Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
    • Series home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Current volume
    • All volumes
    • All collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • Access for GSL Fellows
    • Access for other member types
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
  • Alert sign up
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
  • Propose
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Geological Society, London, Special Publications
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow gsl on Twitter
  • Visit gsl on Facebook
  • Visit gsl on Youtube
  • Visit gsl on Linkedin
Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Advanced search

  • Home
    • Series home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Current volume
    • All volumes
    • All collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • Access for GSL Fellows
    • Access for other member types
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
  • Alert sign up
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
  • Propose

A Jurassic flower bud from China

View ORCID ProfileDa-Fang Cui, View ORCID ProfileYemao Hou, View ORCID ProfilePengfei Yin and View ORCID ProfileXin Wang
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 521, 6 January 2022, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP521-2021-122
Da-Fang Cui
1College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Roles: [Formal analysis (Equal)], [Investigation (Supporting)], [Writing – review & editing (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Da-Fang Cui
Yemao Hou
2Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, CAS Centre for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China
Roles: [Formal analysis (Supporting)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Lead)], [Resources (Supporting)], [Visualization (Lead)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Yemao Hou
Pengfei Yin
2Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, CAS Centre for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China
Roles: [Formal analysis (Supporting)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Visualization (Equal)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Pengfei Yin
Xin Wang
3State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and CAS Centre for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
Roles: [Conceptualization (Lead)], [Formal analysis (Lead)], [Funding acquisition (Lead)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Supervision (Equal)], [Validation (Equal)], [Visualization (Equal)], [Writing – original draft (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xin Wang
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Angiosperms may be distinguished from their gymnosperm peers by their flowers, and thus a flower is a good proxy of fossil angiosperms. However, flowers and their parts are usually too frail to be preserved in the fossil record. This makes the origin of angiosperms and their flowers the foci of controversy in botany. Eliminating such botanical controversies can only be achieved by studying related plant fossils. Applying routine scanning electron microscopy, light microscopy and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) technologies, we document a fossil flower bud, Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov., from the Jurassic of Inner Mongolia, China. This fossil includes not only a leafy branch but also physically connected fruit and flower bud. The developmentally interpolated existence of a blooming flower between the flower bud and mature fruit in Florigerminis suggests that angiosperm flowers were present in the Jurassic, in agreement with recent botanical progress. Florigerminis jurassica underscores the presence of angiosperms in the Jurassic and demands a rethinking of angiosperm evolution.

As the most diversified plant group in the world, angiosperms provide most of the materials necessary for the well-being of human beings. However, when and how this important group came into existence are still unanswered questions (Arber and Parkin 1907; Hagerup 1936; Crane 1985; Hickey and Taylor 1996; Sun et al. 1998, 2002; Frohlich 2003; Doyle 2008; Doyle et al. 2008; Friis et al. 2010; Wang 2010a, 2017, 2020, 2021). Angiosperms are characterized by their flowers; therefore, a fossil flower is a good proxy of early angiosperms (Thomas 1936). However, searching for such fossils is far from easy, and the related efforts were termed as an ‘unbroken record of failure’ by Harris (Beck 1976). The great diversity of angiosperms in the Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation (Duan 1998; Sun et al. 1998, 2002; Leng and Friis 2003, 2006; Ji et al. 2004b; Wang 2010a, 2015, 2018; Liu et al. 2021) implies a cryptic prior history for angiosperms, and there is increasing evidence of pre-Cretaceous angiosperms (Cornet 1989a, b, 1993; Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt 2004, 2013; Wang et al. 2007; Wang 2010a, b, 2015; Wang and Wang 2010; Liu and Wang 2016; Fu et al. 2018, 2020; Li et al. 2019; Silvestro et al. 2021). Although over 100 blooming flowers of Nanjinganthus exemplify the truthful existence of angiosperms in the Jurassic (Fu et al. 2018, 2020), our current knowledge of early angiosperms is still sparse. Here we report Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov, a fossil plant including physically connected flower bud, fruit and leafy branch, from the Jiulongshan Formation (the Middle–Late Jurassic: >164 Ma) of Inner Mongolia, China. The flower bud is characterized by several tightly enwrapping tepals, while the mature fruit is of distinct morphology. Its Jurassic age makes Florigerminis jurassica the currently earliest typical flower bud. This discovery reinforces the previous reports of Jurassic angiosperms, extends the fossil-evidenced history of angiosperms to the pre-Cretaceous age and sheds new light on the evolution of early angiosperms.

Materials and methods

The fossil was collected from an outcrop of the Jiulongshan Formation near Daohugou Village (41° 18′ 39.60″ N ,119° 13′ 29.14″ E) located at the SE corner of Inner Mongolia, China, close to the boundaries with the Liaoning and Hebei provinces (Fig. 1a, b).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

The fossil locality of Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov. (a) Map of NE China. The arrow points to the junction region between Liaoning, Inner Mongolia and Hebei, which is enlarged in (b). (b) Detailed map showing Daohugou Village, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia, China (41° 18′ 39.60″ N, 119° 13′ 29.14″ E) (arrow) very close to the junction of Inner Mongolia, Hebei and Liaoning.

Various fossils uncovered in the Daohugou region have been intensively studied over decades. Abundant animal fossils, especially insects, have been reported from the Daohugou region (D.-Y. Huang et al. 2006, 2008, 2009; J. Huang et al. 2008; J. Zhang 2006; D.-Y. Huang and Nel 2007, 2008; Petrulevicius et al. 2007; Lin et al. 2008; Liu and Ren 2008; Selden et al. 2008; X.-W. Zhang et al. 2008; K. Zhang et al. 2009; Fang et al. 2009; Liang et al. 2009; Shih et al. 2009; Y. Wang and Ren 2009; B. Wang and Zhang 2009a, b; B. Wang et al. 2009a, b, c), among them are some potentially related to flowering plants (Yao et al. 2006; Wang and Zhang 2011). In the meantime, various fossil plants from this region have been reported, including Daohugouthallus ciliiferus, Selaginellites chaoyangensis, Coniopteris burejensis, Cycadolepis spp., Tyrmia taizishanensis, Yimaia capituliformis, Ginkgoites sp., Zamites gigas, Anomozamites villosus, A. angulatus, A. sinensis, A. haifanggouensis, Pterophyllum spp., Williamsonia sp., Weltrichia daohugouensis, Yanliaoa sinensis, Pityocladus sp., Problematospermum ovale, Solaranthus daohugouensis, Juraherba bodae, Yuhania daohugouensis and Jurafructus daohugouensis (Zheng et al. 2003; Li et al. 2004; Zhou et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2010a, b; Zheng and Wang 2010; Pott et al. 2012; Han et al. 2016; Liu and Wang 2017; Chen et al. 2020).

There is a general consensus regarding the Middle–Late Jurassic age of the Jiulongshan Formation (also previously called the Daohugou Formation) (Ren et al. 2002; Zhang 2002; Shen et al. 2003; Chen et al. 2004; Li et al. 2004; Liu et al. 2004; Ji et al. 2005). However, Wang et al. (2005) challenged the dating and claimed that the Daohugou Formation was of Early Cretaceous age. This conclusion by Wang et al. (2005) was later refuted and disputed by more stratigraphic and palaeobiological works (Gao and Ren 2006; D.-Y. Huang et al. 2006, 2008, 2009; J. Zhang 2006; D.-Y. Huang and Nel 2007, 2008; Petrulevicius et al. 2007; Sha 2007; Zhou et al. 2007; J. Huang et al. 2008; Lin et al. 2008; Liu and Ren 2008; Selden et al. 2008; X.-W. Zhang et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2009; Fang et al. 2009; Liang et al. 2009; Shih et al. 2009; B. Wang et al. 2009a, b, c; X. Wang et al. 2010b; B. Wang and Zhang 2009a, b; Y. Wang and Ren 2009; K. Zhang et al. 2009; J. Zhang et al. 2011; Chang et al. 2014). 40Ar/39Ar and SHRIMP U/Pb dating of the volcanic rocks overlying the fossiliferous layer performed by Chen et al. (2004) and Ji et al. (2004a) suggest that the Jiulongshan Formation is at least 164 myr old. Therefore, the authors adopt a Middle–Late Jurassic age for Florigerminis jurassica.

The specimen was preserved as a compression with some coalified residue. The specimen was observed and photographed using a Nikon SMZ1500 stereomicroscope with a digital camera. Degauging some sediment was necessary before the whole flower bud, which was formerly covered in sediments (Fig. 2a), could be observed (Fig. 2b). Later, a replica of nitric cellulose was made of the leafy branch and its lateral appendages. The replica was cleaned with HCl and HF before SEM observation was performed using a Leo 1530 VP scanning electron microscope (SEM) at the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Nanjing, China. The specimen was scanned using a GE v|tome|x M300&180 micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanner (GE Measurement & Control, Wuntsdorf, Germany), housed at the Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origin of Chinese Academy of Sciences. The dataset has a resolution of 8.912 µm, and the scan was carried out at 100 kV and 90 μA. One frame per projection was acquired by a timing of 2000 ms for a total of 2500 projections. All images were recorded in TIFF or JPEG format, and organized for publication with Photoshop 7.0.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov and its details. Stereomicroscopy. (a) Holotype of Florigerminis jurassica, showing the physically connected parts. Two (one missing to the left) fruits and a flower bud are on the branch terminal. Arrows point to the nodes on the branch. PB21737. The scale bar is 10 mm. (b) Close-up of the branch terminal showing a physical connection between two fruit pedicels (1 and 2) and a pedicel of flower bud (3). The scale bar is 2 mm. (c) Close-up of the fruit in (a). Note the mesocarp (m), endocarp (e), three persistent foliar parts visible (arrows) and connected pedicel (lower right). The scale bar is 2 mm. (d) Longitudinal fine striations on the branch surface. The scale bar is 0.25 mm. (e) The flower bud in (b). Note a foliar part at the bottom (arrow). The scale bar is 1 mm. (f) Close-up of (e) showing overlapping distinct tepals (1–4). The scale bar is 0.2 mm. (g) Close-up of (e) showing distinct overlapping tepals in the top portion of the flower bud. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. (h) Nodes (black arrows) with transversal wrinkles and helically arranged decurrent leaf scars (white arrows) on the branch. The scale bar is 1 mm. (i) Pedicels of the fruits (1 and 2) and flower bud (3). The scale bar is 1 mm. (j) Close-up of the rectangular area in (i), showing a pedicel (arrow) embedded in the sediments. The scale bar is 0.5 mm. (k) Tip of the fruit in (c), showing apical invagination (black line), mesocarp (m) and endocarp (e). The scale bar is 1 mm. (l) Three persistent foliar parts (black line) at the fruit bottom in (c). The scale bar is 1 mm.

Results

  • Florigerminis gen. nov.

Type species. Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov.

Etymology. Flori- for flower in Latin, -germinis for bud in Latin.

Generic diagnosis. Woody branch with nodes, leaf scars, physically connected fruit and flower bud. Leaves abscised, helically arranged, with decurrent petioles. Flower–fruit pairs helically clustered on the distal portion of the branch. Flower bud terminated on the branch, paired, with a straight pedicel, oval-shaped, with several tepals suggested by their sculpture. Multiple tepals smooth-margined, tightly enwrapping the centre. Fruit borne on a slender curving pedicel, oval-shaped, with four persistent decussately arranged foliar parts and an apical invagination. Endocarp elongated oval, with a pointed tip.

Locality. Daohugou Village, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia, China (41° 18′ 39.60″ N, 119° 13′ 29.14″ E).

Horizon. The Jiulongshan Formation.

  • Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov.

Etymology. jurassica for the Jurassic, the age of the fossil plant (Figs 2 & 3).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

SEM and micro-CT details of Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov. (a) Detailed view of the fruit/flower pedicels and leaf scar near the branch apex. Note the fruit pedicels (1 and 2), flower bud pedicel (3), two additional fruit pedicel scars (black arrows) and a leaf scar (white arrow). Labelled as in Figure 2b. The scale bar is 1 mm. (b) Details near a node, showing a leaf scar (white arrow), transversal wrinkles (black arrow) at the node and two possible fruit pedicel scars (outlined) subtended by scales. The scale bar is 0.2 mm. (c) Elliptical fruit pedicel scar enlarged from (a), subtended by a scale (arrows). The scale bar is 0.1 mm. (d) Branch with helically arranged decurrent leaf scars (arrows). The scale bar is 1 mm. (e) Decurrent leaf base (arrow) with abscission zone at the tip. The scale bar is 0.1 mm. (f) Subtending scale (below the line) and an axillary primordium (arrow), enlarged from the rectangle in (a). The scale bar is 0.1 mm. (g) Fragments of three overlapping tepals (1–3) with differently orientated surface textures. The scale bar is 0.1 mm. (h) Longitudinal micro-CT view of the flower bud with tepals (white arrow) surrounding gynoecium (?) (right arrow) in the centre. The fruit pedicel has obvious longitudinal fine striations (lower arrow). The scale bar is 1 mm. (i) Longitudinal micro-CT view of the flower bud with gynoecium (?) (arrow) in the centre and tips of the tepals at the top. The scale bar is 1 mm. (j) Longitudinal micro-CT view of the fruit with an apical invagination (arrow). The scale bar is 2 mm.

Species diagnosis. In addition to the generic diagnosis, branch 21 mm long and 2.6 mm wide, slightly tapering distally, internode 2.9–5.1 mm long. Leaf scars 0.4–0.6 mm wide and 0.23 mm thick. Flower bud pedicel straight, 4.6 mm long and 1 mm wide. Flower bud 3.8 mm long and 3.3 mm wide. Lower tepals 1.2 mm long and >0.8 mm wide. Upper tepals 1.8–3.8 mm long and 1.5–2.6 mm wide. Fruit approximately 11.5 mm long and 7.7 mm wide, on a longitudinally striated 22 mm-long and 0.65 mm-wide pedicel, with an apical invagination approximately 0.5 mm deep, and persistent foliar parts approximately 2.4 mm long and 1.4 mm wide. Endocarp approximately 9 mm long and 6 mm wide.

Holotype. PB21737.

Description. The holotype specimen is 42 mm long and 20 mm wide, preserved as a compression with some coalified residue and an impression (Fig. 2a). The plant tissues are embedded in yellowish volcanic tuff (Fig. 2a–c). When the coalified residue falls off, an exquisite morphological impression is left on the fine sediment matrix (Figs 2d–i & 3a–g). The preserved part of the fossil includes a leafy branch that is physically connected to a fruit and a flower bud (Fig. 2a). The branch is elongated, approximately 21 mm long and 2.6 mm wide, with longitudinal fine striations on its surface and at least five nodes, tapering distally (Figs 2a, d, h & 3b, d, e). The nodes are marked by several transversal wrinkles (Figs 2h & 3b). The lengths of the internodes increase from 2.9 mm at the proximal to 5.1 mm at the distal (Fig. 2a, h). Leaves with decurrent bases are helically arranged along the branch, more concentrated to the distal portion of each internode (Figs 2h & 3d). All of the leaves have been abscised and only have their scars left on the branch (Figs 2a, h & 3d). The leaf scars are 0.4–0.6 mm wide and 0.23 mm thick, with terminal abscission zones (Fig. 3b, d & e). Close to the terminal of the branch, fruit pedicel scars are subtended by bracts (Fig. 3a–c). The fruit pedicel with longitudinal fine striations is rounded in cross-view, branching into a pair (Figs 2a–c, i, j & 3h–i). The fruits are inserted subapically (Figs 2a, b & 3a). The flower bud (only one visible in full) is in pairs, on a straight pedicel approximately 4.6 mm long and 1 mm wide, oval in shape, approximately 3.8 mm long and 3.3 mm wide (Fig. 2a, b, e–g, i, j). Several layers of upper tepals enwrap the central part (Figs 2e–g, 3g–i, 4 & 5a). Micro-CT sections indicate that the tepals surround the bud centre (gynoecium?) (Fig. 3h, i). Upper tepals vary from 1.8 to 3.8 mm in length and from 1.5 to 2.6 mm in width (Figs 2e–g, 3g & 5a), distinguishing from each other by differently orientated sculpture (Figs 2e–g, 3g, 4 & 5a). The fruit is approximately 11.5 mm long and 7.7 mm wide, on a pedicel 22 mm long and only 0.65 mm wide, subtended by four (only three visible in the fossil) foliar parts approximately 2.4 mm long and 1.4 mm wide, with an apical invagination approximately 0.5 mm deep (Figs 2a, c, k, l & 3j). Only the mesocarp and endocarp of the fruits are visible, while the exocarp (epidermis) is too thin to see (Figs 2a, c, k & 5b). The mesocarp is approximately 0.34–1.1 mm thick, much thinner near the fruit tip (Figs 2a, c, k & 5b). The endocarp is approximately 9 mm long and 6 mm wide, with a pointed tip (Figs 2a, c & 5b).

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

SEM view of the flower bud of Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov., showing tepals with sculptures.

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Details of Florigerminis jurassica gen. et sp. nov. (a) Sketch showing the arrangement of patches of overlapping tepals. There are at least four layers of tepals (1–4), one over the other. The scale bar is 1 mm. (b) Sketch showing the organization of the fruit, showing the endocarp (black) inside the mesocarp (yellow) supported by a carpopodium (grey) subtended by foliar parts (blue). Refer to Figure 2c, g and h. The scale bar is 2 mm.

Depository. The Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Nanjing, China.

Remarks. Only one flower bud and one fruit are preserved in entirety in this fossil. However, there is one extra slender pedicel that is identical to that of the preserved fruit (Fig. 2a, b, i), and there seems to be another pedicel of a flower bud embedded in the sediments (Fig. 2i, j). Considering the morphology of the fruit pedicel, we assume that it is another fruit, which, unfortunately, is not visible in this specimen. Furthermore, several fruit pedicel scars (Fig. 3a–c) strongly imply the existence of fallen fruits in Florigerminis. Therefore, we assume that this fossil originally bore two fruits and two flower buds.

Discussions

One merit of the specimen of Florigerminis (PB21737) is that its various parts, including branch, leaf scars, flower bud and fruit, are all physically connected. This feature is the basis of our following interpretation.

Interpreting the structure

The structure of crucial importance in Florigerminis is its fruit. This structure might be alternatively interpreted as a seed due to its Mesozoic age, an age of gymnosperms. If taken as a seed, the structure in Figure 2c may be interpreted as a sclerotesta surrounding a nucellus (sarcotesta and endotesta might be too thin to see). However, this interpretation faces the following challenges: (1) a sclerotesta is supposed to be more labile to be preserved than a nucellus, and the preservation is reversed in Florigerminis: the assumed nucellus has more organic material preserved, while the assumed sclerotesta has little organic material preserved. (2) A seed usually has an even surface or a protruding terminus in known gymnosperms (Chamberlain 1957; Biswas and Johri 1997; Zhang 2013), in strong contrast to the apical invagination seen in the fruit of Florigerminis (Figs 2c, k & 3j). However, this invagination could be rationally interpreted as a consequence due to a lack of style, as frequently seen in basal angiosperms. (3) Developmental changes in Florigerminis are hard to reconcile with this seed alternative. Ovules and seeds are usually naked and without additional surrounding layers in gymnosperms, except in some Mesozoic seed plants (such as Caytonia: Harris 1933; Nixon et al. 1994; and Petriellaea: Taylor et al. 1994), of which seeds/ovules may be partially or completely surrounded by a layer of tissue (cupule wall) throughout its life cycle. However, in these gymnospermous plants, there are usually more than one seed in each cupule and there is no report of seeds persisting on pedicel but without a cupule wall. In contrast, in Florigerminis, the gynoecium (developmental precursor of the fruit) is covered by several layers of tepals before maturity (Figs 2e–g, 3g–i & 5a) (as in angiosperms), and it grows into a naked fruit (without any additional enwrapping layers) on a long pedicel (Fig. 2a, c). (4) Although some gymnosperms (Ginkgo) may have a seed subtended by a collar, a morphology more or less similar to the fruit in Florigerminis, the collar in Ginkgo is integral and so far has never been seen lobed, quite different from the foliar parts at the bottom of the fruit in Florigerminis (Fig. 2a, c, l). (5) Even if the fruit of Florigerminis was taken as a seed similar to that of Ginkgo, it is well known that the ovules or immature seeds of Ginkgo are naked, never enwrapped by any foliar structures, a situation quite different from the flower bud of Florigerminis enwrapped by tepals (Figs 2e–g, 3g–i & 5a). Given these discrepancies, we interpret the structure in Figure 2c as a fruit.

Affinity

Although fruits usually have less taxonomic value compared to flowers, here the fruit plays an important role in determining the affinity of Florigerminis. (1) The slender, long, curving fruit pedicel seen in Florigerminis (Fig. 2a, b) is never seen in any fructifications of Mesozoic gymnosperms including Cycadales, Gnetales, Coniferales, Pentaxylales, Bennettitales, Corystospermales and Peltaspermales (Bierhorst 1971; Stockey and Rothwell 2003; Zhou et al. 2007; Taylor et al. 2009), and is only seen in some Taxales, Ginkgoales, some early Cordaitales and angiosperms among seed plants. However, careful comparison finds that the two pairs of opposite persistent foliar parts at the fruit bottom of Florigerminis (Fig. 2c, l) are never seen in Cordaitales and are distinct from the collar subtending seeds in Ginkgo. Some conifers (e.g. Abies in Pinaceae) do have scales with longitudinal striations overlapping each other and surrounding the centre, just like our flower bud, but mature cones in these plants are cones quite distinct from the fruit of Florigerminis in morphology. Although the seeds of some Taxaceae (Torreya and Amentotaxus) may be subtended by one or more whorls of scales, their tips are convex rather than invaginated (Academia Sinica Silviculturae et al. 1978; Yin 2013), and thus differ from the fruit of Florigerminis. Gnetales (especially Ephedraceae) are frequently considered to be closely related to angiosperms, and thus deserves special attention. Florigerminis shares distinct nodes with Ephedraceae and Gnetaceae. However, other than this, there are few features shared between them. The most characteristic features of all gnetalean members include strict decussately arranged lateral appendages attached to the nodes and elongated micropylar tubes. These characters are completely absent in Florigerminis: the leaves are helically (not oppositely or decussately) arranged between (not on) the nodes (Figs 2h & 3e) and the fruit has a distal invagination (not protruding micropylar tube) (Figs 2k & 5b). Although seeds are reported on the terminals of long stalks in some Early Cretaceous ephedraceous fossil (figs 1 & 16 in Yang et al. 2005), more or less similar to the fruit seen in Florigerminis, differences in branching pattern, phyllotaxy and apical invagination on the fruit tip in strong contrast to micropylar tube in Ephedra (Yang et al. 2005) are obvious enough to distinguish these two taxa. In addition, the straight stem of Ephedra (Yang et al. 2005) is quite distinct from the curving fruit pedicel of Florigerminis (Fig. 2a). All these distinctions extinguish any possible relationship between Florigerminis and Gnetales. The above comparison leaves only one alternative for Florigerminis among known seed plants: angiosperms. (2) This conclusion is strengthened by the morphology of the physically connected flower bud (Figs 2e, f, 3g & 5a). Currently, no known (fossil or extant) gymnospermous bud is comparable to Florigerminis, the resemblance of which to an angiosperm flower bud is obvious: several tepals tightly enwrap and protect central parts in the bud. (3) Among angiosperms, Prunus (Rosaceae) demonstrates a great resemblance to Florigerminis, with a long fruit pedicel, paired fruits and drupaceous fruit (Sterling 1953). Although this resemblance does not necessarily imply a close phylogenetic relationship between Florigerminis and Prunus, it underscores a potential relationship between Florigerminis and angiosperms.

Interpolated blooming flower

The physical connection between fruit and flower bud is of vital importance in confirming the angiosperm identity of Florigerminis. The fruit of Florigerminis is oval in shape, with an apical invagination and surrounded by a fleshy mesocarp (Fig. 2a, c, g, h). These features are distinct from the composition and configuration of its flower bud, which is oval in shape but with a convex apex and enwrapped by layers of tepals (Figs 2a, e–g, 3g & 4). If these two parts were preserved as isolated parts, it would be hard to imagine that they were from the same plant. However, the physical connection between these parts expels all doubts. It is apparent that the fruit must have undergone a blooming flower stage before reaching its current stage (Fig. 2c). This inferred blooming flower of Florigerminis, although, unfortunately, not preserved in this fossil, provides additional support for the angiospermous affinity of Florigerminis. We expect future studies may confirm the existence of a blooming flower in Florigerminis in the Jurassic.

Development

Developmental changes can be inferred by comparing the fruit and flower bud of Florigerminis. The flower bud occupies a more distal position than the fruit in Florigerminis (Figs 2a, i & 3a), indicating that the plant matures acropetally. The apical invagination on the fruit (Fig. 2c, k) forms a drastic contrast to the convex apex of the flower bud (Fig. 2e, g), suggesting that the fruit is derived from a gynoecium that is eclipsed by the tepals in the flower bud before the fruit is developed. The pedicel of the flower bud is relatively shorter than its counterpart in the fruit (Fig. 2a, b, i), implying that the pedicel increases greatly in length during maturation. The foliar parts (Fig. 2e) at the bottom of the fruit (Fig. 2c, l) imply that the flower is hypogynous and foliar parts are persistent in Florigerminis. Most tepals, in patches and layers, in the flower bud (Figs 2e–g, 3g & 5a) are absent in the fruit (Figs 2c, k, l & 5b), implying that they have fallen off the flower after fulfilling their functions, as in extant flowers, a phenomenon never seen in any known gymnosperms. Dimension measurement suggests that the gynoecium has at least tripled its size during its development from a flower bud to a fruit (Fig. 2a–c). Such a great increase in volume after pollination is more characteristic of angiosperms than of gymnosperms (Leslie and Boyce 2012). The organic connection of a fruit and a flower bud in a single shoot indicates a long anthesis for Florigerminis if both are of the same year, as the development from a flower bud to a fruit definitely takes some time. However, it should be borne in mind that if the flower bud and the fruit were of two different years in Florigerminis, it would mean that the fruit takes more than 1 year to mature.

Habit

The presence of five nodes and the arrangement of leaves along the branch (Figs 2a, h & 3a, b, d) imply a perennial woody habit for Florigerminis. The internode length increases distally from 2.9 to 5.1 mm (Fig. 2a, h). The distalmost internode bears flowers/fruits (Fig. 2a, b), which only leave scars on the proximal portion of internodes (Fig. 3b), implying fruiting in the preceding years. The rigid configuration of the branch implies that the mother plant is woody (Figs 2a, h & 3d). The abscission of leaves (Figs 2a, h & 3b, d) implied by the leaf scars suggests that Florigerminis is deciduous and inhabits in a region with seasonality. Although the organic connection of mature fruit and flower bud is surprising, a similar situation does exist in extant angiosperms (e.g. Rosaceae, Theaceae and Tapisciaceae) (Liu et al. 2008). In short, Florigerminis is a perennial, deciduous, woody plant living in a region with seasonality.

Confirming Jurassic angiosperms

Hitherto, we have had very limited knowledge about early flowers in the pre-Cretaceous. The most convincing record of flowers is Nanjinganthus from the Early Jurassic of Jiangsu, China (Fu et al. 2018, 2020). However, Nanjinganthus is isolated from other parts, and its flower bud morphology is not clearly known. Various independent data suggest that angiosperms may have a history longer than currently accepted; the great diversity of early angiosperms (Duan 1998; Sun et al. 1998, 2002; Leng and Friis 2003, 2006; Ji et al. 2004b; Wang and Zheng 2009; Wang 2010a; Fu et al. 2018, 2020) and derived status of Archaefructus from the Early Cretaceous (Friis et al. 2003), independently claimed trace of early angiosperms (Schweitzer 1977; Cornet 1989a, b, 1993; Chaw et al. 2004; Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt 2004, 2013; Soltis et al. 2008; Prasad et al. 2011), and insects closely related to angiosperms or flowers reported from the Daohugou area (Wang and Zhang 2011; Hou et al. 2012), as well as other analyses (Li et al. 2019; Silvestro et al. 2021) all point to the pre-Cretaceous origin of angiosperms. However, quite a few palaeobotanists are still reluctant to accept this fact (Herendeen et al. 2017). We hope that the discovery of Florigerminis, with its branch, leaf scars, flower bud and physically connected fruit, may help to ease the pain of accepting pre-Cretaceous angiosperms.

According to Darwinism and outgroup comparison, well-differentiated perianth is thought to be derived and not expected for pioneer angiosperms (Doyle and Endress 2000; Doyle 2008; Friis et al. 2010), but this thinking is now challenged by the presence of well-differentiated perianth in Jurassic Euanthus (Liu and Wang 2016) and Nanjinganthus (Fu et al. 2018, 2020). Florigerminis constitutes a drastic contrast against the lack of a perianth in Cretaceous Archaefructus (Sun et al. 1998, 2002; Sun and Dilcher 2002; Ji et al. 2004b; Wang 2010a; Wang and Zheng 2012). Such an anachronism may be reconciled by the possibility that they are independently evolved, and/or that Archaefructus is a rather specialized derived taxon. Because differentiated perianth is lacking in all gymnosperms, it is unlikely for perianth as differentiated as in Euanthus (Liu and Wang 2016) and Nanjinganthus (Fu et al. 2018, 2020) to represent a plesiomorphy in angiosperms; thus, the Jurassic age of these fossils implies a cryptic prior history of angiosperms. This is in line with Jurassic fossil insects whose extant relatives are closely tied to flowers (Wang and Zhang 2011; Hou et al. 2012), as well as with recent analysis (Li et al. 2019; Silvestro et al. 2021). It is noteworthy that Florigerminis demonstrates little resemblance to both Magnolia and Amborella, which are thought by various authors to be basal-most among extant angiosperms (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group 2009). Such a discrepancy between fossils and theoretical expectation implies that the currently accepted theory of angiosperm evolution needs to be revised.

Conclusions

The organic connection of fruit and flower bud in a Middle–Late Jurassic fossil plant recovered from Inner Mongolia, China indicates that Florigerminis, a Jurassic angiosperm, marks an early record of a flower bud. The unexpected occurrence of flowers such as Florigerminis, Euanthus and Nanjinganthus, all from the Jurassic, implies that the related theories of angiosperm evolution lack the predictability required for a scientific theory.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr Hongtao Cai for his help in collecting this valuable specimen, Ms Chunzhao Wang and Mr Yan Fang for their help with the SEM, Ms Jia Wang for her help with the micro-CT observations. We thank Dr Hongshan Wang and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive and detailed suggestions that improved this paper.

Author contributions

D-FC: formal analysis (equal), investigation (supporting), writing – review & editing (equal); YH: formal analysis (supporting), investigation (equal), methodology (lead), resources (supporting), visualization (lead), writing – review & editing (supporting); PY: formal analysis (supporting), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), visualization (equal), writing – review & editing (supporting); XW: conceptualization (lead), formal analysis (lead), funding acquisition (lead), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), supervision (equal), validation (equal), visualization (equal), writing – original draft (equal).

Funding

This research was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program (B) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant number XDB26000000 to X. Wang) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 41688103, 91514302 and 41572046 to X. Wang).

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. The specimen is deposited in the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Nanjing, China, and is publicly available.

  • © 2022 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

References

  1. ↵
    Academia Sinica Silviculturae, Institutum Botanicum Academiae Sinicae, Collegium Medicinae Pekinense, Institutum Botanicum Austro-Sinicum Academiae Sinicae, Hortus Botanicus Wuhanensis Academiae Sinicae and Collegium Industriae Silvi-Operis Nankingense. 1978. Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae (Tomus 7). Gymnospermae: Cycadopsida, Ginkgopsida, Coniferopsida. Science Press, Beijing.
  2. ↵
    Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. 2009. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Botanical Journal of Linnean Society, 161, 105–121, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    Arber E.A.N. and Parkin J. 1907. On the origin of the angiosperms. Botanical Journal Linnean Society, 38, 29–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1907.tb01074.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    Beck C.B. 1976. Origin and early evolution of angiosperms: a perspective. In: Beck C.B. (ed.) Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms. Columbia University Press, New York, 1–10.
  5. ↵
    Bierhorst D.W. 1971. Morphology of Vascular Plants. Macmillan, New York.
  6. ↵
    Biswas C. and Johri B.M. 1997. The Gymnosperms. Springer, Berlin.
  7. ↵
    Chamberlain C.J. 1957. Gymnosperms, Structure and Evolution. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York.
  8. ↵
    Chang S.-C., Zhang H., Renne P.R. and Fang Y. 2009. High-precision 40Ar/39Ar age constraints on the basal Lanqi Formation and its implications for the origin of angiosperm plants. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 279, 212–221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.12.045
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    Chang S.-C., Zhang H., Hemming S.R., Mesko G.T. and Fang Y. 2014. 40Ar/39Ar age constraints on the Haifanggou and Lanqi formations: when did the first flowers bloom? Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 378, 277–284, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP378.1
  10. ↵
    Chaw S.-M., Chang C.-C., Chen H.-L. and Li W.-H. 2004. Dating the Monocot–Dicot divergence and the origin of core Eudicots using whole chloroplast genomes. Joural of Molecular Evolution, 58, 424–441, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-003-2564-9
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Chen L.-J., Hou Y.-M., Yin P.-F. and Wang X. 2020. An edible fruit from the Jurassic of China. China Geology, 3, 8–15, https://doi.org/10.31035/cg2020010
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    Chen W., Ji Q., Liu D.Y., Zhang Y., Song B. and Liu X.Y. 2004. Isotope geochronology of the fossil-bearing beds in the Daohugou area, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia. Geological Bulletin of China, 23, 1165–1169.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    Cornet B. 1989a. Late Triassic angiosperm-like pollen from the Richmond rift basin of Virginia, USA. Paläontographica B, 213, 37–87.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    Cornet B. 1989b. The reproductive morphology and biology of Sanmiguelia lewisii, and its bearing on angiosperm evolution in the late Triassic. Evolutionary Trends in Plants, 3, 25–51.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Cornet B. 1993. Dicot-like leaf and flowers from the Late Triassic tropical Newark Supergroup rift zone, U.S.A. Modern Biology, 19, 81–99.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    Crane P.R. 1985. Phylogenetic analysis of seed plants and the origin of angiosperms. Annals Missouri Botanical Garden, 72, 716–793, https://doi.org/10.2307/2399221
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    Doyle J.A. 2008. Integrating molecular phylogenetic and paleobotanical evidence on origin of the flower. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 169, 816–843, https://doi.org/10.1086/589887
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    Doyle J.A. and Endress P.K. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular data. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 161, S121–S153, https://doi.org/10.1086/317578
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Doyle J.A., Endress P.K. and Upchurch G.R. 2008. Early Cretaceous monocots: a phylogenetic evaluation. Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, 64, 59–87, https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-11654
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    Duan S. 1998. The oldest angiosperm – a tricarpous female reproductive fossil from western Liaoning Province, NE China. Science in China D, 41, 14–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02932415
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Fang Y., Zhang H. and Wang B. 2009. A new species of Aboilus (Insecta, Orthoptera, Prophalangopsidae) from the Middle Jurassic of Daohugou, Inner Mongolia, China. Zootaxa, 2249, 63–68, https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2249.1.6
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    Friis E.M., Doyle J.A., Endress P.K. and Leng Q. 2003. Archaefructus – angiosperm precursor or specialized early angiosperm? Trends in Plant Sciences, 8, S369–S373, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(03)00161-4
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    Friis E.M., Pedersen K.R. and Crane P.R. 2010. Diversity in obscurity: fossil flowers and the early history of angiosperms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 369–382, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0227
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Frohlich M.W. 2003. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of flowers. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 559–566, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1114
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    Fu Q., Diez J.B. et al. 2018. An unexpected noncarpellate epigynous flower from the Jurassic of China. eLife, 7, e38827, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38827
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    Fu Q., Diez J.B., Pole M., García-Ávila M. and Wang X. 2020. Nanjinganthus is an angiosperm, isn't it? China Geology, 3, 359–361, https://doi.org/10.31035/cg2020005
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Gao K.-Q. and Ren D. 2006. Radiometric dating of ignimbrite from Inner Mongolia provides no indication of a post-Middle Jurassic age for the Daohugou Beds. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 81, 42–45, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6724.2006.tb00793.x
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    Hagerup O. 1936. Zur Abstammung einiger Angiospermen durch Gnetales und Coniferae. II. Centrospermae. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Meddelelser, 13, 1–60.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    Han G., Liu Z.-J., Liu X., Mao L., Jacques F.M.B. and Wang X. 2016. A whole plant herbaceous angiosperm from the Middle Jurassic of China. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 90, 19–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-6724.12592
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    Harris T.M. 1933. A new member of the Caytoniales. New Phytologist, 32, 97–114, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1933.tb07001.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    Herendeen P.S., Friis E.M., Pedersen K.R. and Crane P.R. 2017. Palaeobotanical redux: revisiting the age of the angiosperms. Nature Plants, 3, 17015, https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.15
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    Hickey L.J. and Taylor D.W. 1996. Origin of angiosperm flower. In: Taylor D.W. and Hickey L.J. (eds) Flowering Plant Origin, Evolution & Phylogeny. Springer, Boston, MA, 176–231.
  33. ↵
    Hochuli P.A. and Feist-Burkhardt S. 2004. A boreal early cradle of angiosperms? Angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic of the Barents Sea (Norway). Journal of Micropalaeontology, 23, 97–104, https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.23.2.97
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    Hochuli P.A. and Feist-Burkhardt S. 2013. Angiosperm-like pollen and Afropollis from the Middle Triassic (Anisian) of the Germanic Basin (Northern Switzerland). Frontiers in Plant Science, 4, 344, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00344
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    Hou W., Yao Y., Zhang W. and Ren D. 2012. The earliest fossil flower bugs (Heteroptera: Cimicomorpha: Cimicoidea: Vetanthocoridae) from the Middle Jurassic of Inner Mongolia, China. European Journal of Entomology, 109, 281–288, https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2012.036
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    Huang D.-Y. and Nel A. 2007. A new Middle Jurassic ‘grylloblattodean’ family from China (Insecta: Juraperlidae fam. n.). European Journal of Entomology, 104, 837–840, https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2007.104
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Huang D.-Y. and Nel A. 2008. New ‘Grylloblattida’ related to the genus Prosepididontus Handlirsch, 1920 in the Middle Jurassic of China (Insecta: Geinitziidae). Alcheringa, 32, 395–403, https://doi.org/10.1080/03115510802417893
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    Huang D.-Y., Nel A., Shen Y., Selden P.A. and Lin Q. 2006. Discussions on the age of the Daohugou fauna – evidence from invertebrates. Progress in Natural Science, 16, 308–312.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    Huang D.-Y., Zompro O. and Waller A. 2008. Mantophasmatodea now in the Jurassic. Naturwissenschaften, 95, 947–952, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-008-0412-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    Huang D., Selden P.S. and Dunlop J.A. 2009. Harvestmen (Arachnida: Opiliones) from the Middle Jurassic of China. Naturwissenschaften, 96, 955–962, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-009-0556-3
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    Huang J., Ren D., Sinitshenkova N.D. and Shih C. 2008. New fossil mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) from the Middle Jurassic of Daohugou, Inner Mongolia, China. Insect Science, 15, 193–198, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2008.00200.x
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    Ji Q., Chen W. et al. 2004a. Mesozoic Jehol Biota of Western Liaoning, China. Geological Publishing House, Beijing.
  43. ↵
    Ji Q., Li H., Bowe M., Liu Y. and Taylor D.W. 2004b. Early Cretaceous Archaefructus eoflora sp. nov. with bisexual flowers from Beipiao, Western Liaoning, China. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 78, 883–896, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6724.2004.tb00210.x
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    Ji Q., Liu Y., Chen W., Ji S.A., Lu J., You H. and Yuan C. 2005. On the geological age of Daohugou biota. Geological Review, 51, 609–612, https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0371-5736.2005.06.001
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    Leng Q. and Friis E.M. 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, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-003-0028-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    Leng Q. and Friis E.M. 2006. Angiosperm leaves associated with Sinocarpus infructescences from the Yixian Formation (Mid-Early Cretaceous) of NE China. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 262, 173–187, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-006-0461-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    Leslie A.B. and Boyce C.K. 2012. Ovule function and the evolution of angiosperm reproductive innovations. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 173, 640–648, https://doi.org/10.1086/665818
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    Li H.-T., Yi T.-S. et al. 2019. Origin of angiosperms and the puzzle of the Jurassic gap. Nature Plants, 5, 461–470, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0421-0
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    Li N., Li Y., Wang L., Zheng S. and Zhang W. 2004. A new Weltrichia Braun in north China with a special bennettitalean male reproductive organ. Acta Botanica Sinica, 46, 1269–1275, https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1672-9072.2004.11.002
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    Liang J., Vrsansky P., Ren D. and Shih C. 2009. A new Jurassic carnivorous cockroach (Insecta, Blattaria, Raphidiomimidae) from the Inner Mongolia in China. Zootaxa, 1974, 17–30.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    Lin Q.-B., Huang D.-Y. and Nel A. 2008. A new genus of Chifengiinae (Orthoptera: Ensifera: Prophalangopsidae) from the Middle Jurassic (Jiulongshan Formation) of Inner Mongolia, China. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 7, 205–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2008.02.003
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    Liu W.Z., Kang H.Q., Zheng H.-C. and Feng Y.-Z. 2008. An investigation on the sexual reproductive cycle in Tapiscia sinensis. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica, 46, 175–182.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    Liu X., Ma L., Liu B., Liu Z.-J. and Wang X. 2021. A novel angiosperm including various parts from the Early Cretaceous sheds new light on flower evolution. Historical Biology, 33, 2706–2714, https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2020.1825411
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    Liu Y. and Ren D. 2008. Two new Jurassic stoneflies (Insecta: Plecoptera) from Daohugou, Inner Mongolia,China. Progress in Natural Science, 18, 1039–1042, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.03.014
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    Liu Y., Liu Y., Li P., Zhang H., Zhang L., Li Y. and Xia H. 2004. Daohugou biota-bearing lithostratigraphic succession on the southeastern margin of the Ningcheng basin, Inner Mongolia, and its geochronology. Regional Geology of China, 23, 1180–1187.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    Liu Z.-J. and Wang X. 2016. A perfect flower from the Jurassic of China. Historical Biology, 28, 707–719, https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2015.1020423
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    Liu Z.-J. and Wang X. 2017. Yuhania: a unique angiosperm from the Middle Jurassic of Inner Mongolia, China. Historical Biology, 29, 431–441, https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2016.1178740
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    Nixon K.C., Crepet W.L., Stevenson D. and Friis E.M. 1994. A reevaluation of seed plant phylogeny. Annals Missouri Botanical Garden, 81, 484–533, https://doi.org/10.2307/2399901
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    Petrulevicius J., Huang D.-Y. and Ren D. 2007. A new hangingfly (Insecta: Mecoptera: Bittacidae) from the Middle Jurassic of Inner Mongolia, China. African Invertebrates, 48, 145–152.
    OpenUrl
  60. ↵
    Pott C., McLoughlin S., Wu S. and Friis E.M. 2012. Trichomes on the leaves of Anomozamites villosus sp. nov. (Bennettitales) from the Daohugou beds (Middle Jurassic), Inner Mongolia, China. Mechanical defence against herbivorous arthropods. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology, 169, 48–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2011.10.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    Prasad V., Strömberg C.A.E. et al. 2011. Late Cretaceous origin of the rice tribe provides evidence for early diversification in Poaceae. Nature Communication, 2, 480, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1482
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    Ren D., Gao K., Guo Z., Ji S., Tan J. and Song Z. 2002. Stratigraphic division of the Jurassic in the Daohugou area, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia. Geological Bulletin of China, 21, 584–591.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. ↵
    Schweitzer H.-J. 1977. Die Räto-Jurassischen floren des Iran und Afghanistans. 4. Die Rätische zwitterblüte Irania hermphroditic nov. spec. und ihre bedeutung für die Phylogenie der angiospermen. Paläontographica B, 161, 98–145.
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    Selden P.A., Huang D.-Y. and Ren D. 2008. Palpimanoid spiders from the Jurassic of China. The Journal of Arachnology, 36, 306–321, https://doi.org/10.1636/CA07-106.1
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    Sha J. 2007. Current reseach on Cretaceous lake systems in northeast China. Cretaceous Research, 28, 143–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2007.02.001
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    Shen Y.-B., Chen P.-J. and Huang D.-Y. 2003. Age of the fossil conchostracans from Daohugou of Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Stratigraphy, 27, 311–313.
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    Shih C., Liu C. and Ren D. 2009. The earliest fossil record of pelecinid wasps (Inseta: Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea: Pelecinidae) from Inner Mongolia, China. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 102, 20–38, https://doi.org/10.1603/008.102.0103
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    Silvestro D., Bacon C.D., Ding W., Zhang Q., Donoghue P.C.J., Antonelli A. and Xing Y. 2021. Fossil data support a pre-Cretaceous origin of flowering plants. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5, 449–457, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01387-8
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    Soltis D.E., Bell C.D., Kim S. and Soltis P.S. 2008. Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1133, 3–25, https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1438.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. ↵
    Sterling C. 1953. Developmental anatomy of the fruit of Prunus domestica L. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 80, 457–477, https://doi.org/10.2307/2481960
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    Stockey R.A. and Rothwell G.W. 2003. Anatomically preserved Williamsonia (Williamsoniaceae): evidence for Bennettitalean reproduction in the Late Cretaceous of western North America. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 164, 251–262, https://doi.org/10.1086/346166
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  72. ↵
    Sun G. and Dilcher D.L. 2002. Early angiosperms from the Lower Cretaceous of Jixi, eastern Heilongjiang, China. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 121, 91–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-6667(02)00083-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  73. ↵
    Sun G., Dilcher D.L., Zheng S. and Zhou Z. 1998. In search of the first flower: a Jurassic angiosperm, Archaefructus, from Northeast China. Science, 282, 1692–1695, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5394.1692
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    Sun G., Ji Q., Dilcher D.L., Zheng S., Nixon K.C. and Wang X. 2002. Archaefructaceae, a new basal angiosperm family. Science, 296, 899–904, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069439
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    Taylor T.N., Del Fueyo G.M. and Taylor E.L. 1994. Permineralized seed fern cupules from the Triassic of Antarctica: implications for cupule and carpel evolution. American Journal of Botany, 81, 666–677, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1994.tb15501.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  76. ↵
    Taylor T.N., Taylor E.L. and Krings M. 2009. Paleobotany: The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  77. ↵
    Thomas H.H. 1936. Palaeobotany and the origin of the angiosperms. Botanical Review, 2, 397–418, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02870162
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    Wang B. and Zhang H. 2009a. A remarkable new genus of Procercopidae (Hemiptera: Cercopoidea) from the Middle Jurassic of China. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 8, 389–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2009.01.003
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    Wang B. and Zhang H. 2009b. Tettigarctidae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Cicadoidea) from the Middle Jurassic of Inner Mongolia, China. Geobios, 42, 243–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geobios.2008.09.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  80. ↵
    Wang B. and Zhang H. 2011. The oldest Tenebrionoidea (Coleoptera) from the Middle Jurassic of China. Journal of Paleontology, 85, 266–270, https://doi.org/10.1666/09-088.1
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    Wang B., Li J., Fang Y. and Zhang H. 2009a. Preliminary elemental analysis of fossil insects from the Middle Jurassic of Daohugou, Inner Mongolia and its taphonomic implications. Chinese Science Bulletin, 54, 783–787, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-008-0561-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  82. ↵
    Wang B., Ponomarenko A.G. and Zhang H. 2009b. A new coptoclavid larva (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscoidea) from the Middle Jurassic of China, and its phylogenetic implication. Paleontological Journal, 43, 652–659, https://doi.org/10.1134/S0031030109060082
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    Wang B., Zhang H. and Szwedo J. 2009c. Jurassic Palaeontinidae from China and the higher systematics of Palaeontinoidea (Insecta: Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha). Palaeontology, 52, 53–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00826.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  84. ↵
    Wang X. 2010a. The Dawn Angiosperms. Springer, Heidelberg.
  85. ↵
    Wang X. 2010b. Schmeissneria: an angiosperm from the Early Jurassic. Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 48, 326–335, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-6831.2010.00090.x
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    Wang X. 2015. The megafossil record of early angiosperms in China since 1930s. Historical Biology, 27, 398–404, https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2014.889695
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    Wang X. 2017. A biased, misleading review on early angiosperms. Natural Science, 2017, 399–405, https://doi.org/10.4236/ns.2017.912037
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    Wang X. 2018. The Dawn Angiosperms. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
  89. ↵
    Wang X. 2020. Groundless research published on the International Journal of Plant Sciences. Voice of the Publisher, 6, 167–169, https://doi.org/10.4236/vp.2020.64020
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    Wang X. 2021. Criterion is a touchstone in study of early angiosperms. Open Journal of Plant Sciences, 6, 91–93, https://doi.org/10.17352/ojps.000039
    OpenUrl
  91. ↵
    Wang X. and Wang S. 2010. Xingxueanthus: an enigmatic Jurassic seed plant and its implications for the origin of angiospermy. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 84, 47–55, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6724.2010.00169.x
    OpenUrl
  92. ↵
    Wang X. and Zheng S. 2009. The earliest normal flower from Liaoning Province, China. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 51, 800–811, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2009.00838.x
    OpenUrl
  93. ↵
    Wang X. and Zheng X.-T. 2012. Reconsiderations on two characters of early angiosperm Archaefructus. Palaeoworld, 21, 193–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palwor.2012.10.002
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    Wang X., Duan S., Geng B., Cui J. and Yang Y. 2007. Schmeissneria: a missing link to angiosperms? BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 14, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-14
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    Wang X., Krings M. and Taylor T.N. 2010a. A thalloid organism with possible lichen affinity from the Jurassic of northeastern China. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 162, 567–574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2010.07.005
    OpenUrl
  96. ↵
    Wang X., Zheng S.L. and Jin J.H. 2010b. Structure and relationships of Problematospermum, an enigmatic seed from the Jurassic of China. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 171, 447–456, https://doi.org/10.1086/651224
    OpenUrl
  97. ↵
    Wang X.-L., Zhou Z.-H. et al. 2005. On the stratigraphic relationship and age of the fossil-bearing layer at Daohugou, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia. Chinese Science Bulletin, 50, 2127–2135, https://doi.org/10.1360/972005-581
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    Wang Y. and Ren D. 2009. New fossil palaeontinids from the middle Jurassic of Daohugou, Inner Mongolia, China (Insecta, Hemiptera). Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 83, 33–38, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6724.2009.00004.x
    OpenUrl
  99. ↵
    Yang Y., Geng B.-Y., Dilcher D.L., Chen Z.-D. and Lott T.A. 2005. Morphology and affinities of an Early Cretaceous Ephedra (Ephedraceae) from China. American Journal of Botany, 92, 231–241, https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.92.2.231
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. ↵
    Yao Y., Cai W. and Ren D. 2006. Fossil flower bugs (Heteroptera: Cimicomorpha: Cimicoidea) from the Late Jurassic of Northeast China, including a new family, Vetanthocoridae. Zootaxa, 1360, 1–40, https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1360.1.1
    OpenUrl
  101. ↵
    Yin H. 2013. Identification Manual of Common Cycads, Rare and Endangered Plants in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing.
  102. ↵
    Zhang J. 2006. New winter crane flies (Insecta: Diptera: Trichoceridae) from the Jurassic Daohugou Formation (Inner Mongolia, China) and their associated biota. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 43, 9–22, https://doi.org/10.1139/e05-092
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. ↵
    Zhang J., D'Rozario A., Yao J., Wu Z. and Wang L. 2011. A new species of the extinct genus Schizolepis from the Jurassic Daohugou Flora, Inner Mongolia, China with special reference to the fossil diversity and evolutionary implications. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 85, 471–481, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6724.2011.00415.x
    OpenUrl
  104. ↵
    Zhang J.-F. 2002. Discovery of Daohugou Biota (pre-Jehol Biota) with a discussion on its geological age. Journal of Stratigraphy, 26, 173–177.
    OpenUrl
  105. ↵
    Zhang K., Li J., Yang D. and Ren D. 2009. A new species of Archirhagio Rohdendorf, 1938 from the Middle Jurassic of Inner Mongolia of China (Diptera: Archisargidae). Zootaxa, 1984, 61–65, https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1984.1.4
    OpenUrl
  106. ↵
    Zhang X. 2013. The evolutionary origin of the integument in seed plants, Anatomical and functional constraints as stepping stones towards a new understanding. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
  107. ↵
    Zhang X.-W., Ren D., Pang H. and Shih C. 2008. A water-skiing chresmodid from the Middle Jurassic in Daohugou, Inner Mongolia, China (Polyneoptera: Orthopterida). Zootaxa, 1762, 53–62, https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1762.1.3
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    Zheng S. and Wang X. 2010. An undercover angiosperm from the Jurassic of China. Acta Geologica Sinica, 84, 895–902, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6724.2010.00252.x
    OpenUrl
  109. ↵
    Zheng S.-L., Zhang L.-J. and Gong E.-P. 2003. A discovery of Anomozamites with reproductive organs. Acta Botanica Sinica, 45, 667–672.
    OpenUrl
  110. ↵
    Zhou Z., Zheng S. and Zhang L. 2007. Morphology and age of Yimaia (Ginkgoales) from Daohugou Village, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia, China. Cretaceous Research, 28, 348–362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2006.05.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
Back to top

Current volume

Geological Society, London, Special Publications: 518 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation tools

A Jurassic flower bud from China

Da-Fang Cui, Yemao Hou, Pengfei Yin and Xin Wang
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 521, 6 January 2022, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP521-2021-122
Da-Fang Cui
1College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Roles: [Formal analysis (Equal)], [Investigation (Supporting)], [Writing – review & editing (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Da-Fang Cui
Yemao Hou
2Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, CAS Centre for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China
Roles: [Formal analysis (Supporting)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Lead)], [Resources (Supporting)], [Visualization (Lead)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Yemao Hou
Pengfei Yin
2Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, CAS Centre for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China
Roles: [Formal analysis (Supporting)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Visualization (Equal)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Pengfei Yin
Xin Wang
3State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and CAS Centre for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
Roles: [Conceptualization (Lead)], [Formal analysis (Lead)], [Funding acquisition (Lead)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Supervision (Equal)], [Validation (Equal)], [Visualization (Equal)], [Writing – original draft (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xin Wang
  • For correspondence: [email protected]

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions
View PDF
Share

A Jurassic flower bud from China

Da-Fang Cui, Yemao Hou, Pengfei Yin and Xin Wang
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 521, 6 January 2022, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP521-2021-122
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email to

Thank you for sharing this Geological Society, London, Special Publications article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Jurassic flower bud from China
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Geological Society, London, Special Publications
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Geological Society, London, Special Publications.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Download PPT
Bookmark this article
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and methods
    • Results
    • Discussions
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgements
    • Author contributions
    • Funding
    • Data availability
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Similar Articles

Cited By...

  • Most read
  • Most cited
Loading
  • The history of the European oil and gas industry (1600s–2000s)
  • Himalayan earthquakes: a review of historical seismicity and early 21st century slip potential
  • Introduction to Himalayan tectonics: a modern synthesis
  • Seismic characterization of carbonate platforms and reservoirs: an introduction and review
  • An introduction to forensic soil science and forensic geology: a synthesis
More...

Special Publications

  • About the series
  • Books Editorial Committee
  • Submit a book proposal
  • Author information
  • Supplementary Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Pay per view
  • Copyright & Permissions
  • Activate Online Subscription
  • Feedback
  • Help

Lyell Collection

  • About the Lyell Collection
  • Lyell Collection homepage
  • Collections
  • Open Access Collection
  • Open Access Policy
  • Lyell Collection access help
  • Recommend to your Library
  • Lyell Collection Sponsors
  • MARC records
  • Digital preservation
  • Developing countries
  • Geofacets
  • Manage your account
  • Cookies

The Geological Society

  • About the Society
  • Join the Society
  • Benefits for Members
  • Online Bookshop
  • Publishing policies
  • Awards, Grants & Bursaries
  • Education & Careers
  • Events
  • Geoscientist Online
  • Library & Information Services
  • Policy & Media
  • Society blog
  • Contact the Society

Published by The Geological Society of London, registered charity number 210161

Print ISSN 
0305-8719
Online ISSN 
2041-4927

Copyright © 2022 Geological Society of London