Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:55:57.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of a hierarchical branching process as a model for species diversification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Molly Przeworski  and
Jeffrey D. Wall
Molly Przeworski
Affiliation:
Committee on Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: mfprzewo@midway.uchicago.edu
Jeffrey D. Wall
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: jdwall@midway.uchicago.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A hierarchical birth-death process is often used as a model for the diversification of species and higher taxa. We evaluate the validity of this null hypothesis by introducing a new measure: the distribution of species within higher taxa. The proportion of monotypic taxa and the number of species in the largest taxon generated by 1000 simulations are compared with extant mammalian data. The initial model is amended to include two sampling patterns, polyphyletic origins as well as ecological and genetic constraints on higher taxon origination rates. Simulated results are extremely variable. For genera, they are found to predict the true distribution of species quite well. For families, however, the null hypothesis is rejected in all its forms. Simulated distributions have both too many monotypic taxa and too large a dominant taxon. The latter finding stands in contrast to previous claims. Interestingly, although polyphyly and constraints slightly improve the fit of the simulations to the data, sampling does not. Finally, Smith and Patterson's dismissal of monotypic taxa is reviewed in light of this model. We argue that while some apparently monotypic taxa are sampling artifacts, this observation has no bearing on the true proportion of monotypic taxa.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , Fall 1998 , pp. 498 - 511
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

Anderson, S., and Anderson, C. 1975. Three Monte Carlo models of faunal evolution. American Museum Novitates 2563:1–6.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. G. 1979. Principles of statistics. Dover, New York.Google Scholar
Corbet, G. B., and Hill, J. E. 1991. A world list of mammalian species. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dial, K., and Marzluff, J. 1989. Nonrandom diversification within taxonomic assemblages. Systematic Zoology 38:26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eble, G. J. 1998. Testing the role of development in evolutionary radiations. In McKinney, M., ed. Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of populations, taxa, and communities. Columbia University Press, New York. (In press.)Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1992. A preliminary classification of evolutionary radiations. Historical Biology 6:133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1993. Early introduction of major morphological innovations. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 38:281–94.Google Scholar
Flessa, K. W., and Levinton, J. S. 1974. Phanerozoic diversity patterns: tests for randomness. Journal of Geology 83:239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1994. Temporal variation in extinction risk and temporal scaling of extinction metrics. Paleobiology 20:424–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J., Raup, D. M., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr.Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1977. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology 3:23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, C., and Slowinski, J. B. 1991. Comparisons of observed phylogenetic topologies with null expectations among three monophyletic lineages. Evolution 45:340–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyer, C. 1993. Adaptive radiation and the topology of large phylogenies. Evolution 47:253–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heard, S. B. 1992. Patterns in tree balance among cladistic, phenetic, and randomly generated phylogenetic trees. Evolution 46:1818–1826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, R. R. 1990. Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. In Futuyma, D. and Antonovics, J., eds. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7:1–44. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kendall, D. G. 1948. On the generalized “birth-and-death” process. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 19:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M., and Slatkin, M. 1993. Searching for evolutionary patterns in the shape of a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 47:1171–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemen, C. A., and Freeman, P. W. 1984. The genus: a macroevolutionary problem. Evolution 38:1219–1237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinton, J. S., and Farris, J. 1987. On the estimation of taxonomic longevity from Lyellian Curves. Paleobiology 13:479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooers, A. O. 1995. Tree balance and tree completeness. Evolution 49:379–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooers, A. O., Page, R. D. M., Purvis, A., and Harvey, P. H. 1995. Phylogenetic noise leads to unbalanced cladistic tree reconstructions. Systematic Biology 44:332–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. F. 1995. A hierarchical branching model of evolutionary radiations. Paleobiology 21:440–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pease, C. M. 1985. Biases in the durations and diversities of fossil taxa. Paleobiology 11:272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pease, C. M. 1987. Lyellian curves and mean taxonomic durations. Paleobiology 13:484–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pease, C. M. 1988. Biases in the survivorship curves of fossil taxa. Journal of Theoretical Biology 130:31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, A., Nee, S., and Harvey, P. H. 1995. Macroevolutionary inferences from primate phylogeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 260:329–333.Google ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M. 1985. Mathematical models of cladogenesis. Paleobiology 11:42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1991. A kill curve for Phanerozoic marine species. Paleobiology 17:37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology 81:525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyes, A., Pesole, G., and Saccone, C. 1998. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequence of the fat dormouse, Glis glis: further evidence of rodent paraphyly. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15:499–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, H. 1983. The shape of evolution: systematic tree topology. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 20:225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology 19:168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1992. A compendium of fossil marine animal families, 2d ed. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology, Milwaukee.Google ScholarPubMed
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Kendrick, D. 1993. Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa. Paleobiology 19:168–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sibley, C. G., and Monroe, B. L. Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Smith, A., and Patterson, C. 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology 23:127–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W., and Struhsaker, T. T. 1987. Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. 1990. Adaptive radiation and macroevolution. In Taylor, P. and Larwood, G., eds. Major evolutionary radiations. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stanley, S., Signor, P., Lidgard, S., and Karr, A. 1981. Natural clades differ from “random” clades: simulations and analyses. Paleobiology 7:115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1980. Determinants of diversity in higher taxonomic categories. Paleobiology 6:444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1995. Why no new phyla after the Cambrian? Genome and ecospace hypothesis revisited. Palaois 10:190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E., and Reeder, D. M., eds. 1993. Mammal species of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Wollenberg, K., Arnold, J., and Avise, J. C. 1996. Recognizing the forest for the trees: testing temporal patterns of cladogenesis using a null model of stochastic diversification. Molecular Biology and Evolution 13:833–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar