ok. i need a break.

i can only take so much reading about the hisotry of the angiosperm. seriously. did you know that the history of the angiosperms had been a subject and debate for many years? Darwin called the origin of the angiosperms an "abominable mystery". It appeared to him that the angiosperms had simply appeared in the fossil record with no obvious ancestors, in the early Cretaceous period. There is argument that angiosperms did exist as early as the Jurassic period (the Nymphaeaceae (water lily)). There is also an argument for "angiosperm-like" pollen in the Late-Triassic period, however it is rare. In most cases it makes up less than 1% of Triassic palynofloras and for the most part, this idea is rejected.
Angiosperms are thought to be monophyletic (all descendants derived from a common ancestor) and there are an abundance of fossils from the mid-cretaceous period, however, abundance does not mean origin, so the exact time of angiosperm origin is still widely debated. It is thought that insects played a major role in angiosperm development so the evolution of both need to be explored to fully understand angiosperm origin (according to some). Even geographic origin is widely debated between high-latitudes, and a more tropical location and migrated from there. [http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/sunstar/Why02/why.htm http://www.geocities.com/we_evolve/Plants/angiosperm.html]

exciting.

anyway, the lower deck posted pictures from the other night so i'm gonna put some up here. i always look like a moron in pictures.