4.5 Article

Evolutionary timescale of monocots determined by the fossilized birth-death model using a large number of fossil records

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 70, Issue 5, Pages 1136-1144

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12911

Keywords

Divergence time estimation; Early Cretaceous; fossilized birth-death model; Late Jurassic; molecular phylogeny; monocots

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan [25440207]
  2. Kyoto University Supporting Program for Interaction-based Initiative Team Studies (SPIRITS)
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25440207] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the phylogenetic relationships between monocot orders are sufficiently understood, a timescale of their evolution is needed. Several studies on molecular clock dating are available, but their results have been biased by their calibration schemes. Recently, the fossilized birth-deathmodel, a type of Bayesian datingmethod, was proposed, and it does not require prior calibration and allows the use all available fossils. Using this model, we conducted divergence-time estimations of monocots to explore their evolutionary timeline without calibration bias. This is the first application of this model to seed plants. The dataset contained the matK and rbcL chloroplast genes of 118 monocot genera covering all extant orders. We employed information from 247 monocot fossils, which exceeded previous dating analyses that used a maximum of 12 monocot fossils. The crown group of monocots was dated to approximately the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous periods, and most extant monocot orders were estimated to diverge throughout the Early Cretaceous. Our results overlapped with the divergence time of insect lineages, such as beetles and flies, suggesting an association with pollinators in early monocot evolution. In addition, we proposed three new orders based on divergence time: Orchidales separated from Asparagales and Tofieldiales and Arales separated from Aslimatales.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available