Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!elmo
From: elmo@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Cabot)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Flowering plants
Message-ID: <9909@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 17 Oct 90 23:49:42 GMT
References: <28272@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY
Lines: 25

In article <28272@boulder.Colorado.EDU> eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes:
>A friend of mine came up with a statement that struck me a patently
>absurd....
>
>"there is no evidence of angiosperms (flowering plants) in the 
>fossil record"
>
>I feel an little embarrased asking but, is this true?  On a related
This is indeed untrue, as evidenced, for example by the article that
you refer to.

>gene was PCR'd from a fossilized plant... was this a flowering plant?
>(and does anyone have a ref?)....
>
The paper *was* in Nature and the plant was a Magnolia,which
is indeed a flowering plant.  If I`m not mistaken the gene wasn't
a cytochrome, but rather Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase,
or rubisco (or Rbc) for shorter.  


-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Eric Cabot                             |  elmo@{uhura | db1}.cc.rochester.edu
      "insert your face here"          |  elmo@uordbv.bitnet
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=