Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40438547›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Uncertainty in the timing of diversification of flowering plants rests with equivocal interpretation of their fossil record.

James W Clark, Philip C J Donoghue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James W ClarkMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2896-1631
Philip C J DonoghueBristol Palaeobiology Group, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3116-7463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The timing of the origin of crown-angiosperms exemplifies the impact of competing approaches to establishing evolutionary timescales. Fossils of unequivocal crown-angiosperms are not known from before the Cretaceous, and yet molecular estimates range from the Late Jurassic to the Permian. We show that the disagreement between molecular and palaeobotanical estimates is an artefact of interpretations of the fossil record. We employ relaxed molecular clock methods that reflect competing interpretations of the fossil record to show that such methods are entirely capable of recovering an explosive diversification of angiosperms if the fossil record can be interpreted confidently to support this. We argue that older putative angiosperm records have insufficient claim on crown-angiosperm affinity to justify their use in divergence time estimation and, in their absence, estimate crown-angiosperms to have diverged in a Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous interval. This diminishes the Jurassic gap between molecular clock estimates and literal interpretations of the fossil record but expands the Jurassic gap in the fossil record of stem-angiosperms that is not readily rationalized. Attention should be refocused on the history of stem-angiosperms in which the body plan of this most successful lineage of land plants was assembled.

Indexed as

angiospermflowerfossil recordmacroevolutionmolecular clocktimescale

Identifiers

PMID40438547
PMCPMC12115813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.