4.5 Article

An overview of extant conifer evolution from the perspective of the fossil record

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 105, 期 9, 页码 1531-1544

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajb2.1143

关键词

fossil calibration; molecular dating; paleobotany; seed cone evolution; fossil calibration; molecular dating; span style=color:red paleobotany; seed cone evolution

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EF-0629890]
  2. Prumnopitys harmsiana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Conifers are an important living seed plant lineage with an extensive fossil record spanning more than 300 million years.The group therefore provides an excellent opportunity to explore congruence and conflict between dated molecular phylogenies and the fossil record. METHODS: We surveyed the current state of knowledge in conifer phylogenetics to present a new time-calibrated molecular tree that samples similar to 90% of extant species diversity. We compared phylogenetic relationships and estimated divergence ages in this new phylogeny with the paleobotanical record, focusing on clades that are species-rich and well known from fossils. KEY RESULTS: Molecular topologies and estimated divergence ages largely agree with the fossil record in Cupressaceae, conflict with it in Araucariaceae, and are ambiguous in Pinaceae and Podocarpaceae. Molecular phylogenies provide insights into some fundamental questions in conifer evolution, such as the origin of their seed cones, but using them to reconstruct the evolutionary history of specific traits can be challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular phylogenies are useful for answering deep questions in conifer evolution if they depend on understanding relationships among extant lineages. Because of extinction, however, molecular datasets poorly sample diversity from periods much earlier than the Late Cretaceous. This fundamentally limits their utility for understanding deep patterns of character evolution and resolving the overall pattern of conifer phylogeny.

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

4.5
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