Taxacom: Extent angiosperm family in the Permian

Fri Mar 24 12:17:11 CDT 2023

What biogeographic ages are weak?

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 1:16 PM Alexei Oskolski <aoskolski at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> great to hear from you, and sorry for the late reply. Yes, I will be glad
> to send you our paper as soon as possible. As for the age of Rhamnaceae,
> Shi's  et al. photos suggest that *Phylica piloburmensis *some
> intermediate floral traits between typical Rhamnaceae and some other
> Rosales. It looks as if this flower belongs to an ancestral lineage of this
> family. Thus, its age (mid Cretaceous) corresponds to the molecular
> estimation for Rhamnaceae (Onstein et al., 2015). Of course, this fossil
> doesn't reject the Jurassic or Triassic origin of this family, but it
> doesn't support it either. That is what I meant under "perfect
> consistency".  I do not know any reliable macrofossil evidence for Jurassic
> angiosperms, and the biogeographic ones are quite weak though...
>
> Best regards
> Alexei
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 9:08 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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%7C10103eb2158f454c7faf08db2c8bb0d9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638152750716718723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9H1J0o8%2FZKBkpmAeaSNnN3S0dy%2FBf0%2Fw%2BvD8r9meFeE%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%7C10103eb2158f454c7faf08db2c8bb0d9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638152750716718723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bndatdqM5zmF4mc0ZYaAaOQnt8BdbGMGzj4cSUZBr64%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%7C10103eb2158f454c7faf08db2c8bb0d9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638152750716718723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9H1J0o8%2FZKBkpmAeaSNnN3S0dy%2FBf0%2Fw%2BvD8r9meFeE%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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%7C10103eb2158f454c7faf08db2c8bb0d9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638152750716718723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9H1J0o8%2FZKBkpmAeaSNnN3S0dy%2FBf0%2Fw%2BvD8r9meFeE%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.