Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

News: How the worlds first flowers evolved.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 4, 2010, 5:14:01 PM1/4/10
to
How the worlds first flowers evolved

http://www.littleabout.com/news/52945,how-worlds-flowers-evolved.html

Washington, January 2 : A new study led by Florida Museum of Natural
History researchers is helping shed light on the evolution of the
first flowers in the world.

Charles Darwin described the sudden origin of flowering plants, which
emerged about 130 million years ago, as an abominable mystery.

There was nothing like them before and nothing like them since, said
Andre Chanderbali, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral
associate at the FloridaMuseum of Natural History.

The origin of the flower is the key to the origin of the angiosperms
(flowering plants), he added.

The flower is one of the key innovations of evolution, responsible for
a massive burst of evolution that has resulted in perhaps as many as
400,000 angiosperm species.

Before flowering plants emerged, the seed-bearing plant world was
dominated by gymnosperms, which have cone-like structures instead of
flowers and include pine trees, sago palms and ginkgos.

Gymnosperms first appeared in the fossil record about 360 million
years ago, more than 200 million years before the first angiosperms
did.

The new study provides insight into how the first flowering plants
evolved from pre-existing genetic programs found in gymnosperms and
then developed into the diversity of flowering plants we see today.

The goal of this research is to understand the original regulatory
program, or set of genetic switches, that produced the first flower in
the common ancestor of all living floweringplants, said Pam Soltis,
study co-author and curator of molecular systematics and evolutionary
genetics at the Florida Museum.

--
Bob.

rmj

unread,
Jan 5, 2010, 2:58:24 AM1/5/10
to

???
Why post something that only says how important the research is, but
does not say what what was done or theorized?

Desertphile

unread,
Jan 4, 2010, 7:38:54 PM1/4/10
to
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:14:01 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
wrote:

> http://www.littleabout.com/news/52945,how-worlds-flowers-evolved.html

> The goal of this research is to understand the original regulatory
> program, or set of genetic switches, that produced the first flower in
> the common ancestor of all living flowering plants, said Pam Soltis

That doesn't make any sense.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 5, 2010, 5:51:07 PM1/5/10
to
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:38:54 -0700, Desertphile
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:14:01 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> http://www.littleabout.com/news/52945,how-worlds-flowers-evolved.html
>
>
>> The goal of this research is to understand the original regulatory
>> program, or set of genetic switches, that produced the first flower in
>> the common ancestor of all living flowering plants, said Pam Soltis
>
>That doesn't make any sense.

Well, I read it to mean they were looking for the possible mutations
that led to flowers.

--
Bob.

There are two rules for ultimate success in life.
The first is - Never tell everything you know.

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Jan 5, 2010, 9:47:19 PM1/5/10
to
On Jan 4, 5:14�pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> How the worlds first flowers evolved
>
> http://www.littleabout.com/news/52945,how-worlds-flowers-evolved.html
>
> Washington, January 2 : A new study led by Florida Museum of Natural
> History researchers is helping shed light on the evolution of the
> first flowers in the world.
>
> Charles Darwin described the sudden origin of flowering plants, which
> emerged about 130 million years ago, as an abominable mystery.
>
> There was nothing like them before and nothing like them since, said
> Andre Chanderbali, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral
> associate at the FloridaMuseum of Natural History.

What good is half a flower? ;-)

<...>


Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 5, 2010, 5:51:47 PM1/5/10
to
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:58:24 -0800, rmj <glennaRe...@jps.net>

enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Because I found it interesting when I read it.

--
Bob.

Ernest Major

unread,
Jan 6, 2010, 12:23:42 PM1/6/10
to
In message
<01c5ca97-24fe-445e...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> writes
Well, the male flowers of Hildegardia australiensis are exinvolucellate,
apetalous and apistillate, which by some measures would be at most half
a flower.

The lacecap forms of Hydrangea macrophylla have inflorescences in which
the outer flowers are sterile. I presume that they perform the same
function as bracts do in other inflorescences (e.g. Poinsettia), that is
server as pollinator attractors.
--
alias Ernest Major

All-seeing-I

unread,
Jan 6, 2010, 9:56:41 PM1/6/10
to
> does not say what what was done or theorized?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why?

It is called:

-=- Academic Research Illusion -=-

Ask Chris. He knows ALL about it

--
It's always good to have things in perspective, says...

Adman.


0 new messages