Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 498

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Interrelationships of Land Plants and the Nature of the Ancestral Embryophyte

Open access
Puttick, Mark N., Morris, Jennifer L., Williams, Tom A., Cox, Cymon J., Edwards, Dianne, Kenrick, Paul, Pressel, Silvia, Wellman, Charles H., Schneider, Harald, Pisani, Davide, Donoghue, Philip C.J.·2018·Current Biology

Abstract

The evolutionary emergence of land plant body plans transformed the planet. However, our understanding of this formative episode is mired in the uncertainty associated with the phylogenetic relationships among bryophytes (hornworts, liverworts, and mosses) and tracheophytes (vascular plants). Here we attempt to clarify this problem by analyzing a large transcriptomic dataset with models that allow for compositional heterogeneity between sites. Zygnematophyceae is resolved as sister to land plants, but we obtain several distinct relationships between bryophytes and tracheophytes. Concatenated sequence analyses that can explicitly accommodate site-specific compositional heterogeneity give more support for a mosses-liverworts clade, "Setaphyta," as the sister to all other land plants, and weak support for hornworts as the sister to all other land plants. Bryophyte monophyly is supported by gene concatenation analyses using models explicitly accommodating lineage-specific compositional heterogeneity and analyses of gene trees. Both maximum-likelihood analyses that compare the fit of each gene tree to proposed species trees and Bayesian supertree estimation based on gene trees support bryophyte monophyly. Of the 15 distinct rooted relationships for embryophytes, we reject all but three hypotheses, which differ only in the position of hornworts. Our results imply that the ancestral embryophyte was more complex than has been envisaged based on topologies recognizing liverworts as the sister lineage to all other embryophytes. This requires many phenotypic character losses and transformations in the liverwort lineage, diminishes inconsistency between phylogeny and the fossil record, and prompts re-evaluation of the phylogenetic affinity of early land plant fossils, the majority of which are considered stem tracheophytes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.063

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 498

Metadata

Authors
Puttick, M. N., Morris, J. L., Williams, T. A., Cox, C. J., Edwards, D., Kenrick, P., Pressel, S., Wellman, C. H., Schneider, H., Pisani, D., & Donoghue, P. C. J.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
733-745.e2
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2787651215
Cited by
498
References
12
FWCI
49.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Interrelationships of Land Plants and the Nature of the Ancestral Embryophyte. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.063
The paper
Puttick, M. N., Morris, J. L., Williams, T. A., Cox, C. J., Edwards, D., Kenrick, P., Pressel, S., Wellman, C. H., Schneider, H., Pisani, D., & Donoghue, P. C. J. (2018). The Interrelationships of Land Plants and the Nature of the Ancestral Embryophyte. Current Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.063

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.