Taxacom: Extent angiosperm family in the Permian

[John Grehan]

Alexei,

Really great to have this feedback. As I am not a specialist in angiosperms
morphology, I cannot adequately judge these matters directly. So it's very
interesting to see a very different view about the validity of the fossil
interpretation between botanical morphologists. I would be grateful for a
copy of your paper when published. While disappointing that these fossils
may not be verified for what they were originally proposed, they
nevertheless are not necessarily "perfectly consistent with the commonly
accepted Cretaceous origin of Rhamnaceae" because fossils only represent a
minimum age for the taxon to which that fossil is ascribed. Thus, your
interpretation of the phylogenetic position of these fossils remains
'perfectly consistent' with the possibility of a Triassic origin for these
groups. You assert that "there is no reason to suppose their Triassic age",
there is an abundance of biogeographic evidence for extant angiosperms
families and even genera existing in Jurassic time. Whether any will be
recognized in their fossil form from this period or earlier is the open
ended question. Hopefully Shih will be provided the opportunity to respond
as well. For non-specialists such back and forth can be very useful in
assessing a particular issue (which is why suppression in biogeography is
so bad for that discipline).

Cheers, John

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 9:49 AM Alexei Oskolski <aoskolski at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I checked the floral morphological evidence from Shi's et al (2022) paper,
> and I see that the attribution of fossil flowers to the extant genus
> Phylica is based on very superficial similarity. Fossil *Phylica
> piloburmensis *shows some traits of Rhamnaceae, but it can not be
> ascribed to any modern genus of this family. *Eophilyca* *priscastellata* does
> not belong to Rhamnaceae; it can be placed close to a common ancestor of
> the clade comprising Rhamnaceae, Dirachmaceae, Eleagnaceae and Barbeyaceae.
> Thus, these fossils are perfectly consistent with the commonly accepted
> Cretaceous origin of Rhamnaceae, and there is no reason to suppose
> their Triassic age. We submitted a letter to the Nature Plants with
> criticism of Shi's et al. (2022) results, which is under review now.
>
> Alexei Oskolski
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 2:41 AM John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> Panbiogeographers often get a lot of flak and ridicule for tectonic
>> correlations that are much older than the oldest fossil or molecular so
>> called means and confidence limits. Well, here's an interesting input. Shi
>> et al 2022 "Fire-prone Rhamnaceae with South African affinities in
>> Cretaceous Myanmar amber" states:
>>
>> "We report the discovery of two exquisitely preserved fossil flower
>> species, one identical to the inflorescences of the extant crown-eudicot
>> Shi et al 2022. Fire-prone Rhamnaceae with South African affinities in
>> Cretaceous Myanmar amber"..."genus Phylica and the other recovered as a
>> sister group to Phylica, both preserved as inclusions together with burned
>> plant remains in Cretaceous amber from northern Myanmar (~99 million years
>> ago). These specialized flower species, named Phylica piloburmensis sp.
>> nov. and Eophylica priscastellata gen. et sp. nov., exhibit traits
>> identical to those of modern taxa...110–99 Ma for Eophylica priscastellata
>> and 99 Ma for Phylica piloburmensis"
>>
>> "The unique floral architecture preserved in Eophylica and Phylica fossils
>> is identical to that seen in extant members of the genus Phylica,
>> predating
>> molecular clock estimates for the genus by at least 35 Myr"
>>
>> The we have He & Lamont 2022 "Ancient Rhamnaceae flowers impute an origin
>> for flowering plants exceeding 250-million-years ago"
>>
>> "Setting the molecular clock to newly described 100-million-year-old
>> flowering shoots of Phylica in Burmese amber enabled us to recalibrate the
>> phylogenetic history of Rhamnaceae.We traced its origin to 260 million
>> years ago (Ma) that can explain its migration within and beyond Gondwana
>> since that time and implies an origin for flowering plants that stretches
>> well beyond 290 Ma."
>>
>> "The difference in estimated dates between the most recently produced
>> chronograms and that described here, using these new fossils, is profound.
>> Ignoring the minor error terms in each, previous results are an order of
>> magnitude lower for the origin of both Phylica and Phylicieae – the new
>> chronogram adds almost 100 My to their ages, as Phylica was previously
>> dated at 12–24 Ma"
>>
>> ". The effect on the estimated age of Rhamnaceae is even more remarkable:
>> it is in the order of 150 My compared with that previously reported,
>> 74–103
>> M"
>>
>> ". Any past statistical concerns about large levels of uncertainty
>> surrounding the means pale into insignificance compared with the effect of
>> the ad hoc presence/absence of fossils used to set the molecular clock, as
>> shown here."
>>
>> So - once again new evidence points not in the direction of 'recent'
>> origins, but extant angiosperm families in at least Permo-Triassic times.
>> Croizat was ridiculed for his predictions of early origins for modern
>> angiosperm families and even genera, but evidently this ridicule may be
>> somewhat premature.
>>
>> John Grehan
>> --
>>
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C090ad5fd6b374a1976cc08db2a3740eb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638150189022119532%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ySMPW4VMozW9bwpPzh7seNO%2BXUFqihSSo6oDX%2B9CzkY%3D&reserved=0
>> (use the 'visit archived web site'
>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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%7C090ad5fd6b374a1976cc08db2a3740eb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638150189022119532%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=njlOpQseqzcqxWofHlI%2BpG2kZJrAXd6blsB6uYuTehM%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Alexei A. Oskolski
> Department of Botany and Plant Biotechnology
> University of Johannesburg
> PO Box 524 Auckland Park 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa
> aoskolski at uj.ac.za
> xxxx
> Botanical Museum
> Komarov Botanical Institute
> Prof. Popov 2, 197376 St.Petersburg, Russia
> aoskolski at gmail.com
>


-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C090ad5fd6b374a1976cc08db2a3740eb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638150189022119532%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ySMPW4VMozW9bwpPzh7seNO%2BXUFqihSSo6oDX%2B9CzkY%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.