Had some fella on youtube write and say that he grafted a blue spruce to a hemlock. There's ancestry... ;-)

Dax

It won't work, the shared ancestry is about 250-300 million years ago!

Resin

Shared ancestry, hmm the same way we share ancestry with chimps!

"Shared ancestry, hmm the same way we share ancestry with chimps!"

Hmmm..... I've heard of organ transplants from pigs.

Resin -- is there a family tree diagram somewhere that shows the relationship of cycads to other conifers ? (Thnx)

"Shared ancestry, hmm the same way we share ancestry with chimps!"

Actually, more like we share ancestry with lizards - that's on more the same sort of time scale!

"is there a family tree diagram somewhere that shows the relationship of cycads to other conifers?"

This do?
{{gwi:653367}}

Resin

This will do fine -- thanks !

....I notice its from a Wikipedia site -- is this the best on-line place to read about this sort of thing ? (I mean *including* grafting compatability and any unexpected discoveries in this respect?)

Well they say that Ginkgos are related to cycads don't
they no fronds through.

Ginkgos, Cycads, and primitive Conifer ancestors are all thought to come from a common ancestor(s) more or less, 300+ million years ago. Like saying a fish is related to an amphibian and to a reptile. Angiosperms started their branch even before that.

Interesting how Ephedra type plants could be closer relatives of Conifers, at least in some theories, while in others they are just another seperate branch of Gymnosperms. Any of those Ephedra used as ornamental plants in temperate gardens? Or were they and now banned?

Noki, what conifer species would you class as primitive species?

Pineresin probably knows much more, but I assume that "missing links" between Cycads and early Conifers have long been extinct.

Greenlarry

All conifers are primitive but probibly wollemia
nobilis is the most primitive conifer look at its
branches unlike other conifers.

"....I notice its from a Wikipedia site -- is this the best on-line place to read about this sort of thing ?"

If it is referenced, then it is (or can be, depending on the reference!) OK. Unreferenced stuff, treat with a big dose of salt.

"(I mean *including* grafting compatability and any unexpected discoveries in this respect?)"

Doubt you'll find much if anything on that on wikipedia! It seems to be one of those aspects which are of little interest to wiki contributors (and is also still not well researched, either).

"Any of those Ephedra used as ornamental plants in temperate gardens? Or were they and now banned?"

None are banned as far as I'm aware. Ephedrine products may be banned as herbal remedies in some areas, but that doesn't prohibit you from growing the plants. Your climate may well stop you from growing them though, they are all desert / semi-desert plants, and hard to cultivate in most widely inhabited areas. Not sure where you are, but places like southern California, Nevada, Arizona, they'd not be difficult to grow. But they're also not exactly the most decorative of plants, so there's very little interest in growing them as garden plants.

"what conifer species would you class as primitive species?"

No existing conifer species (or anything else) can really be called "primitive" - everything has been evolving for the same length of time, but just in different ways. Ginkgo is often called "primitive", but think about it, in some respects, such as pollution tolerance, it is very "advanced".

The only case that one could argue is that longer-lived species do have slower generation times, and thus slower rates of evolution; this would make Pinus longaeva (generation time ñ several hundred years between evolution opportunities) the most primitive. Of course, by the same reasoning, bacteria (generation time sometimes just 20 minutes) are far more advanced than humans (generation time ~20-30 years, and just about the least-advanced mammal!).

"probibly wollemia
nobilis is the most primitive conifer look at its
branches unlike other conifers"

In terms of the conifer most distantly related to any other conifer, Sciadopitys verticillata wins. It is the only species in its family; every other conifer family has numerous species - Wollemia nobilis is just one of 40-odd species in the Araucariaceae.

Resin

On the Tree of Life web site (link below) there is a nice interactive Java applet.

Here's a few screen shots from it :

{{gwi:653370}}

{{gwi:653373}}

{{gwi:653375}}

{{gwi:653377}}

{{gwi:653378}}

{{gwi:653379}}

Here is a link that might be useful: Hyperbolic tree of plants

Ah, the 'Deep Green' website, seen it before, it's a nice one! Some of their phylogeny (notably placing Gnetopsida basal to the angiosperm - gymnosperm split) is a bit out-of-date now, they don't appear to have updated it with recent research results.

Resin

Direct link to the full-screen version:

Resin

Here is a link that might be useful: Hyperbolic tree of plants

Thanks Resin,
Its unfortunate that the Tree hasn't been kept up to date.
Has the project died ?
I also notice that Sciadopityaceae are missing entirely.
And one would expect "Deep Green" to at least show the split between pinus, abies and picea, if not the individual species....
Is this the best there is ??

Yeah, it hasn't updated at all since I first saw it 3 or 4 years ago. The explanation page (link below) says it was made in 2000 (and some of the data from 1994), and I'd not be surprised if it hasn't been added to at all since then. And yes, it is very incomplete. Whether it's the best there is, depends on what you're wanting - it is the only 'moveable' one I know of where you can drag it around to go to a particular point in the phylogeny.

Resin

Here is a link that might be useful: explanation page

Wow, I just absorbed enough information to skip dinner!

Thx,

Dax