paleonet Ancient DNA

[f.j.lindemann@xxxxxxxxxx]

The paper by Hofreiter et al. (2001, Nature Reviews Genetics 2, 353-359) 
concludes that reports on discoveries/analyses of ancient DNA older than 1 
myr are questionable and usually due to contaminated samples. Others (e.g. 
Austin et al., 1997, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 467-474) share this scepticism.

Is the risk of contamination in plant samples in the same order of 
magnitude as in (palaeo)zoological samples? And thus, have the DNA-segments 
of a Miocene magnolia leaf (Golenberg et al., 1990, Nature 344, 656-658) 
and from a Taxodium (Soltis et al., 1992, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 89., 
449-451) been refuted, or are they still accepted as authentic?

Thank you for your comments!

fj



Franz-Josef Lindemann
Paleontologisk museum
P.O.Box 1172 Blindern, N-0318 Oslo
Sars' gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
Phone: +47 22 85 16 59
Fax: +47 22 85 18 00