ISSN: 2640-7906
Open Journal of Plant Science
Letter to Editor       Open Access      Peer-Reviewed

Criterion is a touchstone in study of early angiosperms

Xin Wang*

State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
*Corresponding author: Xin Wang, State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China, Email: xinwang@nigpas.ac.cn
Received: 03 September, 2021 | Accepted: 28 September, 2021 | Published: 29 September, 2021
Keywords: Self-contradiction; Plant; Science; Nature Plants

Cite this as

Wang X (2021) Criterion is a touchstone in study of early angiosperms. Open J Plant Sci 6(1): 091-093. DOI: 10.17352/ojps.000039

Copyright

© 2021 Wang X. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Herendeen et al. set up a criterion identifying fossil angiosperms while they named five examples of fossil angiosperms in the same paper. Their normal-appearing operation, however, is fundamentally flawed: their exemplar fossil angiosperms did not honor their own criterion. This operation confused their proponents as well as other botanical researchers, hindering healthy progress in study on the origin of angiosperms. Herendeen et al. are obligated to give a plausible explanation for their perplexing operation.

*Nature Plants has been informed of the problem in Herendeen et al. (2017). Nature Plants has refused to fix the problem due to reasons, according to the communication with Dr. Chris Surridge, an editor of Nature Plants.

Background

Early angiosperms have been a focus of controversy in botany mainly because different scholars adopt different undeclared self-accepted criteria identifying fossil angiosperms [1-23]. The situation started to improve as scholars started to set up criteria for fossil angiosperms. Wang [13] designated ovules enclosed before pollination as a criterion for fossil angiosperms, while Herendeen et al. [23] proposed another criterion including several different features for fossil angiosperms. Although different opinions are acceptable in science as long as the authors are self-consistent, Herendeen et al. [23] have gone beyond the tolerance scope of science: they failed to remain self-consistent.

A Criterion for fossil angiosperms

Herendeen et al. [23] assumed that fossil angiosperms in their terms can be inferred to have "unique angiosperm features" including "tetrasporangiate dithecate stamens with four pollen sacs arranged in two pairs, pollen grains with multiple apertures in a radially symmetrical or global arrangement, and carpels enclosing one or several bitegmic ovules with two integuments". If this criterion were accepted and applied in palaeobotany properly, it would definitely help to reduce controversy on the origin of angiosperms.

Exemplar fossil angiosperms

Herendeen et al. set up the following fossil taxa as good examples of fossil angiosperms, namely, Monetianthus, Canrightiopsis, Archaeanthus, Mauldinia, and Kajanthus [23]. It is noteworthy that all of these taxa were published by one or more members of Herendeen et al. These examples, if accepted and used properly, definitely would be helpful for study on early angiosperms, too.

A wrangling between the criterion and examples

Although, ideally, the above criterion and examples, both set up by the same group of authors in the same paper at the same time [23], should be coherent, the cruel reality, as shown in Table 1, is beyond everyone’s imagination and tolerance: None of Monetianthus, Canrightiopsis, Archaeanthus, Mauldinia, and Kajanthus has all the features enumerated in the criterion proposed by Herendeen et al. [23].

In addition to the above self-contradiction, the criterion proposed by Herendeen et al. [23] appears to have been deserted by various later independent researchers [14,24-27] (including some of Herendeen et al. themselves [28,29]). Now it appears as if that Herendeen alone was the only single person who insists on the criterion proposed by Herendeen et al. [23] among all botanical researchers.

Although controversy is a routine and healthy existence in science, the self-inconsistency of Herendeen et al. [23] is astonishingly beyond the tolerance of anyone (probably including themselves, this explains why Friis et al. (part of Herendeen et al.) [28] have discarded the criterion).

No wrangling between the criterion and examples?

An explanation less embarrassing for Herendeen et al. is that they simply meant that their exemplar fossils “can be inferred with high confidence to have possessed all of the diagnostic features”. To test whether this is true, Herendeen et al.’s own exemplar angiosperms constitute ideal testing samples. According to Herendeen et al. [23], Monetianthus, one of Herendeen et al.’s exemplar angiosperms, “can be inferred with high confidence to have possessed all of the diagnostic features”. Friis et al. [30] did claim the existence of “two integuments” in Monetianthus. This echoing each other between Herendeen et al. [23] and Friis et al. [30] appears perfect in science and logics. However, anyone would be petrified when he puts Figure 5f of Friis et al. [30] and Figure 2h (standard ovule with two integuments) of Herendeen et al. [23] side by side: Do they mean 1 = 2 in botany? Such anti-science operation is not conceivable unless some errors or dishonesty occurred. It becomes obvious that the so-called “high confidence” of Herendeen et al. [23] is “zero confidence” in the reality.

Conclusion

Setting up both a criterion and examples that conflict each other at the same time by the same authors in the same paper is apparently unacceptable and absurd in science. It seems necessary for Herendeen et al. to give a plausible explanation for their treatment. Otherwise this may become a permanent man-made abominable mystery in the history of science.

This research is supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program (B) of Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB26000000) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (41688103, 91514302).

  1. Krassilov VA (1977) The origin of angiosperms. Botanical Review 43: 143-176. Link: https://bit.ly/3A1Znex  
  2. Retallack G, Dilcher DL (1981) Early angiosperm reproduction: Prisca reynoldsii, gen. et sp. nov. from the mid-Cretaceous coastal deposits in Kansas, U.S.A. Paläontographica B 179: 103-107.
  3. Retallack G, Dilcher DL (1981) Arguments for a glossopterid ancestry of angiosperms. Paleobiology 7: 54-67. Link: https://bit.ly/3zOTCkc  
  4. Dilcher D, Crepet W (1984) Historical Perspectives of Angiosperm Evolution: Introduction. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 348-350. Link: https://bit.ly/3zRkeAT  
  5. Dilcher DL, Crane PR (1984) Archaeanthus: An early angiosperm from the Cenomanian of the Western Interior of North America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 351-383. Link: https://bit.ly/3CUG4W3  
  6. Hickey LJ, Taylor DW (1996) Flowering plant origin, evolution & phylogeny (eds D. W. Taylor & L. J. Hickey)Ch. 8: 176-231. Link: https://bit.ly/2ZG5Dfn  
  7. Taylor DW (1991) Angiosperm ovule and carpels: their characters and polarities, distribution in basal clades, and structural evolution. Postilla 208: 1-40. Link: https://bit.ly/3kNK3O7  
  8. Dilcher DL (2010) Plants in the Mesozoic Time: innovations, phylogeny, ecosystems (ed C.T. Gee)Ch. 6: 97-116.
  9. Friis EM, Crane PR, Pedersen KR (2011) The early flowers and angiosperm evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  10. Liu ZJ, Huang D, Cai C, Wang X (2018) The core eudicot boom registered in Myanmar amber. Scientific Reports 8: 16765. Link:
    https://go.nature.com/3zSK1IS  
  11. Liu ZJ, Wang X (2016) A perfect flower from the Jurassic of China. Hist Biol 28: 707-719. Link: https://bit.ly/2Y6zBsk  
  12. Wang X (2017) A biased, misleading review on early angiosperms. Natural Science 9: 399-405. Link:.https://bit.ly/3ohnnYH  
  13. Wang X (2018) The Dawn Angiosperms. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. Link: https://bit.ly/3CTx9nU  
  14. Fu Q, Diez JB, Pole M, García Ávila M, Liu ZJ et al. (2018) An unexpected noncarpellate epigynous flower from the Jurassic of China. eLife 7: e38827. Link: https://bit.ly/3zX5zV6  
  15. Han G, Liu Z, Wang X (2017) A Dichocarpum-like angiosperm from the Early Cretaceous of China. Acta Geologica Sinica (English edition) 90: 1-8. Link: https://bit.ly/3oge7E8  
  16. Han G, Liu Z-J, Liu X-L, Mao L, Jacques FMB et al. (2016) A whole plant herbaceous angiosperm from the Middle Jurassic of China. Acta Geologica Sinica (English edition) 90: 19-29. Link: https://bit.ly/3ig5xSe  
  17. Sun G, Dilcher DL, Zheng S, Zhou Z (1998) In search of the first flower: a Jurassic angiosperm, Archaefructus, from Northeast China. Science 282: 1692-1695. Link: https://bit.ly/3AV4Gh4  
  18. Sun G, Ji Q, Dilcher DL, Zheng S, Nixon KC et al. (2002) Archaefructaceae, a new basal angiosperm family. Science 296: 899-904. Link:
    https://bit.ly/3oi5JUw  
  19. Leng Q, Friis EM (2003) Sinocarpus decussatus gen. et sp. nov., a new angiosperm with basally syncarpous fruits from the Yixian Formation of Northeast China. Plant Systematics and Evolution 241: 77-88. Link: https://bit.ly/2Wlwkoe  
  20. Leng Q, Friis EM (2006) Angiosperm leaves associated with Sinocarpus infructescences from the Yixian Formation (Mid-Early Cretaceous) of NE China. Plant Systematics and Evolution 262: 173-187. Link: https://bit.ly/3B5YG5f  
  21. Friis EM, Doyle JA, Endress PK, Leng Q (2003) Archaefructus -- angiosperm precursor or specialized early angiosperm? Trends Plant Sci 8: S369-S373. Link: https://bit.ly/3kPOxnc  
  22. Wang X (2021) New observation on seed/ovule position in the fruit of Archaeanthus and its systematic implications. China Geology. doi: 10.31035/cg2021026
  23. Herendeen PS, Friis EM, Pedersen KR, Crane PR (2017) Palaeobotanical redux: revisiting the age of the angiosperms. Nature Plants 3: 17015. Link:
    https://go.nature.com/3ig5Ts2  
  24. Sokoloff DD, Remizowa MV, El ES, Rudall PJ, Bateman RM (2020) Supposed Jurassic angiosperms lack pentamery, an important angiosperm-specific feature. New Phytol 238: 420-426. Link: https://bit.ly/3mcKkK5  
  25. Coiro M, Doyle JA, Hilton J (2019) How deep is the conflict between molecular and fossil evidence on the age of angiosperms? New Phytol 233: 83-99. Link: https://bit.ly/3zSjhZh  
  26. Fu Q, Diez JB, Pole M, García-Ávila M, Wang X (2020) Nanjinganthus is an angiosperm, isn't it? China Geology 3: 359-361. Link: https://bit.ly/3kQqchm  
  27. Bateman RM (2020) Hunting the snark: the flawed search for mythical Jurassic angiosperms. Journal of Experimental Botany 71: 23-35. Link:
    https://bit.ly/3m5eQFD  
  28. Friis EM, Crane PR, Pedersen KR (2019) Hedyosmum-like fossils in the Early Cretaceous diversification of angiosperms. International Journal of Plant Sciences 180: 232-239. Link: https://bit.ly/2ZG7r89  
  29. Wang X (2020) Groundless research published on the International Journal of Plant Sciences. Voice of the Publisher 6: 167-169. Link: https://bit.ly/3igJPNG  
  30. Friis EM, Pedersen KR, von Balthazar M, Grimm GW, Crane PR (2009) Monetianthus mirus gen. et sp. nov., a nymphaealean flower from the Early Cretaceous of Portugal. International Journal of Plant Sciences 170: 1086-1101. Link: https://bit.ly/3kShDCK  
  31. Friis EM, Crane PR, Pedersen KR, Stampanoni M, Marone F (2015) Exceptional preservation of tiny embryos documents seed dormancy in early angiosperms. Nature 528: 551-554. Link: https://go.nature.com/3AMvRuh  
  32. Friis EM, Crane PR, Pedersen KR, Stampanoni M, Marone F (2015) Canrightiopsis, a new Early Cretaceous fossil with Clavatipollenites-type pollen bridge the gap between extinct Canrightia and extant Chloranthaceae. Grana 54: 184-212. Link: https://bit.ly/3zOW2iM  
  33. Drinnan AN, Crane PR, Friis EM, Pedersen KR (1990) Lauraceous flowers from the Potomac Group (mid-Cretaceous) of eastern North America. Botanical Gazette 151: 370-384. Link: https://bit.ly/2XZWBsQ
  34. Mendes MM, Grimm GW, Pais J, Friis EM (2014) Fossil Kajanthus lusitanicus gen. et sp. nov. from Portugal: floral evidence for Early Cretaceous Lardizabalaceae (Ranunculales, basal eudicot). Grana 53: 283-301. Link: https://bit.ly/3zSjTy3