Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:01:03.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of clade-shape statistics using simulations and extinct families of mammals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Mark D. Uhen
Mark D. Uhen*
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of clade-shape statistics, particularly center of gravity, on paraphyletic groups has been questioned since the introduction of these descriptive statistics. In addition, previous studies have found that early-arising groups of organisms are bottom-heavy in center of gravity relative to later-arising groups, leading to macroevolutionary hypotheses about the nature of diversification. Paraphyletic groups have been asserted to be inherently bottom-heavy because of preconceived ideas as to how paraphyletic group formation affects center of gravity. In turn, early-arising groups of organisms have been asserted to be bottom-heavy because they also tend to be paraphyletic, thus calling into question the biological significance of the bottom-heaviness of early-arising groups.

In this study, both computer simulations and the evolutionary history of families of mammals show that paraphyletic groups are inherently top-heavy. Simulated monophyletic clades and monophyletic families of mammals have centers of gravity near their expected positions at the midpoint of clade duration, while paraphyletic groups are significantly top-heavy.

Early-arising families of mammals are found to be inherently top-heavy, rather than bottom-heavy as found by earlier studies. This new result is likely to be due to the use of updated stratigraphic range data and different taxonomic assignments rather than to bias due to inclusion of paraphyletic groups or bias due to unequal time-unit lengths in the Cenozoic time scale.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Winter 1996 , pp. 8 - 22
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. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology 20:63–69.Google Scholar
Aubry, M.-P., Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Flynn, J. J., Klitgord, K. D., Obradovich, J. D., and Prothero, D. R. 1988. Paleogene geochronology: an integrated approach. Paleoceanography 3:707–742.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. L. 1988. Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan 28:101–140.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:7325–7329.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., Gilinsky, N. L., and German, R. Z. 1987. Asymmetry of lineages and the direction of evolutionary time. Science 236:1437–1441.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.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., and MacLeod, N. 1988. Macroevolutionary interpretations of symmetry and synchroneity in the fossil record. Science 240:1190–1193.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1985. Mathematical models of cladogenesis. Paleobiology 11:42–52.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., Simberloff, D. S. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. The Journal of Geology 81:525–542.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Gould, S. J. 1974. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology 23:305–322.Google Scholar
Savage, D. E., and Russell, D. E. 1983. Mammalian paleofaunas of the world. Addison-Wesley, London.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology 4:223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry, 2d ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar