Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T10:35:21.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The use of paleontology in systematics and biogeography, and a time control refinement for historical biogeography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Lance Grande*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605

Abstract

Four main potential contributions of fossils to phylogenetic systematics and historical biogeography are (1) to provide additional taxa which (when sufficiently well preserved) can give new morphological and ontogenetic data in addition to those provided by Recent species; (2) to provide additional taxa which can increase the known biogeographic range of a taxon; (3) to help establish a minimum age for a taxon; and (4) to present fossil biotas that can be examined for biogeographic patterns not recognizable in younger (including the Recent) or older biotas.

The first three points have been expressed or at least implied by other workers and are only briefly reviewed. The fourth point is proposed as a method of using fossil biotas to provide time controls to cladistic studies of historical biogeography. Previously, cladistic vicariance biogeographers have used fossil plus Recent biotas, or the Recent biota alone, for the geographic areas of study. Such investigations that lack any time control in the data base cannot effectively deal with areas that have complex histories as, for example, an earlier area of endemism in which area relationships are later complicated through the addition of exotic taxa by dispersal. By using time controls provided by fossil biotas, we may learn more about the relationships of areas with complex histories and may reveal biogeographical information that is sometimes unavailable through examination of the Recent biota.

Type
Articles
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

Bretsky, S. S. 1975. Allopatry and ancestors: a response to Cracraft. Syst. Zool. 24:113119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, M.-M. and Chou, C.-C. 1976. Discovery of Pleisiolycoptera in Songhauajiang-Liaoning Basin and origin of Osteoglossomorpha. Vert. Palasiatica 14(3):146153. (In Chinese.)Google Scholar
Chang, M.-M. and Chou, C.-C. 1978. On the fossil fishes in Mesozoic and Cenozoic oil-bearing strata from east China and their sedimentary environment. Vert. Palasiatica 16(4):229237.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1984. Conceptual and methodological aspects of the study of evolutionary rates, with some comments on bradytely in birds. Pp. 95103. In: Eldredge, N. and Stanley, S. M., eds. Living Fossils. Springer-Verlag; New York.Google Scholar
Croizat, L. 1958. Panbiogeography. 3 vols. Published by the author; Caracas. 1018 pp. (vol. 1); 1731 pp. (vols. 2a, 2b).Google Scholar
Croizat, L. 1964. Space, Time, Form: The Biological Synthesis. Published by the author; Caracas. 881 pp.Google Scholar
Darlington, P. J. 1957. Zoogeography: The Geographical Distribution of Animals. John Wiley; New York. 675 pp.Google Scholar
Grande, L. 1982. A revision of the fossil genus Diplomystus, with comments on the interrelationships of clupeomorph fishes. Amer. Mus. Novitates. 2728:134.Google Scholar
Grande, L. 1984. The paleontology of the Green River Formation, with a review of the fish fauna, 2nd ed. Wyoming Geol. Surv. Bull. 63:1334.Google Scholar
Greenwood, P. H. 1970. On the genus Lycoptera and its relationship with the family Hiodontidae (Pisces, Osteoglossomorpha). Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Zool. 19(8):257285.Google Scholar
Keast, A. 1977. Zoography and phylogeny: the theoretical background and methodology to the analysis of mammal and bird faunas. In: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C., and Hecht, B. M., eds. Major Patterns of Vertebrate Evolution. Plenum; New York.Google Scholar
Lagios, M. D. and McCosker, J. E. 1979. Introduction. Pp. 15. In: Lagios, M. D. and McCosker, J. E., eds. The Biology and Physiology of the Living Coelacanth. Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 134.Google Scholar
Lazarus, D. B. and Prothero, D. R. 1984. The role of stratigraphic and morphologic data in phylogeny. J. Paleontol. 58:163172.Google Scholar
L⊘vtrup, S. 1977. The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. Wiley; New York. 330 pp.Google Scholar
MacGinitie, H. D. 1969. The Eocene Green River flora of northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah. Univ. Calif. Pub. Geol. Sci. 83. 140 pp.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. and Platnick, N. I. 1980. A vicariance approach to historical biogeography. BioScience. 30(5):339343.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. and Platnick, N. I. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia Univ. Press; New York. 567 pp.Google Scholar
Novacek, M. J. and Norell, M. A. 1982. Fossils, phylogeny, and taxonomic rates of evolution. Syst. Zool. 31:366375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. 1973. Interrelationships of holosteans. Pp. 233305. In: Greenwood, P. H., Miles, R. S., and Patterson, C., eds. Interrelationships of Fishes. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1981a. Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12:195223.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1981b. Methods of paleogeography. Pp. 446489. In: Nelson, G. and Rosen, D. E., eds. Vicariance Biogeography: A Critique. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1981c. The development of the North American fish fauna—a problem of historical biogeography. Pp. 265281. In: Greenwood, P. H. and Forey, P. L., eds. The Evolving Biosphere. Cambridge Univ. Press; Cambridge.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. and Rosen, D. E. 1977. Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 158(2):81172.Google Scholar
Platnick, N. I. and Nelson, G. 1978. A method of analysis for historical biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:116.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. E. 1975. A vicariance model of Caribbean biogeography. Syst. Zool. 24:431464.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. E. 1978. Vicariant patterns and historical explanation in biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:159188.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. E. and Patterson, C. 1969. The structure and relationships of the paracanthopterygian fishes. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 141(3):357474.Google Scholar
Savage, J. M. 1982. The enigma of the Central American herpetofauna: dispersals or vicariance? Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 69:464547.Google Scholar
Scott, G. R. 1975. Cenozoic surfaces and deposits in the southern Rocky Mountains. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 141:227248.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1969. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia Univ. Press; New York. 247 pp.Google Scholar
Solem, A. 1981. Response. Pp. 235237. In: Nelson, G. and Rosen, D. E., eds. Vicariance Biogeography: A Critique. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Taverne, L. 1979. Ostéologie, phylogénèse et systématique des Téléostéens fossils et actuels du super-ordre des Ostéoglossomorphes. Troisième partie. Evolution des structures ostéologiques et conclusions générales relatives à la phylogénèse et à la systématique du super-ordre. Acad. Roy. Belgique, Mém. Cl. Sc., Coll. in-80 43(3). 168 pp.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. Wiley; New York. 439 pp.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. V. H. 1977. Middle Eocene freshwater fishes from British Columbia. Roy. Ont. Mus., Life Sc. Contr. 113:161.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. V. H. 1980. Oldest known Esox (Pisces: Esocidae), part of a new Palaeocene teleost fauna from western Canada. Can. J. Earth Sci. 17:307312.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. V. H. 1984. Year dimorphism in the Eocene catostomid fish Amyzon aggregatum. J. Vert. Paleontol. 3:137142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar