<i>Nanjinganthus</i> is an angiosperm, isn’t it?

Taiyuanostachya: An Abominable Angiosperm from the Early Permian of China

“…The age of angiosperms has been heatedly debated among botanists for a long time . Although molecular clocks have suggested various earlier origins of angiosperms, ranging from the Carboniferous to the Jurassic 29,38,39 , a conclusion in line with independent studies 6,10,15,[21][22][23][24][40][41][42][43][44] , their conclusions are largely ignored by palaeobotanists who prefer fossils to DNA sequences. Although Stebbins 45 stated that "the evolutionary line leading to the angiosperms entered a dark tunnel of ignorance at the end of the Paleozoic until the early Cretaceous", this statement was never proven true or corroborated by fossil evidence: Scott et al 20 annihilated all pre-Cretaceous angiosperms, and thenceforth the status of study on origin of angiosperms remains unchanged 46 in spite of all progresses made in palaeobotany.…”

“…The reason underlying such an academic stagnancy includes 1) a lack of well documented fossil evidence, which is the key to the problem 2 , and 2), more importantly, a lack of consensus of criterion identifying angiosperms in the fossil world. Although there are recent reports of angiosperm trace in the Triassic and Jurassic 6,[21][22][23][24][25]40,41 , all of these reports were suspected by some palaeobotanists 46 . A merit of the paper 46 is that they clearly listed several features unique of angiosperms, which, if no controversy rose, could be used as criterion identifying a fossil angiosperm.…”

“…To be conservative, here we adopted ovules enclosed before pollination as a criterion identifying fossil angiosperms, which has been raised and repeatedly applied previously 6,40,42,[50][51][52][53] and is closely related to the core feature of angiosperms, angiospermy. Applying this criterion, we identified a new angiosperm, Taiyuanostachya ovuilifera gen. et sp.…”

A Novel Early Cretaceous Flower and Its Implications on Flower Derivation

“…Although supported by some early angiosperms [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 ], this hypothesis is now facing increasing challenges from fossil evidence [ 1 , 7 , 11 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ] and molecular studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Furthermore, a strong challenge is from the early Jurassic Nanjinganthus [ 21 , 22 , 30 ], which shows syncarpy and an inferior ovary, both unexpected for the assumed basalmost angiosperms [ 18 ]. Actually, Nanjinganthus is not peerless in challenging the traditional theories.…”

A cone-like flower from the Lower Cretaceous of China

“…

Angiosperms are by far the most important plant group for human beings, and numerous fossils of early angiosperms have been documented worldwide [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] . However, the origin of angiosperms remains a focus of debate [15][16][17][18][19] , partially due to lack of anatomically preserved fossils of related plant reproductive organs. Here we report a fossil female flower, Xilinia shengliensis gen. et sp.

…”