Re: Land Plants Origins Pushed Back

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Eric,
    Some molecular "clocks" are better than others, and the possiblility of 
skewing should be considered.
     However, even if the dates are too early, it clearly points out the 
probability that there were primitive bryophytes (liverworts and possibly 
even mosses), fungi, and lichens on land during the Precambrian.  The 
question is if there is any trace of them in the fossil record, and if we 
look hard enough, I bet someone will find such traces eventually.  The 
fossil record is notoriously incomplete, especially when it comes to 
soft-bodied organisms.
           -------Ken
P.S.  I should make it clear that I do not buy Retallack's hypothesis that 
vendobionts were lichens.  However, there are some controversial Cambrian 
fossils of "fungi" that should perhaps be carefully reexamined in light of 
these new findings.
******************************************
> From: ELurio@aol.com
> Reply-To: ELurio@aol.com
> To: rtravsky@uwyo.edu, dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Land Plants Origins Pushed Back
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:11:55 EDT
>
> Here we go AGAIN!!!! There's ample evidence that rapid evolution can 
> squewer
> the molecular clock bigtime. When the fossil record and the molecular
> "record" disagree on chronology, always go with the fossil record.
>
> eric l.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp