[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Wollemi, Attenborough, and Branagh

To: Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Wollemi, Attenborough, and Branagh
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:43:55 -0700
In-reply-to: <20050511.120038.-973853.0.bigelowp@juno.com>
References: <20050511.120038.-973853.0.bigelowp@juno.com>
Reply-to: "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

On 5/11/05, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > From what I can glean, the *first* fossil record of the _Wollemia
> > nobilis_ stem-lineage is dated at 90Ma, and the split from other
> > extant _Araucariaceae_ would have been about 200Ma.
> 
> Does anyone know of the *youngest* fossil occurrence of the group?

Of the _Wollemia nobilis_ branch? Apparently 2Ma.
 
--Mike Keesey

References:
- Re: Wollemi, Attenborough, and Branagh
  - From: Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>

Prev by Date: ...and now I are one - of 82
Next by Date: Re: ...and now I are one - of 82
Previous by thread: Re: Wollemi, Attenborough, and Branagh
Next by thread: Re: Wollemi, Attenborough, and Branagh
Indexes: