Pushing Back Origins of Angiosperms

[Balaur]

This is very interesting.

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2013/10/01/saying-it-with-flowers-100-million-years-before-anyone-expected.html

Flowers in the Triassic? I'm a bit skeptical, we need to find more pollen samples securely dated to that time before we can make any conclusions. Still, very interesting...

[HD-man]

I'm a bit skeptical, we need to find more pollen samples securely dated to that time before we can make any conclusions.

I concur. When I read that article, I couldn't help but think of Melchor et al. 2013 ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/abs/nature11931.html ).

[Balaur]

I got confused with the title (Late Eocene bird tracks dated to Late Triassic). "Was it thought to be Eocene and was Triassic, or the other way around?" Of course, it is the otherway around.

[wings]

You can probably download the actual pdf on this page (http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2013.00344/abstract, one of the option from the right hand navigation bar).

[DC]

I recall a genetic clock study that said angiosperms split from gymnosperms in the Devonian.  There have been old claims that early Triassic angiosperm fossils were found in Virginia