Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:27:51.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pattern and process in paleobiology: the role of cladistic analysis in systematic paleontology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Joel Cracraft
Joel Cracraft*
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, University of Illinois at the Medical Center, P.O. Box 6998, Chicago, Illinois 60680; and Division of Birds, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systematics and paleontology have had a long conceptual relationship, united by the common goal of reconstructing the history of life. Yet, with few exceptions, paleontologists have had little input into formulating systematic theory and methodology. The reasons for this apparently relate to two conceptual-philosophical traditions of post-Darwinian paleontology: (1) the widespread adoption of a species concept in which taxa are viewed as nondiscrete, arbitrarily designated segments of evolutionary continua, and (2) the belief that phylogenetic reconstruction is primarily an empirical matter of tracing evolutionary change through the stratigraphic record.

Available systematic evidence supports the hypothesis that species are real, discrete units in space and time and that, unless they are postulated to be directly ancestral to another species, they can be defined by the possession of one or more evolutionary novelties (derived characters). Species beginnings are delineated by speciation (vicariance) events and their terminations by subsequent speciation events or by extinctions.

Natural groups are composed of taxa that have shared a common genealogical history. Cladistic analysis is a method to construct and test hypotheses of monophyly and thereby define natural groups. Cladistic hypotheses are necessary to investigate many of the major questions within contemporary paleobiology. Virtually no studies of evolutionary rates, patterns of taxonomic diversity, modes of taxic evolution, and patterns of morphological diversification can be undertaken without reference to cladistic hypotheses about the composition of natural groups.

Because paleobiology is historical in its content, paleontologists are greatly limited in their ability to use paleontological data to investigate questions about the evolutionary process. According to current evolutionary theory, the concepts of adaptation and natural selection relate to genetic and ecological processes that take place within local populations (microevolution). If so, then data relevant to examining these phenomena are likely to be lacking in paleontological samples. Consequently, explanations of paleontological pattern that include process-related concepts such as adaptation and natural selection are axiomatic in their logical structure and thus cannot be falsified or critically evaluated by that paleontological pattern.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Fall 1981 , pp. 456 - 468
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

Ashlock, P. D. 1974. The uses of cladistics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashlock, P. D. 1979. An evolutionary systematist's view of classification. Syst. Zool. 28:441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, W. J. 1977. Foundations and methods of evolutionary classification. Pp. 851–895. In: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C., and Hecht, B. M., eds. Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonde, N. 1975. Origin of “higher groups”: viewpoints of phylogenetic systematics. Coll. Int. C.N.R.S. No. 218:293–324.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1979. Cladistics: is it really different from classical taxonomy? Pp. 199–210. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretsky, S. S. 1979. Recognition of ancestor-descendant relationships in invertebrate paleontology. Pp. 113–163. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundin, L. 1966. Transantarctic relationships and their significance, as evidenced by chironomid midges. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskap. Handl. 11:1–472.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. S. W. 1975. Cladism and phacopid trilobites. Alcheringa. 1:87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cifelli, R. L. 1981. Patterns of evolution among the Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla (Mammalia). Evolution. 35:433–440.Google ScholarPubMed
Cracraft, J. 1974. Phylogenetic models and classification. Syst. Zool. 23:71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1979. Phylogenetic analysis, evolutionary models, and paleontology. Pp. 7–39. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1981. The use of functional and adaptive criteria in phylogenetic systematics. Am. Zool. 21:21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1982. Geographic differentiation, cladistics, and vicariance biogeography: reconstructing the tempo and mode of evolution. Am. Zool.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croizat, L., Nelson, G. J., and Rosen, D. E. 1974. Centers of origin and related concepts. Syst. Zool. 23:265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1979a. Alternative approaches to evolutionary theory. Bull. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 13:7–19.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1979b. Cladism and common sense. Pp. 165–198. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Pp. 82–115. In: Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper & Co.; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Gaffney, E. S. 1979. An introduction to the logic of phylogeny reconstruction. Pp. 79–111. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. Pp. 41–77. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. and Schoeninger, M. 1977. The fossil record and primate phylogeny. J. Human Evol. 6:483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1980. The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline. Paleobiology. 6:96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria; the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology. 3:115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halstead, L. B. 1978. The cladistic revolution—can it make the grade. Nature. 276:759–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, C. W. Jr. 1976. Phylogenetic inference in paleontology. J. Paleontol. 50:180–193.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentraverlag; Berlin.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. Illinois Press; Urbana.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy—two thousand years of stasis (1). Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 15:2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1980. Cladism gets sorted out. Paleobiology. 6:131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauder, G. F. 1981. Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology. 7:430–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill; New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeit. f. zool. Syst. u. Evolutionsforschung. 12:94–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, C. D. 1978. Dr. Nelson on taxonomic methods. Syst. Zool. 27:112–118.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science. Harcourt, Brace & World; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1969. The problem of historical biogeography. Syst. Zool. 18:243–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1970. Outline of a theory of comparative biology. Syst. Zool. 19:373–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G. J. 1978. From Candolle to Croizat: comments on the history of biogeography. J. Hist. Biol. 11:269–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G. and Platnick, N. I. 1978. The perils of plesiomorphy: widespread taxa, dispersal, and phenetic biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. J. and Platnick, N. I. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Panchen, A. L. 1979. The cladistic debate continued. Nature. 280:541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. 1977. The contribution of paleontology to teleostean phylogeny. Pp. 579–643. In: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C., and Hecht, B. M., eds. Major Patterns in Vertebrate Phylogeny. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. 1981. Methods of paleobiogeography. Pp. 446–489. In: Nelson, G. and Rosen, D. E., eds. Vicariance Biogeography: a Critique. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Platnick, N. I. and Nelson, G. J. 1978. A method of analysis for historical biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Marshall, L. G. 1980. Variation between groups in evolutionary rates: a statistical test of significance. Paleobiology. 6:9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. E. 1978. Vicariant patterns and historical explanation in biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, D. 1979. Fishes from the uplands and intermontane basins of Guatemala: revisionary studies and comparative geography. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162:267–376.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M., Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., and Simberloff, D. S. 1975. Genomic versus morphologic rates of evolution: influences of morphologic complexity. Paleobiology. 1:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology. 4:223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1947. Holarctic mammalian faunas and continental relationships during the Cenozoic. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 58:613–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1960. Notes on the measurement of faunal resemblance. Am. J. Sci. 258A:300–311.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1963. The meaning of taxonomic statements. Pp. 1–31. In: Washburn, S. L., ed. Classification and Human Evolution. Aldine; Chicago.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1975. Recent advances in methods of phylogenetic inference. Pp. 3–19. In: Luckett, W. P. and Szalay, F. S., eds. Phylogeny of the Primates. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1980. Why and How: Some Problems and Methods in Historical Biology. Pergamon Press; New York.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 72:646–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. W. H. Freeman & Co.; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Szalay, F. S. 1977. Ancestors, descendants, sister groups and testing of phylogenetic hypotheses. Syst. Zool. 26:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1978. Why not to be a cladist. Evol. Theory. 3:285–299.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1980. Evolution, species and fossils: how does life evolve? South African J. Sci. 76:61–84.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1975. Karl R. Popper, systematics, and classification: a reply to Walter Bock and other evolutionary taxonomists. Syst. Zool. 24:233–243.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1978. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. Syst. Zool. 27:17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1979a. Ancestors, species, and cladograms—remarks on the symposium. Pp. 211–225. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1979b. An annotated Linnaean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Syst. Zool. 28:308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: the Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. John Wiley & Sons; New York.Google Scholar