The major transitions of life
The major transitions in evolution are a series of events proposed in 1995 by Eörs Szathmáry and John Maynard Smith1. Two criteria define them2. The first bears on information: at each transition, the way living things store information and pass it from one generation to the next changed. The second bears on the individual: entities that replicated on their own could afterwards replicate only inside a larger whole, and that whole became the individual selection acts on. Free-living bacteria became mitochondria, the compartments where a cell burns its food; solitary cells assembled into tissues.
Stuart West and his colleagues broke the passage to that new individual into two steps, in 20153. A cooperative group forms first; it then turns into an integrated entity. The second is the rarer: it demands division of labour, mutual dependence, communication and almost no conflict within the group, and many cooperative groups have never taken it.
Szathmáry and Maynard Smith refused to read any progress into this1. Nothing in theory, they wrote, leads one to expect lineages to grow more complex over time, and no evidence shows it. A transition nests one more level inside the living world without placing anyone higher: complex multicellularity arose five separate times, and never among prokaryotes, the cells that have no nucleus4. A level is not a grade one reaches, but an arrangement some lineages manage and others do not.
Their list has been argued over ever since. Szathmáry revised it alone in 20152: he dropped sexual reproduction and shortened the whole by separating three moments within each transition, the appearance of the higher level, its maintenance, then its later transformation. Matthew Herron went further in 20215: he argues that the theory is poorly unified, and would keep only those events that produce a new population of individuals, that is, a level that reproduces on its own account, which would exclude the genetic code and human language.
The ten sections below do not reproduce the 1995 list as it was published. They apply its two criteria, the informational one and the one on individuality, to the events documented by the Deep Time timeline, which covers the 4.54 billion years of the Earth, from the first molecule that copied itself to the reading of genomes. Each section carries its own sources and links to the entries it gathers.
References
- Szathmary and Maynard Smith (1995), Nature · The major evolutionary transitionsdoi:10.1038/374227a0
- Szathmary (2015), PNAS · Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0doi:10.1073/pnas.1421398112
- West et al. (2015), PNAS · Major evolutionary transitions in individualitydoi:10.1073/pnas.1421402112
- Bingham et al. (2024), PNAS · A nonadaptive explanation for macroevolutionary patterns in the evolution of complex multicellularitydoi:10.1073/pnas.2319840121
- Herron (2021), Biology and Philosophy · What are the major transitions?doi:10.1007/s10539-020-09773-z
The sources proper to each transition appear under that transition.
10 transitions, 63 entries
01
From Chemistry to Heredity
Every cell alive descends from one population, called LUCA, the last universal common ancestor. Nothing of it survives, and dating it takes a detour. Certain genes were duplicated before LUCA, so both its descendant lines, bacteria and archaea, inherited two copies. Each copy recorded the split between bacteria and archaea on its own: the same event is measured twice, and the date comes out firmer. Older than LUCA, the duplication also fixes the age LUCA cannot exceed1.
That calculation places LUCA about 4.2 billion years ago, between 4.09 and 4.33, with a genome of at least 2.5 million bases, as many as a bacterium carries today, coding some 2,600 proteins. That cell needed no oxygen: it built its carbon compounds from carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and already lived among other cells1.
Almost nothing remains of what came before. Meteorites deliver amino acids ready made. Alkaline vents hold, across their mineral walls, a difference in acidity like the one every cell maintains across its membrane. And an RNA carrying the instructions while speeding up the reactions, alone, is the account that assumes the fewest parts.
What it made possible
Copying is what makes improvement cumulative. Without it, a chemical arrangement that worked well vanished with the medium it formed in, leaving nothing. With it, the arrangement persists, and because copying lets errors through, selection finally has variants to sort. All later evolution starts from molecules that were already being copied.
What remains disputed
LUCA is reconstructed, never observed, and the reconstructions disagree. Weiss and colleagues2 trace 355 protein families back that far, out of 286,514 examined, and describe a microbe that lived in heat. Forterre3 notes that LUCA lacked reverse gyrase, an enzyme carried by every organism known to survive above 80 degrees, and argues instead for one that preferred mild water. Crapitto and colleagues4 compared eight such studies and found that no two agreed closely, and that what they share is worth more than any one of them alone.
The entries
- Amino Acids in Meteorites~4.3 billion years ago
- Alkaline Hydrothermal Vents~4.2 billion years ago (setting debated)
- LUCA, the Last Universal Ancestor~4.2 billion years ago (estimates 4.3 to 3.5 Ga)
- The RNA World~4.1 billion years ago (a stage, not a date)
- The Oldest Traces of Life~3.7 billion years ago (claims 3.95–3.5 Ga)
- The Oldest Reef, Built by Microbes~3.43 billion years ago
Sources for this section
- Moody et al. (2024), Nature Ecology and Evolution · The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on the early Earth systemdoi:10.1038/s41559-024-02461-1
- Weiss et al. (2016), Nature Microbiology · The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestordoi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.116
- Forterre (2024), Journal of Molecular Evolution · The Last Universal Common Ancestor of Ribosome-Encoding Organisms: Portrait of LUCAdoi:10.1007/s00239-024-10186-9
- Crapitto et al. (2022), Ecology and Evolution · A consensus view of the proteome of the last universal common ancestordoi:10.1002/ece3.8930
02
Capturing Light, Changing the Air
Photosynthesis began without producing any oxygen. Its earliest versions used light to pull electrons from dissolved iron or sulphur compounds, and left the air untouched. Pulling them from water instead takes far more energy, and the cyanobacteria that managed it, the blue-green microbes that still form pond scum, released oxygen as waste.
The waste built up slowly at first, because dissolved iron and volcanic gases consumed it as fast as it appeared. Those consumers ran out about 2.4 billion years ago, and free oxygen entered the air. Geologists call this the Great Oxidation Event.
The rise then stopped low, and Trost and colleagues1 explain that ceiling by biology itself. Cyanobacteria draw their nitrogen from the air with an enzyme, nitrogenase, that oxygen destroys; past roughly 2 per cent oxygen in the air they would cut off their own nitrogen supply. The banded iron formations of this era, rock striped red and grey by alternating iron-rich and iron-poor layers, record that oxygen arriving: the iron left the water as it came.
What it made possible
Oxygen is corrosive, and the organisms that produced it were the first to be poisoned by it. Aerobic respiration, which extracts far more energy from the same food than any route that does without oxygen, came only afterwards, as an answer to that waste1.
What remains disputed
The date of the oxidation is often taken for its cause. Molecular clocks, which estimate ages from the differences between living genomes, place the origin of cyanobacteria well before the rise itself and tie the appearance of their multicellular forms to its beginning2: if these microbes were already long established, the rise turns on what changed around them rather than on their arrival. Those same clocks put oxygen-releasing photosynthesis at 3.5 to 3.2 billion years ago, where most of the rock record puts it later, between 3.2 and 2.83.
The entries
- Banded Iron Formations~3.5 to 1.8 billion years ago
- The First Methanogens~3.46 billion years ago
- Photosynthesis Without Oxygen~3.4 billion years ago
- The First Life on Land~3.22 billion years ago
- Nitrogen Fixation and Nitrogenaseat least 3.2 billion years ago
- Oxygenic Photosynthesis~3.2–2.8 billion years ago
- Oxygen Before the Great Oxidation~2.7 to 2.5 billion years ago
- The Great Oxidation Event~2.4 billion years ago
Sources for this section
- Trost et al. (2025), Biochimica et Biophysica Acta Bioenergetics · Oxygen reductase origin followed the great oxidation event and terminated the Lomagundi excursiondoi:10.1016/j.bbabio.2025.149544
- Schirrmeister et al. (2013), PNAS · Evolution of multicellularity coincided with increased diversification of cyanobacteria and the Great Oxidation Eventdoi:10.1073/pnas.1209927110
- Westall (2025), Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B · What the earliest evidence for life tells us about the early evolution of the biospheredoi:10.1098/rstb.2024.0106
03
The Complex Cell
One cell entered another and stayed. The one that took the other in belonged to the Asgard archaea, microbes without a nucleus, the closest known relatives of our own cell type. The guest was a bacterium that became the mitochondrion, the compartment in which our cells now burn their food1.
Oxygen did not found this partnership. Genomes and metabolism point to a first arrangement in which one partner produced hydrogen and the other consumed it, a trade that biologists call syntrophy, carried on where no oxygen reached. The deep ocean stayed free of oxygen for a further billion and a half years after that arrangement2.
Neither fossils nor molecular clocks tie the merger to either of the planet's two oxygenations, the one 2.4 billion years ago and the Neoproterozoic one: it falls between them2, between roughly 2.7 and 1.8 billion years ago3. Everything descended from that cell is a eukaryote, a cell that keeps its genetic material inside a nucleus. A long branch separates the first eukaryote from the common ancestor of all living ones, and no fossil intermediate sits on it3, so the order of assembly is still open.
What it made possible
The need for oxygen that seems to define our kind of cell came later, and only spread everywhere over the past billion years2. The cell our own descends from came together in conditions that would kill most of its descendants, and it took the mitochondrion on for an exchange of metabolites, long before breathing was at stake.
What remains disputed
Two events are often merged: the arrival of the mitochondrion, and the assembly of everything else that makes a cell complex, the nucleus and the internal scaffolding that moves material around inside it. Roger and colleagues1 leave three questions open: what the swallowed bacterium was, how the two first dealt with each other, and whether the merger came before or after the nucleus. An early merger would make the mitochondrion the cause of that complexity; a late one would make it a guest in a cell already complex.
The entries
- Asgard Archaea, Our Closest Kin~2 billion years ago
- Endosymbiosis and the Mitochondrion~1.9 billion years ago (order of events debated)
- The Origin of the Chloroplast~1.9 billion years ago
- The First Eukaryotes~2.0–1.8 billion years ago
- Protosterols and the Lost Eukaryotes~1.64 billion to 800 million years ago
Sources for this section
- Roger et al. (2017), Current Biology · The Origin and Diversification of Mitochondriadoi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.015
- Mills et al. (2022), Nature Ecology and Evolution · Eukaryogenesis and oxygen in Earth historydoi:10.1038/s41559-022-01733-y
- Vosseberg et al. (2024), Nature · The emerging view on the origin and early evolution of eukaryotic cellsdoi:10.1038/s41586-024-07677-6
04
Sex, and Bodies of Many Cells
Sexual reproduction runs a cycle in two steps. Two cells fuse, which doubles the number of chromosomes; a division called meiosis then halves it again, so the count returns to where it started. Nearly all eukaryotes run this cycle, and their common ancestor already did, which takes it back as far as the complex cell itself1.
What the cycle is for is still argued over. Many lineages have given up one or other of its two steps, and comparing them shows which parts selection never lets go of2: the pairing of matching chromosomes, the cell's own cutting of both DNA strands, and the repair that copies from the matching chromosome. All three mend damaged DNA. What lineages do drop lies elsewhere: the halving and the need for two parents. Hörandl and Speijer3 tie the whole cycle to reactive oxygen, the unstable molecules the young mitochondrion released, which broke DNA faster than the cell could mend it.
Bodies of many cells came later, separately and often: some forty-five independent lineages4. Only five, all eukaryotes, went on to build tissues in which cells take on different jobs5.
What it made possible
In four billion years no bacterium and no archaeon has built tissues of that kind5. Bodies, and with them every organism visible without a microscope, therefore rest on what the eukaryotic cell had acquired at its origin: a nucleus, a mitochondrion and an internal scaffolding.
What remains disputed
Whether sex exists mainly to repair DNA or mainly to shuffle it is unsettled. The comparison of what can be dropped favours repair, since the parts never dropped are the repairing ones2. If repair comes first, then the mixing of parental DNA is a side effect of maintenance rather than the reason for the whole cycle, and the known cost of sex, half the offspring being males that bear no young, has to be weighed against a benefit paid out every generation.
The entries
- The Francevillian Biota~2.1 billion years ago (biological origin disputed)
- The Earliest Multicellular Algae~1.6 billion years ago
- The First Life Visible to the Eye~1.56 billion years ago
- The Origin of Sexual Reproduction~1.2 billion years ago
- Bangiomorpha, the Oldest Red Alga~1.05 billion years ago
- The First Fungi~1 billion to 715 million years ago
- The First Animals~800 million years ago (claims 890 to 635 Ma)
Sources for this section
- Goodenough et al. (2014), Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · Origins of Eukaryotic Sexual Reproductiondoi:10.1101/cshperspect.a016154
- Mirzaghaderi et al. (2016), Proceedings of the Royal Society B · The evolution of meiotic sex and its alternativesdoi:10.1098/rspb.2016.1221
- Hörandl & Speijer (2018), Proceedings of the Royal Society B · How oxygen gave rise to eukaryotic sexdoi:10.1098/rspb.2017.2706
- Lamza (2023), Biological Reviews · Diversity of simple multicellular eukaryotes: 45 independent cases and six types of multicellularitydoi:10.1111/brv.12921
- Bingham et al. (2024), PNAS · A nonadaptive explanation for macroevolutionary patterns in the evolution of complex multicellularitydoi:10.1073/pnas.2319840121
05
The Animal Body and Its Senses
Animals enter the fossil record first as soft impressions, then as burrows, then as shells, and at last with the full range of body plans that still exists today, the basic architectures that set a jellyfish apart from a worm or a snail.
The uranium in a Namibian rock section decays at a known rate, and geologists read from it the date of that changeover: no more than 410,000 years separate the skeletonless Ediacara fauna from a burrowing Cambrian one, between 538.99 and 538.58 million years ago1.
Burrows and trails blur that date. The range of architectures and behaviours was already wide at the very start of the Cambrian, whereas a rearrangement of ways of life arrives several million years later, one stage of the geological scale further on2. It moved the animals that strain food from the water down into the sediment, and left the sea floor feeding on what the open water produced above it.
Eyes, teeth, mineralised skeletons and backbones all enter the record across the Ediacaran and the early Cambrian. Each one raises both the price of being prey and the reward of being a predator.
What it made possible
Eyes and teeth make pursuit possible, and a body stops serving the same purpose. Once an animal could see, bite and dig, the sea floor stopped being a microbial mat to graze and became terrain to escape through, and animals began building the mineralised armour, the muscles and the sense organs that most of them still carry.
What remains disputed
This episode is usually called the Cambrian explosion, and the word is contested on two grounds. Matching rock layers between continents is imprecise, so the boundary itself is known only to within some 5 million years, somewhere between 538 and 533 million years ago3, which widens any window measured on a single outcrop. And Wood and colleagues4 see in the episode one burst among several, running back into the late Ediacaran and forward into the early Palaeozoic, with no single cause surviving examination5.
The entries
- The First Predators~780 to 740 million years ago
- The Ediacara Biota~575 to 539 million years ago
- The First Animal Trails~560 to 539 million years ago
- Cloudina and the First Skeletons~550 million years ago
- The Small Shelly Fossils~539 to 521 million years ago
- The Cambrian Explosion~540–518 million years ago
- Archaeocyaths, the First Reefs~525 to 510 million years ago
- The Cambrian Substrate Revolution~521 to 509 million years ago
- The First Vertebrates~518 million years ago
- Cambrian Lagerstätten and Soft Bodies~518 to 500 million years ago
- The First Eyes~515 million years ago
- Conodonts, the First Teeth~515 million years ago
Sources for this section
- Linnemann et al. (2018), Terra Nova · New high-resolution age data from the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary indicate rapid, ecologically driven onset of the Cambrian explosiondoi:10.1111/ter.12368
- Mángano et al. (2014), Proceedings of the Royal Society B · Decoupling of body-plan diversification and ecological structuring during the Ediacaran-Cambrian transitiondoi:10.1098/rspb.2014.0038
- Bowyer et al. (2026), Journal of the Geological Society · Reviewing chronostratigraphic uncertainty of the Ediacaran-Cambrian transitiondoi:10.1144/jgs2025-100
- Wood et al. (2019), Nature Ecology and Evolution · Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosiondoi:10.1038/s41559-019-0821-6
- Zhang et al. (2021), PalZ · Current understanding on the Cambrian Explosion: questions and answersdoi:10.1007/s12542-021-00568-5
06
Leaving the Water
Plants did not colonise dry land on their own. They did it with soil fungi, in an exchange where the fungus runs its threads through the ground, takes up phosphorus and nitrogen and hands them over, and the plant returns fats it has built with the energy of sunlight1.
The land plants whose lineages separated earliest from the rest all keep this arrangement, and the same genes run it in all of them, inherited from a common ancestor that therefore already practised it, some 450 million years ago, before roots existed1. Grown with these fungi rather than without them, liverworts, flat green plants of the oldest surviving group, take up more carbon and grow larger, and the gain widens under the carbon dioxide levels of the early Palaeozoic2.
Plants then built what dry land demands: tubes to carry water upward, wood to stand upright with, seeds that travel without water, and canopies dense enough to make soil beneath them. Animals came ashore separately, arthropods before vertebrates, and the first four-limbed backboned animals used their limbs in water before they used them on the ground.
What it made possible
Roots and fungal networks accelerated the weathering of rock, the slow chemical attack that breaks it down; that weathering drew carbon dioxide out of the air and cooled the climate, and buried wood became coal. The land surface as a place with soil, shade and a water cycle is a product of that partnership.
What remains disputed
Which fungi came first is unsettled. Devonian fossils showing the tiny branched structures that modern soil fungi push into root cells long placed one group, the Glomeromycota, at the origin. But the land plants whose lineages branch off earliest partner with another group instead, the Mucoromycotina. That would make the Mucoromycotina the first partners, and the glomeromycotan arrangement a later replacement3. Retallack4 places mats of fungi on land before any woody plant.
The entries
- The First Land Plants~470 million years ago
- The First Animals on Land~425 million years ago (clocks suggest earlier)
- Arbuscular Mycorrhiza~407 million years ago
- The Rhynie Chert~407 million years ago
- The Invention of Wood~393 to 383 million years ago
- The First Tetrapods on Land~390 million years ago
- The First Forests~385 million years ago
- The Invention of the Seed~372 million years ago
- The Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse~305 million years ago
Sources for this section
- Rich et al. (2021), Science · Lipid exchanges drove the evolution of mutualism during plant terrestrializationdoi:10.1126/science.abg0929
- Humphreys et al. (2010), Nature Communications · Mutualistic mycorrhiza-like symbiosis in the most ancient group of land plantsdoi:10.1038/ncomms1105
- Bidartondo et al. (2011), Biology Letters · The dawn of symbiosis between plants and fungidoi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.1203
- Retallack (2022), Gondwana Research · Ordovician-Devonian lichen canopies before evolution of woody treesdoi:10.1016/j.gr.2022.01.010
07
The Egg, Warm Blood, Milk
Laid in open air, an amphibian egg dries out and its embryo has nothing to breathe: it needs a pond. The amniotic egg carries its own, sealed under the shell. Four membranes share the work: one bathes the embryo in fluid, one trades gases through the shell, one stores its waste, one holds the yolk it feeds on1. Animals that lay it, and their descendants that no longer do, are amniotes.
Soon after that egg appears, in the Carboniferous, the amniotes split: reptiles and birds on one side, the synapsids on the other, which lead to mammals and hold the land for a hundred million years before the first dinosaur.
Warm blood leaves no organ to fossilise. Palaeontologists date it from five indirect clues, read in bone or its chemistry: the density of blood vessels, the speed of growth, the width of the channels feeding the limbs, the temperature the isotopes give, and the shift from a sprawling stance to legs carried under the body, which needs the pressure a four-chambered heart delivers23.
Milk may have begun as water: the parchment shell of the first synapsid eggs appears to have been kept damp by glands on the mother's skin4.
What it made possible
A constant internal temperature buys independence from the weather and costs roughly ten times the food a cold-blooded animal of the same size eats. That bargain explains why endotherms forage at night, at altitude and near the poles, and why they cannot afford to be both small and slow. Milk, for its part, explains how the first mammals could be so small: an animal that size cannot lay an egg big enough to hold the yolk its growth would need. It replaced that yolk so completely that the genes for building yolk were lost by the Jurassic4.
What remains disputed
Three readings of warm blood compete. Birds and mammals generate heat in their muscles by the same chemistry, and scattered bone clues appear early in both lineages, which suggests their shared ancestor was already warm blooded2. Faure-Brac and colleagues5 measure the space blood vessels left inside fossil bone across a wider sample, find that ancestor cold blooded, and conclude that warm blood was invented several times over. Newham and colleagues6 put it in mammals no earlier than the Middle Jurassic. The choice decides whether warm blood was invented once, in the ancestor of all amniotes, or several times over.
The origin of the egg is disputed too. Its membranes are usually read as an adaptation to dry land, but Jiang and colleagues7 derive them from the retention of the embryo inside the mother, and several other lineages reached breeding on land without them8.
The entries
Sources for this section
- Ferner & Mess (2011), Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology · Evolution and development of fetal membranes and placentation in amniote vertebratesdoi:10.1016/j.resp.2011.03.029
- Grigg et al. (2021), Biological Reviews · Whole-body endothermy: ancient, homologous and widespread among the ancestors of mammals, birds and crocodyliansdoi:10.1111/brv.12822
- Benton (2021), Gondwana Research · The origin of endothermy in synapsids and archosaurs and arms races in the Triassicdoi:10.1016/j.gr.2020.08.003
- Oftedal (2012), Animal · The evolution of milk secretion and its ancient originsdoi:10.1017/s1751731111001935
- Faure-Brac et al. (2024), iScience · On the origins of endothermy in amniotesdoi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109375
- Newham et al. (2022), BioEssays · New tools suggest a middle Jurassic origin for mammalian endothermydoi:10.1002/bies.202100060
- Jiang et al. (2023), Nature Ecology and Evolution · Extended embryo retention and viviparity in the first amniotesdoi:10.1038/s41559-023-02074-0
- Starck et al. (2021), Journal of Morphology · Phylogeny and evolutionary history of the amniote eggdoi:10.1002/jmor.21380
08
Flight, Four Times Over
Flapping flight, kept up by the wings rather than paid for in height, arose four times among animals: once in insects, then in pterosaurs, birds and bats1. Each vertebrate solution builds a wing from different material: the pterosaur stretches a skin membrane along a single enormous finger, the bat between all of its own, and birds carry a curved surface made of feathers.
Feathers long predate flight. They cover dinosaurs with no aerial ability at all, so something else selected for them first, insulation and display being the usual candidates2. Yang and colleagues3 have described filaments on pterosaurs that branch in the way feathers do: either the origin of feathers goes back to the common ancestor of birds and pterosaurs, or those filaments are a second, separate invention.
Among feathered dinosaurs, abandoned solutions sit beside the ones that lasted. One small Jurassic group, the scansoriopterygids, carried skin membranes on greatly elongated forelimbs, a design that disappeared while feathered wings went on1.
What it made possible
Flight is the most expensive way to move per unit of time and one of the cheapest per unit of distance, which is why flying lineages colonise islands, cross oceans and migrate between hemispheres. Four lineages arrived separately at flapping flight: that is convergence, the repeated appearance of one device in lineages that are not related.
What remains disputed
Birds are dinosaurs, and whether flapping flight arose once or several times inside that group is still argued. Pei and colleagues4 find that at least three lineages of small feathered dinosaurs close to birds reached the thresholds of powered flight independently. Serrano and colleagues5 object that the two measures used, the weight carried per unit of wing area and the lift a wing generates for its size, cannot tell flapping from gliding. Kiat and colleagues6 count and measure flight feathers, support a single origin, and remove one of the three candidate lineages.
The entries
Sources for this section
- Wang et al. (2019), Nature · A new Jurassic scansoriopterygid and the loss of membranous wings in theropod dinosaursdoi:10.1038/s41586-019-1137-z
- Xu et al. (2025), Biology Letters · The origin and early evolution of feathers: implications, uncertainties and future prospectsdoi:10.1098/rsbl.2024.0517
- Yang et al. (2018), Nature Ecology and Evolution · Pterosaur integumentary structures with complex feather-like branchingdoi:10.1038/s41559-018-0728-7
- Pei et al. (2020), Current Biology · Potential for Powered Flight Neared by Most Close Avialan Relatives, but Few Crossed Its Thresholdsdoi:10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.105
- Serrano et al. (2021), Current Biology · Independent origins of powered flight in paravian dinosaurs?doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.058
- Kiat et al. (2024), PNAS · Functional constraints on the number and shape of flight feathersdoi:10.1073/pnas.2306639121
09
Alliances Between Kingdoms
Some transitions bind organisms of different kingdoms, plants, animals and fungi, that go on reproducing separately. Flowering plants and their pollinators are the most visible such arrangement on land; underground, more than four fifths of land plants still pair with a fungus1.
Bees are the principal agents of the first. Comparing whole genomes places their origin in the Early Cretaceous, around 128 million years ago2, in western Gondwana3, the single landmass that Africa and South America then formed. Their closest living relatives among the wasps hunt thrips, small insects that gather on flowers and eat pollen, which suggests how hunting turned into harvesting: a wasp carrying prey dusted with pollen was already moving pollen from flower to flower2.
Among those same wasps, and among no others, colonies appeared in which most individuals never breed, and raise another's young instead. Biologists call this eusociality2.
What it made possible
Flowering plants spread across the world at the speed at which their pollinators could follow, and bees occupied the same regions as flowers, at the same time. An alliance of this kind gives each lineage what neither obtains alone, and leaves each dependent on the other. Agriculture inherited that dependence.
What remains disputed
The date of the flowers holds less well than the date of the bees. Most fossils of flowering plants belong to the Early Cretaceous, around 135 million years ago, but dating from living genomes consistently returns older ages, and how much older is contested4. A substantially older origin for flowers would mean a long stretch spent with other pollinators, or with none, and their joint spread would have to be rewritten as a late meeting.
The entries
Sources for this section
- Kumari et al. (2024), Frontiers in Microbiology · Mycorrhizal association and its relation with pteridophytesdoi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1406891
- Sann et al. (2018), BMC Evolutionary Biology · Phylogenomic analysis of Apoidea sheds new light on the sister group of beesdoi:10.1186/s12862-018-1155-8
- Almeida et al. (2023), Current Biology · The evolutionary history of bees in time and spacedoi:10.1016/j.cub.2023.07.005
- van der Kooi et al. (2020), Science · The origins of flowering plants and pollinatorsdoi:10.1126/science.aay3662
10
Reading Kinship
Every date above comes from one of two sources, and the two are not independent.
Rocks give absolute ages, because certain elements they contain decay at a known rate. A fossil gives only a bound: the group it belongs to already existed, and nothing says for how long it had. Sequences give something else, the shape of the family tree and the relative spacing of its branchings, counted from the differences that pile up between two lineages once they separate.
A tree of relative distances becomes a timetable only when at least one branching point is pinned to a dated rock. That step is called calibration, and it is where dating by sequences is weakest. Pinning only near the tips of the tree, rather than at its deep branchings, can make a whole timescale a thousand times too short1. Beavan and colleagues2 show that pinning a tree after the analysis, instead of building the fossil constraints into the analysis itself, almost always returns the wrong rates and the wrong dates.
What it made possible
An age read off a boundary marked in the rock and an age counted from genetic differences carry different kinds of error. When the two disagree, as they do for flowering plants and for the first animals, neither settles the question on its own, and a date is worth no more than the method that produced it.
What remains disputed
Warnock and colleagues3 note that calibration is the least examined step in published work, and that the shape an author assumes for the uncertainty around a single fossil date shifts every age the analysis returns. Soares and colleagues4 warn against circular reasoning, in which a clock calibrated on one set of assumptions is then offered as independent support for them. Where a source publishes bounds, this page gives them; where two methods disagree, it gives both figures rather than averaging them.
The entries
Sources for this section
- Duchene et al. (2014), Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · The impact of calibration and clock-model choice on molecular estimates of divergence timesdoi:10.1016/j.ympev.2014.05.032
- Beavan et al. (2020), Genome Biology and Evolution · Performance of A Priori and A Posteriori Calibration Strategies in Divergence Time Estimationdoi:10.1093/gbe/evaa105
- Warnock et al. (2011), Biology Letters · Exploring uncertainty in the calibration of the molecular clockdoi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0710
- Soares et al. (2026), Biology · The Evolution of Molecular Clocks: Concepts, Calibrations, and Challengesdoi:10.3390/biology15151329
None of these transitions pursued a goal. Each solved a local problem and brought a new individual into being, on which selection then acted. Several came undone afterwards: whole lineages dropped sexual reproduction, sometimes for hundreds of generations. At any one stage, nothing announced the next.