ehh, modern biology doesn’t construct evolutionary history from fossil records, but from genetic similarities.
Comment on Insomnia
RandomStickman@fedia.io 1 day agoI think it means we don't know what the ancestors of those plants are/what they evolved from. They just kinda showed up in the fossil record.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
RandomStickman@fedia.io 1 day ago
It's impossible to compare genetics from fossils and we can't
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
yeah that’s not what i meant. phylogenetic trees are constructed by considering the genetics of recent (living) species, not from fossils.
RandomStickman@fedia.io 1 day ago
And this post is about ancestors of ferns which are unknown so I'm not sure what are you suggesting
F_State@midwest.social 1 day ago
Relatively few lifeforms end up fossilizing and then some of those fossils later get eroded. The percentage that make it to the present is low.
dudinax@programming.dev 1 day ago
I’m no paleontologist but it seems like our total knowledge of certain eras comes from a few river banks collapsing on whatever lived there. That’s not going to be a great representation of all life at that time.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Which, tbf, it’s a miracle enough of the fossil record exists as is. I’m sure there was a LOT that was lost to the sands of time
HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Iirc it’s reckoned most species likely aren’t known about because most places weren’t conducive to fossilisation