2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.revpalbo.2011.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Kaolakia borealis nov. gen. et sp. (Porellales, Jungermanniopsida): A leafy liverwort from the Cretaceous of Alaska

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The earliest unambiguous macrofossil of a bryophyte dates back to the Devonian. This and other available macrofossils exhibit an overall striking similarity with extant species [11][12][13][14] . The similarity between ancient fossils and modern species, along with the persistence of ancestral traits such as a haploid-dominant life cycle, the dependence on water for sexual reproduction, an absence of lignified water-conducting cells, and slower rates of molecular evolution than in angiosperms 15 led to the long-held perception of bryophytes as living fossils with limited evolutionary capacities (see ref.…”
mentioning
confidence: 65%
“…The earliest unambiguous macrofossil of a bryophyte dates back to the Devonian. This and other available macrofossils exhibit an overall striking similarity with extant species [11][12][13][14] . The similarity between ancient fossils and modern species, along with the persistence of ancestral traits such as a haploid-dominant life cycle, the dependence on water for sexual reproduction, an absence of lignified water-conducting cells, and slower rates of molecular evolution than in angiosperms 15 led to the long-held perception of bryophytes as living fossils with limited evolutionary capacities (see ref.…”
mentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Among fossil bryophytes, some express morphologies that are genuinely extinct, e.g. Kaolakia borealis Heinrichs, M.E.Reiner, K.Feldberg, von Konrat & A.R.Schmidt (Heinrichs et al ., ), implying that morphological diversity in some groups was different, if not greater, in the past. Usually, however, fossils are similar to extant species and many bryophyte fossils from the Palaeocene and even the Early Cretaceous suggest that some bryophyte groups have experienced little morphological change over periods of tens of millions of years at least (Grolle, , ; Gradstein, ; Konopka et al ., ; Konopka, Herendeen & Crane, ; Grolle & Meister, ; Frahm & Newton, ; Heinrichs et al ., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bryophytes, however, despite their small size, are only sparsely represented in the amber fossil record. Indeed, bryophyte inclusions have been found only in nine of the hundreds of known amber deposits, specifically, in Miocene Dominican amber (Gradstein 1993;Frahm and Newton 2005;Heinrichs and Schmidt, 2010;Reiner-Drehwald et al 2012), Miocene Mexican amber (Grolle 1984;Heinrichs et al 2014a), Miocene Sicilian amber (Skalski and Veggiani, 1990), Oligocene Bitterfeld and Eocene Baltic amber Frahm 2004Frahm , 2010, Eocene Rovno amber (Ignatov and Perkovsky 2011;Konstantinova et al 2012), hitherto not precisely dated, presumably Miocene Australian Cape York amber (Hand et al 2010), Cenomanian-Turonian Alaskan amber (Heinrichs et al 2011), and Albian-Cenomanian Burmese amber Hedenäs et al 2014;Heinrichs et al 2014b). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%