Hi Arauquoia,

What they're saying is a load of adult male cattle rear-end product . . . it's all just media hype to help sell the plant and/or raise money for those proposing it.

There's no verified evidence for Jurassic (or any other fossil) Wollemia; there are some fossils that show some limited resemblance, but nothing that can definitely be considered ancestral, or even clearly related.

Neither is the claim of low light levels true, except for the parts of the continent that were then at polar latitudes; even if it did apply, there's no reason why plants that were adapted to growing in polar conditions then should not evolve to increased light as the continent drifted away from the South Pole.

On Cunninghamia, it hasn't ever been growing in polar regions that I'm aware of; no reason why its foliage shouldn't evolve either.

Of other plants, a lot of cycads have leaflets with similar light-gathering form to leaves of Cunninghamia or Wollemia (or several other plants) - compare a Cycas revoluta leaf with a Wollemia shoot. Yet cycads generally grow (and as far as is known, always have) grown in areas with often very intense semi-desert light.

Resin

The idea that branch configuration is related to light reception is intuitively appealing but empty in concept and lacking in evidence.Check out the variable geometries exhibited by different conifers (or even just different pines) that share the same habitat.
Resin may be right about motive.

Isn't it possible certain trees were 'understory' (protected from strong sun by larger trees) and therefore adapted to lower light levels? Always thought that was a pretty reasonable idea (as it still holds true today for many) and not financially motivated...

pineresin, the assumption that cycads mostly grow in areas of very intense semi-desert light is incorrect. The genuses Chigua, Bowenia, Lepidozamia, and Zamia are composed primarilay of forest dwellers and many are vey tolerent of low light levels, as are many members in the genus cycas

Resin,

Farjon at p. 63 writes that Cunninghamia is found in Antarctica from the Triassic.

1) Antarctica was not always at the far "bottom" of the Earth, the continents have moved over time

2) What is now the virtual "South Pole" has not always been the "South Pole", the axis moves over time

3) Wouldn't you see similar evolutionary growth patterns in plants that are common today that live towards the upper Southern and Northern regions of the Earth compared to the tropical and sub-tropical areas? Or maybe not because the Earth is cooler I guess would be the theory.

4)The Earth is thought to have had lower oxygen levels in the past... maybe this would be a more interesting conjecture as to how plants adapted to such different levels and also survived to today (if barely for some)... or maybe not interesting...