I visited the Field Museum in Chicago yesterday. They had some fossils of an extinct palm, Sabalites powelli. These were uncovered in Fossil Lake, Wyoming and are dated from the Eocene, 33-54 million years ago. Still, the best fossil there is Sue, the largest Tyrannosaurus rex ever uncovered.

I wonder how cold hardy it was

Cool! Wish I had one

-Krishna

I wonder how cold hardy it was

From my understanding, T-Rex's were not cold-hardy at all...

Maybe there are some viable and fossilized seeds anywhere...so that we can try its cold hardiness

That fossil looks superb, complete with those fish. Though it doesn't seem to have evolved much in 35 my ?

I wonder how cold hardy it was

Well it did survive that famous big freeze in January of 40,452,219 BC

Maybe there are some viable and fossilized seeds anywhere...so that we can try its cold hardiness

Viable 35 million year old pollen dusted on Sabal palmetto "Lisa" female flowers.

Possible?

I know it's not popular to say what I'm about to say, but this whole "millions of years" thing is still a theory, even though it has become very popular these days, especially on the cable networks. The truth is there is still a good number of decently minded and educated people that believe in the Biblical account of a world wide flood, merely thousands of years ago. There are also palm fossils found in northern parts of Russia. This will make more sense to me, that a pre-flood world was either subtropical/tropical in nature or the continents were separated in one quicker catastrophic event. No, I'm not on drugs, many of us still believe this...http://www.icr.org/ ...sorry it may offend some people, but it's still many people's opinion.

Edited September 10, 201015 yr by SoTropiCal Ben

Oh Ben! You're headed for disaster. This thread will now fall to pieces until its removed. The easiest path forward would have been to simply ignore the implied positions of other posters. It's just too tempting for people to express their differing opinions. One negative assumption occurs, and then tempers flare, until there's a "castastrophic event". I hold a different viewpoint from you, but I'm more than happy sharing space with you in our Palmy web-world. Happy growing amigo.

Life ain't easy for a T-Rex named Sue . . . .

Oh Ben! You're headed for disaster. This thread will now fall to pieces until its removed. The easiest path forward would have been to simply ignore the implied positions of other posters. It's just too tempting for people to express their differing opinions. One negative assumption occurs, and then tempers flare, until there's a "castastrophic event". I hold a different viewpoint from you, but I'm more than happy sharing space with you in our Palmy web-world. Happy growing amigo.

Yup, I didn't think it would take long before someone commented on what I had to say, because, after all, I'm going against the current of the times. Right? First of all, it appears to me, that you're the one that's getting personal by saying I'm headed for 'disaster', when I thought all along this forum was created for all to give their opinions... no matter how different it may be. No Amigo? The truth is, you could have, as you say, ignored what I had to say, and continued with the topic above me, if you simply did not believe my point of view... or, (more likely) I hit a nerve and you couldn't control your temper flare.

Again, I'm just expressing the fact, as few of us that there are (including the late Johnny Cash), that not everybody believes in the 'million of years old' theory of this created earth. Sure, I'm happy that you're happy to continue to share this forum, so let's continue to agree to disagree, and not isolate a certain person, as 'wierd' as it may seem to you, that he's the odd-ball headed for 'disaster'. Also, be open-minded to the fact that, yup, even today, it is possible to be wrong. Also, currents can be deceiving in a rip-current of a post-modern, post-Christian, American culture.

Edited September 10, 201015 yr by SoTropiCal Ben

I know I'm going to regret stating this here, but I think based on the current body of scientific knowledge, the idea that the earth is merely thousands of years old just does not make sense. That said, the pictured fossil is amazing! It does look very much like the leaves of some fan palm species alive today.

-Michael

Oh Ben! You're headed for disaster. This thread will now fall to pieces until its removed. The easiest path forward would have been to simply ignore the implied positions of other posters. It's just too tempting for people to express their differing opinions. One negative assumption occurs, and then tempers flare, until there's a "castastrophic event". I hold a different viewpoint from you, but I'm more than happy sharing space with you in our Palmy web-world. Happy growing amigo.

Yup, I didn't think it would take long before someone commented on what I had to say, because, after all, I'm going against the current of the times. Right? First of all, it appears to me, that you're the one that's getting personal by saying I'm headed for 'disaster', when I thought all along this forum was created for all to give their opinions... no matter how different it may be. No Amigo? The truth is, you could have, as you say, ignored what I had to say, and continued with the topic above me, if you simply did not believe my point of view... or, (more likely) I hit a nerve and you couldn't control your temper flare.

Again, I'm just expressing the fact, as few of us that there are (including the late Johnny Cash), that not everybody believes in the 'million of years old' theory of this created earth. Sure, I'm happy that you're happy to continue to share this forum, so let's continue to agree to disagree, and not isolate a certain person, as 'wierd' as it may seem to you, that he's the odd-ball headed for 'disaster'. Also, be open-minded to the fact that, yup, even today, it is possible to be wrong. Also, currents can be deceiving in a rip-current of a post-modern, post-Christian, American culture.

This forum was created to share opinions on palm trees, not on politics or religion. This is the reason that global warming threads get deleted on the Weather/climate subforum. There's a big reason behind it having to do with the IPS. But when you state "controversial topics" that don't have to do with growing palms (versus controversial topics that do have to do with growing palms, like if it's better to use fertilizer or compost when growing palms) people are likely to argue about it and get angry, and the whole thread (no matter how interesting) will be deleted. If you would like to discuss things like this, please use the "Let's talk story" subforum here

http://www.palmpedia.net/forum/index.php

You need a password to access it, which can be gotten by Pm'ing the moderator there, which is member Dypsis Dean

I know I'm going to regret stating this here, but I think based on the current body of scientific knowledge, the idea that the earth is merely thousands of years old just does not make sense. That said, the pictured fossil is amazing! It does look very much like the leaves of some fan palm species alive today.

-Michael

I respect your opinion Michael, and I can see your reasoning. Let's not forget though, that just 150 years ago half of Americans believed Slavery was not only ok, but worth dieing over. A large number of people or networks doesn't make them right. A lot of them are speculating with colored graphics and many don't even agree with each other.

Anyhow, getting back to palms, I agree, looks like it hasn't been that long since it was fossilized. Which leads me to reiterate my assertion, fossils don't take too long to form. Door keys as well as other modern components have been found fossilized. Fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them...

I do believe that a pre-flood world explains most of today's scientific questions and it's all over the fossil record. I also believe we were created to live in a more tropical environment, so I believe the world was tropical to sub-tropical before the catastrophic event of the continental divisions and flood.

Edited September 10, 201015 yr by SoTropiCal Ben

Oh Ben! You're headed for disaster. This thread will now fall to pieces until its removed. The easiest path forward would have been to simply ignore the implied positions of other posters. It's just too tempting for people to express their differing opinions. One negative assumption occurs, and then tempers flare, until there's a "castastrophic event". I hold a different viewpoint from you, but I'm more than happy sharing space with you in our Palmy web-world. Happy growing amigo.

Yup, I didn't think it would take long before someone commented on what I had to say, because, after all, I'm going against the current of the times. Right? First of all, it appears to me, that you're the one that's getting personal by saying I'm headed for 'disaster', when I thought all along this forum was created for all to give their opinions... no matter how different it may be. No Amigo? The truth is, you could have, as you say, ignored what I had to say, and continued with the topic above me, if you simply did not believe my point of view... or, (more likely) I hit a nerve and you couldn't control your temper flare.

Again, I'm just expressing the fact, as few of us that there are (including the late Johnny Cash), that not everybody believes in the 'million of years old' theory of this created earth. Sure, I'm happy that you're happy to continue to share this forum, so let's continue to agree to disagree, and not isolate a certain person, as 'wierd' as it may seem to you, that he's the odd-ball headed for 'disaster'. Also, be open-minded to the fact that, yup, even today, it is possible to be wrong. Also, currents can be deceiving in a rip-current of a post-modern, post-Christian, American culture.

This forum was created to share opinions on palm trees, not on politics or religion. This is the reason that global warming threads get deleted on the Weather/climate subforum. There's a big reason behind it having to do with the IPS. But when you state "controversial topics" that don't have to do with growing palms (versus controversial topics that do have to do with growing palms, like if it's better to use fertilizer or compost when growing palms) people are likely to argue about it and get angry, and the whole thread (no matter how interesting) will be deleted. If you would like to discuss things like this, please use the "Let's talk story" subforum here

http://www.palmpedia.net/forum/index.php

You need a password to access it, which can be gotten by Pm'ing the moderator there, which is member Dypsis Dean

I appreciate the comment Zeeth, and I'm aware of the palmpedia, subforum. I'm not angry in case you think I am and I'm not trying to convert anybody to a religion. Just stating the obvious 'other side' of the 'earth coin'.

Cheers

Oh Ben! You're headed for disaster. This thread will now fall to pieces until its removed. The easiest path forward would have been to simply ignore the implied positions of other posters. It's just too tempting for people to express their differing opinions. One negative assumption occurs, and then tempers flare, until there's a "castastrophic event". I hold a different viewpoint from you, but I'm more than happy sharing space with you in our Palmy web-world. Happy growing amigo.

Yup, I didn't think it would take long before someone commented on what I had to say, because, after all, I'm going against the current of the times. Right? First of all, it appears to me, that you're the one that's getting personal by saying I'm headed for 'disaster', when I thought all along this forum was created for all to give their opinions... no matter how different it may be. No Amigo? The truth is, you could have, as you say, ignored what I had to say, and continued with the topic above me, if you simply did not believe my point of view... or, (more likely) I hit a nerve and you couldn't control your temper flare.

Again, I'm just expressing the fact, as few of us that there are (including the late Johnny Cash), that not everybody believes in the 'million of years old' theory of this created earth. Sure, I'm happy that you're happy to continue to share this forum, so let's continue to agree to disagree, and not isolate a certain person, as 'wierd' as it may seem to you, that he's the odd-ball headed for 'disaster'. Also, be open-minded to the fact that, yup, even today, it is possible to be wrong. Also, currents can be deceiving in a rip-current of a post-modern, post-Christian, American culture.

You're advising someone else to be open-minded are you?

Did you actually read your own reply as you typed it?

I think you need to take your own advice mate.

Oh Ben! You're headed for disaster. This thread will now fall to pieces until its removed. The easiest path forward would have been to simply ignore the implied positions of other posters. It's just too tempting for people to express their differing opinions. One negative assumption occurs, and then tempers flare, until there's a "castastrophic event". I hold a different viewpoint from you, but I'm more than happy sharing space with you in our Palmy web-world. Happy growing amigo.

Yup, I didn't think it would take long before someone commented on what I had to say, because, after all, I'm going against the current of the times. Right? First of all, it appears to me, that you're the one that's getting personal by saying I'm headed for 'disaster', when I thought all along this forum was created for all to give their opinions... no matter how different it may be. No Amigo? The truth is, you could have, as you say, ignored what I had to say, and continued with the topic above me, if you simply did not believe my point of view... or, (more likely) I hit a nerve and you couldn't control your temper flare.

Again, I'm just expressing the fact, as few of us that there are (including the late Johnny Cash), that not everybody believes in the 'million of years old' theory of this created earth. Sure, I'm happy that you're happy to continue to share this forum, so let's continue to agree to disagree, and not isolate a certain person, as 'wierd' as it may seem to you, that he's the odd-ball headed for 'disaster'. Also, be open-minded to the fact that, yup, even today, it is possible to be wrong. Also, currents can be deceiving in a rip-current of a post-modern, post-Christian, American culture.

You're advising someone else to be open-minded are you?

Did you actually read your own reply as you typed it?

I think you need to take your own advice mate.

Hi Jonathan, Oh yeah! You betcha, I watch all those popular network programs with an open mind, but they still haven't been able to convince me... mate

Are you open? (Write me via my profile)

No, I'm closed for business thanks.

This is not the place for theological rhetoric.

Goodbye.

No, I'm closed for business thanks.

This is not the place for theological rhetoric.

Goodbye.

Oh Dear God ... talk about a thread veering off course?

All jokes and rants aside, that leaf looks like it might have come from a modern Sabal.

Living fossils are always cool.

Does anyone know what justifies it being placed in a separate Genus? Like many have said, it looks very similar to the Sabal of today.

-Krishna

Does anyone know what justifies it being placed in a separate Genus? Like many have said, it looks very similar to the Sabal of today.

-Krishna

With naming modern species and genus names, they have a set methodology, but when doing so for fossils, the way they do things is a little different. Keep in mind though, looks has very little to do with the naming.

I would like to get a map out of what the continents looked like at the time of this palm living. I wonder where it would have fallen latitude wise

Oh Dear God ... talk about a thread veering off course?

You're right Moose, and I apologise for my part in it.

I took the bait and dived with it......

What I originally intended to post was that according to Dowes 'Palms of Australia' my home state of Tasmania has a palm fossil record stretching back 60 million years to the Palaeocene. Interestingly there was a now extinct species of Nypa - N. australis, and another genus related to Nypa - Spinizonocolpities. Funny that a now palm-free island at 42 degrees south should have once had such an iconic tropical genus growing along the shores, must have been a tad warmer back then, or we've drifted a bit, or both!

Cheers,

Jonathan

Does anyone know what justifies it being placed in a separate Genus? Like many have said, it looks very similar to the Sabal of today.

-Krishna

With naming modern species and genus names, they have a set methodology, but when doing so for fossils, the way they do things is a little different. Keep in mind though, looks has very little to do with the naming.

I would like to get a map out of what the continents looked like at the time of this palm living. I wonder where it would have fallen latitude wise

Can you explain the difference? I was a biology major but focused on pre-med kind of stuff so I dont have a ton of plant knowledge

-Krishna

Oh Dear God ... talk about a thread veering off course?

You're right Moose, and I apologise for my part in it.

I took the bait and dived with it......

What I originally intended to post was that according to Dowes 'Palms of Australia' my home state of Tasmania has a palm fossil record stretching back 60 million years to the Palaeocene. Interestingly there was a now extinct species of Nypa - N. australis, and another genus related to Nypa - Spinizonocolpities. Funny that a now palm-free island at 42 degrees south should have once had such an iconic tropical genus growing along the shores, must have been a tad warmer back then, or we've drifted a bit, or both!

Cheers,

Jonathan

Well, when the Pacific and Atlantic met, there was an ocean current that warmed everything up pretty well. From what my professor told me last week, there were no ice caps, so I would probably say that the overall temperature was warmer.

And Krishna, I'm actually in the same boat as you (bio major working toward pre-med), but I would say that the naming would be about the same. Take a look at Australopithecus, Paranthropus, etc, which would probably be placed within Pan if alive today (as some argue humans belong, or visa versa, i.e. Homo troglodytes or Pan Sapiens, also how the human/chimp closest relative, the species name is already decided, Pan prior, which makes you wonder why Australopithecus wasn't named Homo if the earliest Chimp ancestor would still be named Pan) and you'll get the idea what I'm talking about.

I'd say 30 +- million years is definitely enough time for it to be a separate genus, especially considering we don't have any pollen or flowers to compare current Sabals to.

We will stick to science here on PalmTalk, whether it's appreciated or not. That's after all how palms are described and given genus and species names. Opinions based on religion will not be tolerated, and any further religious propaganda WILL get deleted.

Ben, you have knowingly injected controversy into this topic. That's not cool! You've chose that topic over talking palms. Your opinion is respected but it could have been expressed in a much less aggressive-defensive manner.

It just so happens that it's the people who believe in the things being millions of years old, that are out there looking for paleobotanical evidence. So I think it's the right thing to do to allow them the courtesy of putting captions around their discoveries.

To avoid any further controversy let's just say the palm is dated back to Eocene (whenever you want to place it). The climate during Eocene is thought to have been significantly warmer and temperatures did not drop below about 10F even in polar regions. Also the composition of the atmosphere was somewhat different enough to assume that many of the plants and animals would not be genetically build to survive in today's world.

The Eocene of Wyoming is pretty well understood. John McPhee's book "Rising From the Plains" is a colorful intro to the whole lively geologic history of the place.

If memory serves, the Tetons and Yellowstone weren't there, the Absaroka mountains were forming as huge volcanic eruptions created a vast pile of rock and less substantial stuff. It was warm. Loads of fossils.

Interpreting fossil leaves is difficult. Leo Hickey has worked mostly on much older leaves, but he did a great deal to figure out how to describe and interpret fossils. I'm pretty certain that Sabalities and similar fossils are indeed palm leaves.

Geology by Light Plane is a neat glimpse of the Wyoming I was familiar with. There's even an aerial photo of the state's famous harvester ant mounds. A bentonite mine is shown. Bentonite is very odd clay, formed when volcanic ash fell into salt water. It's used worldwide for drilling mud.

The new edition of Genera Palmarum lists Sabalites from Upper Cretaceous, when dinosaurs were still around. The palm family is one of the earliest modern plant families to be recognizable in the fossil record, probably because wood and leaves are pretty distinctive, not to mention sturdy. In terms of plant evolution, the monocots (including palms) are a very distinct group, not at all "primitive".

Having done lots of paleontology in my career, although normally marine invertebrates, there are several reasons why this is probably not listed as a Sabal. Mainly, it is very old, and probably doesn't have a good fossil record linking it to the Recent species. Yes, it LOOKS like a Sabal...but usable diagnostic characteristics are few (leaf shape, size, petiole to some extent). A population of living organisms, and many completely preserved fossil individuals, have so many more characteristics to throw into the mix to more closesly determine progeny, such as pollen, infructescenses (sp.), leaf scars, root system, etc. And of course now DNA and protein analyses.

It is normally considered to be prudent not to use the present genus name in identifying the fossil's position within a clade...much better to say "Sabal-like" or "Chambeyronia-esque" or "Ceroxylon-ini" for dwarf (150 ft) Ceroxylons. These types of names show likely affinity within a clade, but don't try to force too much information out of too little available data. Prudence here is likely due to the botanist wanting to keep his species his, and therefore avoid some later scientist from wrenching his prize fossil species out of the botanists' pet(but wrong) genus, instead giving it the proper genus name. It is tough enough to work out cladistics and sister relationships in today's palms without trying to force fossils into existing Recent classifications. That way, maybe it really is a Sabal, and further work will determine that; if it isn't a Sabal, no misidentification has occurred.

Last reason for not accepting this species as a Sabal: Functional Morphology, or form follows function. If two species share a lifestyle, then they may look similar, even if not closesly related. Ex: Porpoise and sharks, both fast swimming predators.

All that being said, those are spectacular fossil palm leaves that look very much like a Sabal; those lake deposits out there have amazingly well preserved flora and fauna. Finds like those leaves need to be cataloged as to location and studied in a museaum to preserve them forever.

No, I'm closed for business thanks.

This is not the place for theological rhetoric.

Goodbye.

In other words, you're not open. Hmmm

What you may call theological rhetoric, others call Creation Science.

Goodbye to you.

Oh Dear God ... talk about a thread veering off course?

You're right Moose, and I apologise for my part in it.

I took the bait and dived with it......

What I originally intended to post was that according to Dowes 'Palms of Australia' my home state of Tasmania has a palm fossil record stretching back 60 million years to the Palaeocene. Interestingly there was a now extinct species of Nypa - N. australis, and another genus related to Nypa - Spinizonocolpities. Funny that a now palm-free island at 42 degrees south should have once had such an iconic tropical genus growing along the shores, must have been a tad warmer back then, or we've drifted a bit, or both!

Cheers,

Jonathan

No... I wasn't the one who brought up the origin of palms being millions and millions of years old. The truth is some people still consider that view narrow and even bias. How do you know it wasn't 57 million years ago, or 65, 42, 19? Radiometric and Carbon 14 dating has been flawed from the beginning with a little 'scientific' or rather Darwinistic, world view and history bias. Sorry Mate, there was no bait and I wasn't trying to fish. I'm just trying to provoke thought that the Sabal may not be as old as the sign says.

We will stick to science here on PalmTalk, whether it's appreciated or not. That's after all how palms are described and given genus and species names. Opinions based on religion will not be tolerated, and any further religious propaganda WILL get deleted.

Bo, as much as I respect your palm knowledge (science), I have to admit, you sound more bias than I'm accused of. What do you mean by Science? Does that mean that Creation Scientists who believe the earth is merely thousands and not millions of years old are not considered scientists or science lovers? The truth is, many of us love science and yes we do appreciate it. We just have a different world view that many biologists as well as horticulturist have these days, and they're are many on both sides. I don't believe it should make us bad. I do believe in a form of adaptation and micro-evolution that doesn't need millions of years to describe palm changes, discoveries as well as names. Religion is a word you and a few others brought up, not me. Why is it that as soon as our beliefs oppose the liberal/mainstream science view and because we rather accept a young earth view or a world wide flood, that we're considered religious, door knockers trying to convert everybody. Try to see it from our perspective before we're accused as 'religious propagandaites'.

Edited September 11, 201015 yr by SoTropiCal Ben

Ben, you have knowingly injected controversy into this topic. That's not cool! You've chose that topic over talking palms. Your opinion is respected but it could have been expressed in a much less aggressive-defensive manner.

It just so happens that it's the people who believe in the things being millions of years old, that are out there looking for paleobotanical evidence. So I think it's the right thing to do to allow them the courtesy of putting captions around their discoveries.

To avoid any further controversy let's just say the palm is dated back to Eocene (whenever you want to place it). The climate during Eocene is thought to have been significantly warmer and temperatures did not drop below about 10F even in polar regions. Also the composition of the atmosphere was somewhat different enough to assume that many of the plants and animals would not be genetically build to survive in today's world.

See, this is exactly what I mean... people are ok with talking about the earth being MILLIONS of years old, but as soon as someone disagrees, you can't just overlook it, huh? It has to bother you guys. Why? What's really happening? Maybe there's a deeper nerve. Sigh. The truth is Alex, I wasn't trying to instigate anything, but because I've been warned that many palm lovers are biology, science or horticulturalist majors, that somehow we're 'not cool' unless we bow to their Darwinistic god and accept what they say as the only truth. I don't even believe that there was an Eocene era. We just have a different world view, man.

This thread is not going in a productive direction. I am closing it. Since Bo has already commented and gave a warning, he may choose to respond and/or reopen it. But until then I am stopping its downhill trajectory.

I have been out for a few hours, but thank you Dean, for closing this thread. And since this thread is now closed there definitely won't be any discussion about what science is. We can all have different opinions about lots of things, including politics and religion to name two hot topics that won't be disccussed here on PalmTalk, but I have a strong hunch that the majority will understand what science is. And Ben, since it was your original post that caused this thread to veer away from what could have been an interesting discussion, let me just add that using a word like "Biblical" automatically adds a religious connotation. Like it or not. And I have never met a scientist who was under the impression that the earth is only "thousands of years old". Then again, we probably move in different circles!