Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:42:41.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ghost taxa, ancestors, and assumptions: a comment on Wagner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Mark A. Norell
Mark A. Norell*
Affiliation:
Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at Seventy-ninth Street, New York, New York, 10024-5192
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comment and Reply
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , Summer 1996 , pp. 453 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88:172–181.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Engelmann, G. F., and Wiley, E. O. 1977. The place of ancestordescendent relationships in phylogeny reconstruction. Systematic Zoology 26:1–11.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1994. Stratocladistics: morphological and temporal patterns and their relation to phylogenetic process. pp. 133–171In Grande, L. and Rieppel, O., eds. Interpreting the hierarchy of nature from systematic patterns to evolutionary theories. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Forey, P. L. 1982. Neontological analysis versus palaeontological stories. Systematic Association Special Volume 21:197–234.Google Scholar
Frost, D., and Kluge, A. 1994. A consideration of epistemology in systematic biology, with special reference to species. Cladistics 10:259–294.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. pp. 41–77In Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1994. Comparing the stratigraphic record to estimates of phylogeny. Paleobiology 20:470–483.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A. 1987. The phylogenetic determination of taxonomic diversity: implications for terrestrial vertebrates at the K-T boundary. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 7(Suppl.).Google Scholar
Norell, M. A. 1992. The effect of phylogeny on temporal diversity and evolutionary tempo. pp. 89–118In Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A. 1993. Tree-based approaches to understanding history: comments on ranks, rules and the quality of the fossil record. American Journal of Science 293-A:407–417.Google Scholar
Schoch, R. 1986. Phylogeny reconstruction in paleontology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Siddall, M. E. 1996. Stratigraphic consistency and the shape of things. Systematic Biology 45:48–66.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L., and Begle, D. P. 1993. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, Version 3.1. Users manual. Laboratory of Molecular Systematics, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Stratigraphic tests of cladistic hypotheses. Paleobiology 21:153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar