presented by Stebbins are based on the comparative morphology and anatomy of living angiosperms considered primitive at that time rather than the fossil record of early angiosperms.

However, at the same time, the early 1970s, special attention was being focused on the fine features of the morphology of angiosperm leaf venation and the cuticular anatomy of living and fossil angiosperms (Hickey, 1973; Dilcher, 1974; Hickey and Wolfe, 1975; Doyle and Hickey, 1976). Most of the early angiosperms from the Cretaceous and early Tertiary were being found to be extinct or only distantly related to living genera (Fig. 3). Grades and clades of relationships were being established upon the basis of careful character analysis (Dilcher et al., 1976b; Roth and Dilcher, 1979). During this time, it became scientifically acceptable to be unable to identify a fossil to a modern genus. Fossil angiosperms were analyzed on the basis of multiple detailed objective characters, and degrees of relationships could be established based on the extent to which these same combinations of characters were found in living families, sub-families, or genera (Jones and Dilcher, 1980). Analyses of the fossil angiosperm record were being constructed that included vast amounts of data based on careful anatomical and morphological analysis of the diversity of characters found in living genera and modern families. Large collections of cleared leaves and cuticular preparations were developed, and whole families were surveyed to establish their range of venation and

FIGURE 3. Representation of modern vs. fossil taxonomic groups published for the mid-Cretaceous, Dakota Formation, Rose Creek Flora (Upchurch and Dilcher, 1990). This flora is based on leaves. Note no modern genera identified as opposed to the 60% identified for the same flora illustrated in Fig. 1.