The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Early Flowers and Angiosperm Evolution
Abstract
The recent discovery of diverse fossil flowers and floral organs in Cretaceous strata has revealed astonishing details about the structural and systematic diversity of early angiosperms. Exploring the rich fossil record that has accumulated over the last three decades, this is a unique study of the evolutionary history of flowering plants from their earliest phases in obscurity to their dominance in modern vegetation. The discussion provides comprehensive biological and geological background information, before moving on to summarise the fossil record in detail. Including previously unpublished results based on research into Early and Late Cretaceous fossil floras from Europe and North America, the authors draw on direct palaeontological evidence of the pattern of angiosperm evolution through time. Synthesising palaeobotanical data with information from living plants, this unique book explores the latest research in the field, highlighting connections with phylogenetic systematics, structure and the biology of extant angiosperms.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The diversification of angiosperms since the Cretaceous [48–50] coincides with the extraordinarily rapid diversification within clades of holometabolous insects (primarily bees, flies and butterflies) [51].”
From Novelty and Innovation in the History of Life (2015) · cites this paper as [50]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Molecular and fossil evidence on the origin of angiosperms
Doyle, J. A. (2012) · Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105313 · Cited by 239
Novelty and Innovation in the History of Life
Erwin, D. H. (2015) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.019 · Cited by 211
Metadata
- Authors
- Friis, E. M., Crane, P. R., & Pedersen, K. R.
- Affiliations
- Swedish Museum of Natural History (SE)
- Yale University (US)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2011-08-18
- OpenAlex
- W1565681752
- Cited by
- 619
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 37
- FWCI
- 34.92
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- DORA PSI (Paul Scherrer Institute) (submittedVersion)
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Ecology and Taxonomy Studies
- Keywords
- angiosperm evolution, fossil flowers, floral organs, Lower Cretaceous, Late Cretaceous, early angiosperms, flower morphology, angiosperm phylogeny, paleobotany, angiosperm systematics
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