Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa | Paleobiology | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

The problem of how accurately paraphyletic taxa versus monophyletic (i.e., holophyletic) groups (clades) capture underlying species patterns of diversity and extinction is explored with Monte Carlo simulations. Phylogenies are modeled as stochastic trees. Paraphyletic taxa are defined in an arbitrary manner by randomly choosing progenitors and clustering all descendants not belonging to other taxa. These taxa are then examined to determine which are clades, and the remaining paraphyletic groups are dissected to discover monophyletic subgroups. Comparisons of diversity patterns and extinction rates between modeled taxa and lineages indicate that paraphyletic groups can adequately capture lineage information under a variety of conditions of diversification and mass extinction. This suggests that these groups constitute more than mere “taxonomic noise” in this context. But, strictly monophyletic groups perform somewhat better, especially with regard to mass extinctions. However, when low levels of paleontologic sampling are simulated, the veracity of clades deteriorates, especially with respect to diversity, and modeled paraphyletic taxa often capture more information about underlying lineages. Thus, for studies of diversity and taxic evolution in the fossil record, traditional paleontologic genera and families need not be rejected in favor of cladistically-defined taxa.

References

Allmon, W. D. 1992. Genera in paleontology: definition and significance. Historical Biology 6:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archibald, J. D., and Bryant, L. J. 1990. Differential Cretaceous/Tertiary extinctions of nonmarine vertebrates; evidence from northeastern Montana. Pp. 549–562_in_ Sharpton, V. L. and Ward, P. D., eds. Global catastrophes in Earth history. Geological Society of America Special Paper 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cappetta, H. 1987. Extinctions et renouvellements fauniques chez les Sélachiens post-jurassique. Mémoires de la Societe Géologique de Frances, N.S. 150:113–131.Google Scholar

Connor, E. F. 1986. Time series analysis in the fossil record. Pp. 119–147_in_ Raup, D. M. and Jablonski, D., eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooper, G. A. 1970. Generic characters of brachiopods. Pp. 194–263_in_ Amsden, T. W., ed. The genus: a basic concept in paleontology. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention, Chicago, 1969.Google Scholar

Craske, A. J., and Jefferies, R. P. S. 1989. A new mitrate from the Upper Ordovician of Norway, and a new approach to subdividing a plesion. Palaeontology 32:69–99.Google Scholar

Edgecombe, G. D. 1992. Trilobite phylogeny and the Cambrian-Ordovician “event”: cladistic reappraisal. Pp. 144–177_in_ Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinctions and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Fisher, D. C. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis and its application in evolutionary paleobiology. Pp. 103–122_in_ Gilinsky and Signor, eds. 1991.Google Scholar

Gilinsky, N. L., and Signor, P. W., eds. 1991. Analytical paleobiology. Short courses in paleontology 4. The Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar

Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. D. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haszprunar, G. 1986. Die klado-evolutionäre Klassifikation—Versuch einer Synthese. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24:89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haszprunar, G. 1988. On the origin and evolution of major gastropod groups, with special reference to the Streptoneura. Journal of Molluscan Studies 54:367–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jablonski, D., and Flessa, K. W. 1986. The taxonomic structure of shallow-water marine faunas: implications for Phanerozoic extinctions. Malacologia 27:43–66.Google Scholar

Janis, C. 1992. The importance of paraphyletic groups in mammalian paleobiology. P. 148_in_ Lidgard, S. and Crane, P. R., eds. Fifth North American Paleontological Convention Abstracts with Program. Paleontological Society Special Publication No. 6. The Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar

Kier, P. M. 1977. The poor fossil record of the regular echinoid. Paleobiology 3:168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leman, C. A., and Freeman, P. W. 1984. The genus: a macroevolutionary problem. Evolution 38:1219–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 16:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marshall, C. R. 1991. Estimation of taxonomic ranges from the fossil record. Pp. 19–38_in_ Gilinsky and Signor, eds. 1991.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. 1943. Criteria for subspecies, species and genera in ornithology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 44:133–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar

Mayr, E., Linsley, E. G., and Usinger, R. L. 1953. Methods and principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar

McKinney, M. L. 1990. Classifying and analysing evolutionary trends. Pp. 28–58_in_ McNamara, K. J., ed. Evolutionary trends. Belhaven, London.Google Scholar

Newell, N. D. 1952. Periodicity in invertebrate evolution. Journal of Paleontology 26:371–385.Google Scholar

Newell, N. D. 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geological Society of America Special Paper 89:63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norrel, M. A. 1992. Taxic origin and temporal diversity: the effect of phylogeny. Pp. 89–118_in_ Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Patterson, C., and Rosen, D. E. 1977. Review of ichthodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 158:81–172.Google Scholar

Patterson, C., and Smith, A. B. 1987. Is periodicity of mass extinctions a taxonomic artefact? Nature 330:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patterson, C. 1989. Periodicity in extinction: the role of systematics. Ecology 70:802–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raup, D. M. 1979a. Biases in the fossil record of species and genera. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 13:85–91.Google Scholar

Raup, D. M. 1979b. Size of the Permo-Triassic bottleneck and its evolutionary implications. Science 206:217–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Raup, D. M., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1984. Periodicity of extinctions in the geologic past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 81:801–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology 81:525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadler, P. M. 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. Journal of Geology 89:569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schindel, D. E. 1980. Microstratigraphic sampling and the limits of paleontologic resolution. Paleobiology 6:408–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schindel, D. E. 1982. Resolution analysis: a new approach to gaps in the fossil record. Paleobiology 8:340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology 4:223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1979. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. II. Early Phanerozoic families and multiple equilibria. Paleobiology 5:222–252.Google Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology 7:36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. A compendium of fossil marine families. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology No. 51.Google Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1984. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. III. Post-Paleozoic families and mass extinctions. Paleobiology 10:246–267.Google Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1987. Is the periodicity of extinctions a taxonomic artefact? Reply. Nature 330:251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1989. Periodicity in extinction and the problem of catastrophism in the history of life. Journal of the Geological Society, London 146:7–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1991. Population biology models in paleobiology. Pp. 136–156_in_ Gilinsky and Signor, eds. 1991.Google Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1992a. Diversity in the Phanerozoic oceans: a partisan review. Pp. 210–236_in_ Dudley, E., ed. Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, Proceedings. Dioscorides, Portland, Ore.Google Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1992b. Phylogenetic and ecologic patterns in the Phanerozoic history of marine biodiversity. Pp. 77–100_in_ Eldredge, N., ed. Systematics, ecology and the biodiversity crisis. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Raup, D. M. 1986. Periodicity of marine extinction events. Pp. 3–36_in_ Elliott, D. K., ed. Dynamics of extinction. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar

Signor, P. W. 1985. Real and apparent trends in species richness through time. Pp. 129–150_in_ Valentine, J. W., ed. Phanerozoic diversity patterns: profiles in macroevolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar

Signor, P. W. 1990. The geologic history of diversity. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 21:509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Signor, P. W., and Lipps, J. H. 1982. Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns, and catastrophes in the fossil record. Geological Society of America Special Paper 190:291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1943. Criteria for genera, species and subspecies in zoology and paleozoology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 44:145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1952. Periodicity in vertebrate evolution. Journal of Paleontology 26:359–370.Google Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1953. The major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slowinski, J. B., and Guyer, C. 1990. Testing the stochasticity of patterns of organismal diversity: an improved null model. American Naturalist 134:907–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slowinski, J. B. 1991. Comparisons of observed phylogenetic topologies with null expectations among three monophyletic lineages. Evolution 45:340–350.Google Scholar

Smith, A. B., and Patterson, C. 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology 23:127–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stanley, S. M. 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 72:646–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: pattern and process. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar

Stanley, S. M., Signor, P. W. III, Lidgard, S., and Karr, A. F. 1981. Natural clades differ from “random” clades: simulations and analyses. Paleobiology 7:115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stehli, F. G., McAlester, A. L., and Helsley, C. E. 1967. Taxonomic diversity of Recent bivalves and some implications for geology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 78:455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strauss, D., and Sadler, P. M. 1989. Confidence intervals and Bayesian probability estimates for ends of local taxon ranges. Mathematical Geology 21:411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Valentine, J. W. 1969. Patterns of taxonomic and ecological structure of the shelf benthos during Phanerozoic time. Palaeontology 12:684–709.Google Scholar

Valentine, J. W. 1973. Evolutionary paleoecology of the marine biosphere. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar

Wiley, E. O. 1980. Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar

Willis, J. C. 1922. Age and area. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar