Re: Oldest Flower Fossil Found, 125 MYA

[Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/05/03/first.flower.ap/index.html
wrote:
> 
> Dilcher said that Archaefructus apparently lived in clear, shallow
> pools, with its flowers and seeds extending above the water surface.
> Its leaves probably were submerged, he said, and the limbs were 
> partially supported by the water. The plant rooted in the floor of the lake.
>
> The best evidence of its waterlogged lifestyle is that fossils of nine
> fish were found among the branches of the plant in the slab of stone dug
> from the ancient lake, he said.

Aren't most plant fossils found in sediments of aquatic origin?

How do you tell the difference between a fully aquatic plant (like a
water lily) and one that grows in close proximity to water (like some
other lily species)?

The Koonwarra flower (~ten million years younger) was found in
lacustrine deposits, but as far as I can tell no-one has proposed it was
a fully aquatic plant.

-- 
________________________________________________________________

Dann Pigdon                   Australian Dinosaurs:
GIS, Archaeologist          http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia        http://www.alphalink.com.au/~dannj/
________________________________________________________________