Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity | Paleobiology | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Morphological and taxonomic diversity each provide insight into the expansion and contraction of major biological groups, while the nature of the relationship between these two aspects of diversity also has important implications for evolutionary mechanisms. In this paper, I compare morphological and taxonomic diversity within the classes Blastoidea and Trilobita, and within the trilobite clades Libristoma, Asaphina, Proetida, Phacopida, and Scutelluina. Blastoid morphology is quantified with homologous landmarks on the theca, and trilobite form is measured with a Fourier description of the cranidium. Morphological diversity is measured as the total variance among forms in morphological space (proportional to the mean squared distance among forms). Blastoid taxonomic diversity is based on published compilation of stratigraphic ranges of genera. The Zoological Record was used to determine the number of new species of trilobites described since the publication of the Treatise; temporal patterns in species richness are similar to those for generic richness based on the Treatise, suggesting a common underlying signal.

Morphological variety and taxonomic richness often increase together during the initial diversification of a clade. This pattern is consistent with diffusion through morphospace, although some form of adaptive radiation cannot be ruled out. Morphological diversity varies little throughout much of the history of Proetida, a pattern that may suggest major constraints on the magnitude and direction of evolution, and that agrees with the perception of Proetida as a morphologically conservative group. Two major patterns are seen during the decline of clades. In Blastoidea, Trilobita, Libristoma, and Asaphina, morphological diversity is maintained at substantial levels, and in fact continues to increase, even in the face of striking reductions in taxonomic richness. This pattern suggests continued diffusion through morphospace and taxonomic attrition that is effectively non-selective with respect to morphology. In Phacopida, Scutelluina, and to some extent in Proetida, morphological diversity decreases along with taxonomic diversity. This pattern suggests heterogeneities such as elevated extinction and/or reduced origination in certain regions of morphospace. As found previously for the echinoderm subphylum Blastozoa, all studied clades of trilobites except Proetida show maximal morphological diversity in the Mid–Late Ordovician and maximal taxonomic diversity sometime during the Ordovician, suggesting some degree of common control on diversification patterns in these groups.

References

Anstey, R. L., and Pachut, J. F. 1992. Cladogenesis and speciation in early bryozoans. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 24:A139.Google Scholar

Bambach, R. K., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1992. Historical evolutionary information in the traditional Linnean hierarchy. P. 16_in_ Lidgard, S. and Crane, P. R., eds. Fifth North American Paleontological Convention abstracts and program (Paleontological Society Special Publication No. 6). The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar

Breimer, A., and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1972. The phylogeny of the fissiculate blastoids. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Natuurkunde, Erste Reeks 26:1–390.Google Scholar

Briggs, D. E. G., Fortey, R. A., and Wills, M. A. 1992. Morphological disparity in the Cambrian. Science 256:1670–1673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Broadhead, T. W. 1984. Macurdablastus, a middle Ordovician blastoid from the southern Appalachians. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 110:1–10.Google Scholar

Campbell, K. S. W., and Marshall, C. R. 1987. Rates of evolution among Palaeozoic echinoderms. Pp. 61–100_in_ Campbell, K. S. W. and Day, M. F., eds. Rates of evolution. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar

Cherry, L. M., Case, S. M., Kunkel, J. G., Wyles, J. S., and Wilson, A. C. 1982. Body shape metrics and organismal evolution. Evolution 36:914–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Compston, W., Williams, I. S., Kirschvink, J. L., Zichao, Z., and Guogan, M. 1992. Zircon U-Pb ages for the Early Cambrian timescale. Journal of the Geological Society, London 149:171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooper, J. A., Jenkins, R. J. F., Compston, W., and Williams, I. S. 1992. Ion-probe zircon dating of a mid-Early Cambrian tuff in South Australia. Journal of the Geological Society, London 149:185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cowie, J. W., and Harland, W. B. 1989. Chronometry. Pp. 186–198_in_ Cowie, J. W. and Brasier, M. D., eds. The Precambrian-Cambrian boundary. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar

Efron, B. 1982. The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eldredge, N., and Braniša, L. 1980. Calmoniid trilobites of the Lower Devonian Scaphiocoelia Zone of Bolivia, with remarks on related species. Bulletin, American Museum of Natural History 165:181–289.Google Scholar

Erwin, D. H. 1992. A preliminary classification of evolutionary radiations. Historical Biology 6:133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisher, D. C. 1986. Progress in organismal design. Pp. 99–117_in_ Raup, D. M. and Jablonski, D., eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foote, M. 1988. Survivorship analysis of Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology 14:258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foote, M. 1989. Perimeter-based Fourier analysis: a new morphometric method applied to the trilobite cranidium. Journal of Paleontology 63:880–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foote, M. 1990. Nearest-neighbor analysis of trilobite morphospace. Systematic Zoology 39:371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foote, M. 1991a. Morphologic patterns of diversification: examples from trilobites. Palaeontology 34:461–485.Google Scholar

Foote, M. 1991b. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 28:101–140. 91:127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whittington, H. B., and Hughes, C. P. 1972. Ordovician geography and faunal provinces deduced from trilobite distribution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 263:235–278.Google Scholar