Constraining uncertainty in the timescale of angiosperm evolution and the veracity of a Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution

Abstract

Summary Through the lens of the fossil record, angiosperm diversification precipitated a Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution (KTR) in which pollinators, herbivores and predators underwent explosive co‐diversification. Molecular dating studies imply that early angiosperm evolution is not documented in the fossil record. This mismatch remains controversial.We used a Bayesian molecular dating method to analyse a dataset of 83 genes from 644 taxa and 52 fossil calibrations to explore the effect of different interpretations of the fossil record, molecular clock models, data partitioning, among other factors, on angiosperm divergence time estimation.Controlling for different sources of uncertainty indicates that the timescale of angiosperm diversification is much less certain than previous molecular dating studies have suggested. Discord between molecular clock and purely fossil‐based interpretations of angiosperm diversification may be a consequence of false precision on both sides.We reject a post‐Jurassic origin of angiosperms, supporting the notion of a cryptic early history of angiosperms, but this history may be as much as 121 Myr, or as little as 23 Myr. These conclusions remain compatible with palaeobotanical evidence and a more general KTR in which major groups of angiosperms diverged later within the Cretaceous, alongside the diversification of pollinators, herbivores and their predators.

Comparative genomics of figworts (Scrophularia, Scrophulariaceae), with implications for the evolution of Scrophularia and Lamiales

“…The crown age of Lamiales was estimated to be 85.1 Ma (95% HPD, 70.6–99.8 Ma; Fig. ), which is consistent with the divergence time estimation in Barba‐Montoya et al () (95% HPD, 67–101 Ma). The higher core Lamiales diverged from Scrophulariaceae at 65.6 Ma (95% HPD, 51.4–79.4 Ma; Fig.…”

How deep is the conflict between molecular and fossil evidence on the age of angiosperms?

“…Estimated ages center on 220 Ma for angiosperms (Late Triassic), 150 Ma for eudicots (Late Jurassic), and 132 Ma for Pentapetalae (Hauterivian), comparable to dates of Barba‐Montoya et al . (). The tree implies that colpates were already nearly as diverse as sulcates when they are first observed as fossils in the late Barremian, and more remarkably that colporates were as diverse as colpates, c .…”

Biases in assessing the evolutionary history of the angiosperm flora of China

“…Most estimates of the crown angiosperm age fall between 150 and 250 Mya (e.g. 149–256 Mya, Barba‐Montoya, Reis, Schneider, Donoghue, & Yang, ; 162–210 Mya, Magallón, ; 175–240 Mya, Clarke, Warnock, & Donoghue, ; 190–238 Mya, Murat, Armero, Pont, Klopp, & Salse, ; 182–257 Mya, Smith, Beaulieu, & Donoghue, ; 192–251 Mya, Foster et al., ; 158–179 Mya, Wikström, Savolainen, & Chase, ; 167–199 Mya, Bell, Soltis, & Soltis, ). Molecular clocks suggest a Triassic age for crown angiosperms (e.g.…”

“…In particular, several recent studies have demonstrated that the age of crown angiosperms is >200 million years (e.g. 203 Mya, Barba‐Montoya et al., ; 232 Mya, Beaulieu et al., ; 233 Mya, Brown & Smith, ; 221 Mya, Foster et al., ; 243 Mya, Zanne et al., ; 232 Mya, Zeng et al., ). However, Lu et al.…”

“…This age is much younger than the minimum angiosperm crown ages in most angiosperm phylogenies reported in recent studies, as noted above. Multiple lines of evidence have shown that the age of crown angiosperms is much older than 140 million years (Barba‐Montoya et al., ). Thus, using a substantially underestimated crown angiosperm age in Lu et al.…”