How Does the Inclusion of Fossil Data Change Our Conclusions about the Phylogenetic History of Euphyllophytes?

By G. Rothwell, K. Nixon. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL PLANT SCIENCES, 2006

118 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Estimating ancestral distributions of lineages with uncertain sister groups: a statistical approach to Dispersal–Vicariance Analysis and a case using Aesculus L. (Sapindaceae) including fossils (2009, methodology): “…the need for inclusion of fossils in phylogenetic reconstruction and phylogeny-based biogeographic analyses (Manchester, 1999; Rothwell, 1999; Wen, 1999; Lieberman, 2003; Crane et al., 2004; Donoghue & Smith, 2004; Xiang et al., 2005, 2006, 2009; Hilton & Bateman, 2006; Rothwell & Nixon, 2006).”
Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta (2007, background): “(2000), and Rothwell & Nixon (2006).”
Integrating Molecular Phylogenetic and Paleobotanical Evidence on Origin of the Flower (2008, background): “…segment of the Ophioglossales, the glossopterid cupule, and the angiosperm bitegmic ovule were homologous is ruled out by molecular evidence that Ophioglossales are not related to seed plants (Pryer et al. 2001; Rothwell and Nixon 2006), but these structures might be morphologically similar.”