4.4 Review

Integrating Early Cretaceous fossils into the phylogeny of living angiosperms: Magnoliidae and eudicots

期刊

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 1-35

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-6831.2009.00058.x

关键词

angiosperms; Cretaceous; eudicots; flowers; Magnoliidae; paleobotany; phylogeny; pollen

资金

  1. NSF Deep Time Research Collaboration Network [RCN0090283]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past 25 years, discoveries of Early Cretaceous fossil flowers, often associated with pollen and sometimes with vegetative parts, have revolutionized our understanding of the morphology and diversity of early angiosperms. However, few of these fossils have been integrated into the increasingly robust phylogeny of living angiosperms based primarily on molecular data. To remedy this situation, we have used a morphological dataset for living basal angiosperms (including basal eudicots and monocots) to assess the most parsimonious positions of early angiosperm fossils on cladograms of Recent plants, using constraint trees that represent the current range of hypotheses on higher-level relationships, and concentrating on Magnoliidae (the clade including Magnoliales, Laurales, Canellales, and Piperales) and eudicots. In magnoliids, our results confirm proposed relationships of Archaeanthus (latest Albian?) to Magnoliaceae, Endressinia (late Aptian) to Magnoliales (the clade comprising Degeneria, Galbulimima, Eupomatia, and Annonaceae), and Walkeripollis pollen tetrads (late Barremian?) to Winteraceae, but they indicate that Mauldinia (early Cenomanian) was sister to both Lauraceae and Hernandiaceae rather than to Lauraceae alone. Among middle Albian to early Cenomanian eudicots, we confirm relationships of Nelumbites to Nelumbo, platanoid inflorescences and Sapindopsis to Platanaceae, and Spanomera to Buxaceae. With the possible exception of Archaeanthus, these fossils are apparently not crown group members of living families but rather stem relatives of one or more families.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据