently more or less self published
> >> by
> >> the Dolomythos Museum, Italy, see
> >>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FWachtler-Michael%2Fpublication%2F341323347_The_Evolution_of_the_First_Flowers_-_Early_Permian_Angiosperms%2Flinks%2F5ebac7e392851c11a8620fbc%2FThe-Evolution-of-the-First-Flowers-Early-Permian-Angiosperms.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xJQNjXSRKArIsXhJmCjrOFXjK0keSyYLvvMCMjHbuYQ%3D&reserved=0
> >> , in which he establishes a number of new genera and species for what he
> >> insists are new Permian angiosperm flowers, a contention carried through
> >> to
> >> a number of other, similar works.
> >>
> >> Since otherwise, the earliest accepted angiosperm fossils do not appear
> >> until the Cretaceous (refer e.g. Herendeen et al. 2017,
> >>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnplants201715&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=na2Iww4TC6I7waSs5XyCCfXNEQpjORs7P1ukH3WYTEQ%3D&reserved=0
> ),
> >> one is forced to the
> >> conclusion that either Wachtler's fossils are not angiosperms, or not
> >> Permian, or perhaps not either, although they do look like flowers from
> >> his
> >> pictures. Perhaps the dating is wrong - I am no specialist in such
> >> matters;
> >> but in any case there is at least a 150 million year difference between
> >> the
> >> start of the Permian and the start of the Cretaceous periods (with all
> of
> >> the Triassic and Jurassic between), so something is badly amiss...
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, I am wondering whether Wachtler's published names should
> >> stand, from a nomenclatural point of view, irrespective of the
> >> "challenging" ages ascribed to them, or whether they do not merit
> >> inclusion
> >> in my system on the basis of possibly invalid publication (which does
> not
> >> seem to be the case) or other considerations. I note of interest, that
> >> Wachtler's publications do seem to be cited by no-one but himself, which
> >> does raise a bit of a red flag...
> >>
> >> Your opinions welcome!
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance - Tony
> >>
> >> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vA7Qf9RXTHHfo33Hv4kXsJLP4wjz1Oj%2FIEgYlqaqjak%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5U58wtt4I%2FslwjeCAp79D0%2BrANxXY1sU7sHcKUzYvz0%3D&reserved=0
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfc6ff66762484b02d54108da45da2d0f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899101079002735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PUm1wwbpL%2BH8zcJqy8qzpOLbZF8zpbfhEvQI3NAZUts%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>