4.4 Review

Monocot fossils suitable for molecular dating analyses

期刊

BOTANICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 178, 期 3, 页码 346-374

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/boj.12233

关键词

Alismatales; Arecales; Asparagales; calibration fossil; Dioscoreales; Liliales; Monocotyledonae; Pandanales; Poales; Zingiberales

资金

  1. University of British Columbia Graduate Scholarship
  2. NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Discovery Grant
  3. US National Science Foundation [DEB 0830020, DEB 091832, DEB 0919071, DEB 1257080]
  4. American Philosophical Society
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [0918932, 0919071, 1257080, 0830020] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent re-examinations and new fossil findings have added significantly to the data available for evaluating the evolutionary history of the monocotyledons. Integrating data from the monocot fossil record with molecular dating techniques has the potential to help us to understand better the timing of important evolutionary events and patterns of diversification and extinction in this major and ancient clade of flowering plants. In general, the oldest well-placed fossils are used to constrain the age of nodes in molecular dating analyses. However, substantial error can be introduced if calibration fossils are not carefully evaluated and selected. Here we propose a set of 34 fossils representing 19 families and eight orders for calibrating the ages of major monocot clades. We selected these fossils because they can be placed in particular clades with confidence and they come from well-dated stratigraphic sequences. As more fossils are discovered or re-examined, these criteria can also be applied to expand the list of the fossils that are most suitable for dating the early branches of monocot phylogeny.(c) 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 178, 346-374.

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