Sir

I applaud Nature's initiative in bringing together '15 evolutionary gems' (Nature 457, 8; 2009; http://www.nature.com/evolutiongems) that provide empirical evidence for the process of evolution by natural selection. But I was struck by the conspicuous absence of plants (not to mention invertebrates and microorganisms) from the list, which is intended for the enlightenment of non-biologists. This risks sending a wrong message, such as that there is insufficient evidence for plant evolution (or, worse, that plants are not important), when in fact many of the benchmark contributions to the understanding of plant evolution have been published in Nature.

Sadly, 'plant blindness' — a lack of awareness of and interest in plants in biology education and among the general population — is well documented (see, for example, E. E. Schussler and L. A. Olzak J. Biol. Educ. 42, 112–118; 2008). But plants are key components in ensuring continuity of life on Earth. Their evolution intertwines at many points with that of animals.

Darwin's ideas on evolution were in part based on, and in turn influenced, his study of plants. His “abominable mystery”, the perceived rapid diversification of flowering plants, still remains an important question in evolutionary biology (Am. J. Bot. 96, 1–381; 2009).

Nature is well equipped to join the fight against 'plant blindness'. How about '15 more evolutionary gems' to ramp up awareness of the evidence for evolution in the plant (and invertebrate, fungal and microbial, for that matter) branches of the tree of life?