Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Flowering plants
Message-ID: <35@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 19 Oct 90 20:37:37 GMT
References: <28272@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
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?

Nope!  There a quite a few fossils of flowering plants.  There are even a
fair number of fossils flowers (which is not the same thing, but is the
strongest evidence).  In addition there is abundant fossil pollen which
has a form found only in flowering plants, and essentially all experts
agree that it is indeed flowering plant pollen.  (This is reinforced by
the fact that more recent fossil angiosperm pollen is more similar to that
of modern angiosperms than the older stuff).  There are also numerous fossil
seeds and fruits, including elm seeds, maple seeds, rose hips &c.  Finally,
fossil leaves attributed to angiosperms are known from the middle of the
Lower Cretaceous, mostly from Delaware.  (Leaves are a little difficult to
identify accurately, so they are less powerful evidence).

For a good start any general text on palynology will probably do.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)