New Cambrian Discoveries

Yes, and it was very embarrassing, thanks so much for pointing it out in front of the whole world on the internet.

Land plants did exist at this time, it seems.

quote:

---

Land plants arose earlier than thoughtand may have had a bigger impact on the evolution of animals
By Elizabeth PennisiFeb. 19, 2018 , 9:35 AM

​

We have land plants to thank for the oxygen we breathe. And now we have a better idea of when they took to land in the first place. While the oldest known fossils of land plants are 420 million years old, researchers have now determined that pond scum first made landfall almost 100 million years earlier.

​

Science | AAAS

---

quote:

---

Origins of land plants pushed back in time
By Helen Briggs
BBC News
20 February 2018

​

Land plants evolved from "pond scum" about 500 million years ago, according to new research.

​

These early moss-like plants greened the continents, creating habitats for land animals.

​

The study, based on analysing the genes of living plants, overturns theories based purely on fossil plant evidence.

​

"Land plants emerged on land half a billion years ago, tens of millions of years older than the fossil record alone suggests," said study author, Dr Philip Donoghue of the department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol.

​

"This changes perception of the nature of early terrestrial environments, displacing pond scum in favour of a flora that would have tickled your toes - but not reached much higher. "

​

Early plants would have provided a habitat for fully terrestrial animals, which emerged onto land at much the same time, he said.

​

This coincides with the time period when life became more diverse and abundant in the seas - an event known as the Cambrian explosion.

​

Origins of land plants pushed back in time - BBC News

---

The study shows that it is even slightly possible that today's plants have land ancestors that even pre-date the Cambrian.

quote:

---

The Origin of the Embryophytes and Tracheophytes.
Considering the 95% HPDs of divergence times across all topologies, the origin of crown embryophytes is dated to 515.1 Ma to 470.0 Ma (middle Cambrian—Early Ordovician). However, all of the mean estimated ages are resolved within the Phanerozoic across all alternative topologies and dating strategies, and the majority are dated to around 500 Ma (middle Cambrian Series 2). Only one analysis has a 95% HPD that stretches into the Proterozoic. The full span of age estimates for the crown tracheophyte node is 472.2 Ma to 419.3 Ma (Floian, Early Ordovician to the late Silurian). Only one analysis has a 95% HPD that stretches to the Early Ordovician, with those using a uniform prior resulting in estimated mean ages close to the Ordovician−Silurian boundary (∼444 Ma). The span of the tracheophyte stem lineage ranges across all analyses from 25.1 My to 60.0 My; these intervals are shorter for the paraphyletic topology than the monophyletic bryophytes topology (35.5 My and 51.6 My, respectively) (SI Appendix, Fig. S6).

​

Just a moment...

---

However, there is not a single genetic analysis that places VASCULAR plants before the time just AFTER the end of the Cambrian, and the analyses seem to put the origin 30 million or so years after the Cambrian ended.But, again, this only is an analysis of the plants that have living descendants.There could have been Sea plants that colonized a certain number of Cambrian (or pre Cambrian) islands, and became "land" plants, but became extinct without leaving any descendants that survived in the fossil record.It seems to be assumed that novel evolution didn't happen twice, but the discovery of lignin in red algae raises questions, and specifically about convergent evolution.From a journal:

quote:

---

Until now, such developmentally specialized cell walls have been described only in vascular plants. The finding of secondary walls and lignin in red algae raises many questions about the convergent or deeply conserved evolutionary history of these traits, given that red algae and vascular plants probably diverged more than 1 billion years ago.

​

Discovery of lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall architecture - PubMed

---

See endless journal articles when LIGNIN RED ALGAE is put into google.Such as:

quote:

---

The 'starch' that stiffens land plants is discovered in seaweed
The ‘starch’ that stiffens land plants is discovered in seaweed
Jan 28, 2009 - "Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic ...

---

The discovery raises questions, and helps show that previous assumptions were wrong.As for the issue of animals, dont forget that Cambrian LAND-strata is very very rare and precious. It might not be correct to assume that no evolution happened on land in Cambrians times. The is no guarantee that the most "advanced" creatures (all assumed to be watery) survived Cambrian times and left descendants. We should not assume that there were no land animals in the Cambrian times.The plant assumptions were wrong, right?

Actually, in my country we can. No plant or animal fossils have been found in the Vanrhynsdorp Group (Early Cambrian in age) or any other Groups (Klipheuwel, Nama) or Subgroups (Kansa) deposited during the Cambrian in my country. My country missed complex life in the Cambrian!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

You are mistaken if you think that I am saying that "no evolution happened on land in Cambrians times."I am saying that we have found no fossils of vascular plants in Cambrian strata. And just so you know exactly what I am saying, I am saying that we have found no fossils of vascular plants in Cambrian strata.I am not assuming "that there were no land animals in the Cambrian times."I am saying that we have not found any fossils of land animals in Cambrian strata. So? Is anyone saying that? Yes, your assumptions about what I said are incorrect.In Message 12 I said: I more narrowly defined what I meant by "land plants" as "vascular plants."
I am not talking about Algae or Bryophytes.We have found no Cambrian fossils of vascular plants that grew on land. I will add that I am also unaware of fossil pollen, spores or seeds of vascular land plants found in any Cambrian deposits. These sorts of trace fossils are found in later sediments deposited when vascular plants arose, and pretty much continuously ever since.We have found no fossils of modern vertebrates or any kind of mammal whatsoever in Cambrian strata (which would have to eat either other animals or vascular plants... and yes I remember that Caribou eat moss).Look, the fossils we are finding in Cambrian deposits are exciting and are continuing to train young scientists. Speculating about "out of sequence fossils" that have never been found and carrying on pointless discussions about something that we don't know anything about is not something I want to waste my time on.I think there are plenty of exciting and interesting discussions to be had with all our actual discoveries so far.If you want to speculate or have a discussion about what sorts of things we might find in the future, based on what we have found so far, start a thread.Try predicting what sorts of organisms we might find in the next new discovery that is just a bit older than what we have found so far or in strata that is just a bit younger.Scientists have already successfully applied that technique. see Tiktaalik

quote:

---

I more narrowly defined what I meant by "land plants" as "vascular plants."
I am not talking about Algae or Bryophytes.

​

We have found no Cambrian fossils of vascular plants that grew on land.

​

I will add that I am also unaware of fossil pollen, spores or seeds of vascular land plants found in any Cambrian deposits. These sorts of trace fossils are found in later sediments deposited when vascular plants arose, and pretty much continuously ever since.

​

We have found no fossils of modern vertebrates or any kind of mammal whatsoever in Cambrian strata (which would have to eat either other animals or vascular plants... and yes I remember that Caribou eat moss).

---

You said there were not any kind of Cambrian land plants, in your earlier posts.I always said that mammals (which clearly evolved in the period roughly 200 million years ago) were not the issue, but "rabbit"-like (non mammal)creatures were (slightly)possible.

quote:

---

If you want to speculate or have a discussion about what sorts of things we might find in the future, based on what we have found so far, start a thread.

​

Try predicting what sorts of organisms we might find in the next new discovery that is just a bit older than what we have found so far or in strata that is just a bit younger.

---

Well, I showed a fossil discovery (in a link), back around January or February, that had a 482 million year old land plant, if I recall correctly. It was only a few million years too young to be Cambrian.It was slightly before the genetic study was published (which I never posted until now).

And when I realized that you were not thinking "vascular plants" when I said "land plants" I tried to clarify what I meant, several times.Whenever I said anything about land plants in this thread I meant vascular plants and I regret that I was not clearer.This thread is about new Cambrian fossil beds and new interesting fossils being discovered which I think is really neat.

Tanypteryx said:

quote:

---

And when I realized that you were not thinking "vascular plants" when I said "land plants" I tried to clarify what I meant, several times.

​

Whenever I said anything about land plants in this thread I meant vascular plants and I regret that I was not clearer.

​

This thread is about new Cambrian fossil beds and new interesting fossils being discovered which I think is really neat.

---

There is a larger issue here and it is a very big problem imo.Take a look at this post (and I will quote the entire thing), and tell me what you think the implication is.

quote:

---

Actually, in my country we can. No plant or animal fossils have been found in the Vanrhynsdorp Group (Early Cambrian in age) or any other Groups (Klipheuwel, Nama) or Subgroups (Kansa) deposited during the Cambrian in my country. My country missed complex life in the Cambrian!

​

Edited by Pressie, 12-12-2018 5:49 AM: No reason given.

---

(I appreciate the information, though it would be nice if there was a description of the total land area excavated and then the total area potentially dug/hammered into at some point )South Africa does not the entire world make.Put ARGENTINA OLDEST LAND PLANTS into google.Fossils of 'world's oldest plants' are unearthed in Argentina | Daily Mail Online

quote:

---

Fossils of 'world's oldest plants' are unearthed in Argentina | Daily Mail ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ants-unearthed-Argentina.html
Oct 13, 2010 - Prior to this discovery, the oldest known plants had been liverwort cryptospores found in Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic which were thought to date back around 462 million years. Dr Rubenstein said the discovery was totally unexpected.
Oldest land plants? ~ Hudson Valley Geologist
hudsonvalleygeologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/oldest-land-plants.html
Oct 14, 2010 - Early Middle Ordovician evidence for land plants in Argentina (eastern Gondwana). New Phytologist 188: 365-369) recently discovered ...

---

This also came in search

quote:

---

The oldest land plants (1)
steurh.home.xs4all.nl/eng/old1.html
The oldest indications for the existence of real land plants have been found in cores from boreholes in Oman. They contained fours of mutually connected spores ...

---

Another search brought this

quote:

---

LON-CAPA The oldest land plants (1)
LON-CAPA Help Menu<\/title> <\/head> \n\n'); caller.document.writeln('\n<\/frameset> <\/html>'); caller.document.close(); caller.focus(); } // END LON-CAPA Internal --> // ]]>