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

Sat Jun 4 10:39:34 CDT 2022

Hi Ken,

I was interested to know what precluded angiosperms in the Permian if the
oldest Gnetales fossils were Triassic if tey were the sister group of
angiosperms.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 8:50 AM Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Hi John,
>        The sister group relationship of Gnetales and angiosperms (called
> the anthophyte hypothesis) is no longer as popular as it once was.  It was
> mainly based on morphological and reproductive characters (including
> net-veined leaves, vessels in the wood, double fertilization, and simple,
> unisexual, flower-like structures).  This hypothesis then became less
> popular due to molecular analyses.
>       The more popular view now seems to be angiosperms being sister group
> to a broad assemblage of gymnosperms,  Relationships of angiosperms to
> Pteridospermatophyta have also been suggested.  Still lots of room for
> these debates to continue.
>                                ---------------Ken
> ________________________________
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 10:27 PM
> To: Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: "Early Permian" angiosperms... real or not real
> taxa/names?
>
> 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<mailto: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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rWHt0EnrTOH5YUEB9%2BrEEkvJ198GI5MCg6R%2BK3qQ4lo%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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rWHt0EnrTOH5YUEB9%2BrEEkvJ198GI5MCg6R%2BK3qQ4lo%3D&reserved=0
>
>  sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GPSWJjJUus%2BvjLu5h3ZYa4O3CQhREsAxjk1WVRKvIMA%3D&reserved=0
>
>  GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iH7PY7%2BiNS6is3wwiEUGWKEiZqBsLe0W%2BYym6L2Shs0%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu<mailto:
> taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu>> on behalf of Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>>
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:52 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<mailto:
> taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu>> on behalf of Tony Rees via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>>
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:12 PM
> To: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com<mailto:m.j.heads at gmail.com>>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n%2F6DzuJA%2FcCn5SlErraH2sZsgbVUpCJhXfaCvgvCZVA%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 07:10, Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UnB0TaTGKzE5dReQYKQry5e4n3uEf7ZJo3rxFUn%2Bl3k%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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HE9TB6y9NfJIIFSa8TM4w%2BJ2cV8rOOJWVWe58nsWsxk%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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n%2F6DzuJA%2FcCn5SlErraH2sZsgbVUpCJhXfaCvgvCZVA%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TFG0Ix5f9sPTX4aI8Jwj8qM4MwSuQZ8hFXIwimbe3QY%3D&reserved=0
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:
> 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
> <mailto: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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=g87a3TPasaqGQvnCAX4b72QVB1rN6UKwNAlpbVZ8nME%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C09eae04348c948fc416108da4640834f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637899540753119836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=g87a3TPasaqGQvnCAX4b72QVB1rN6UKwNAlpbVZ8nME%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>