Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:15:22.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kosmoceras: Evolutionary Jumps and Sedimentary Breaks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

David M. Raup and
Rex E. Crick
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brinkmann (1929) argued that phyletic evolution in the Jurassic ammonite Kosmoceras is sufficiently linear that the amount of time missing at diastems can be estimated by the magnitude of morphologic jumps at those horizons. Brinkmann's unpublished raw data have been re-analyzed in order to evaluate the association between evolutionary jumps and physical breaks. All horizons in Brinkmann's 1400 centimeter stratigraphic section have been tested for morphological jumps. Up to 40 statistically significant morphological jumps exist in the section, the actual number depending on the sample interval used. A few of these correspond to the jumps found by Brinkmann and a few coincide with diastems. However, the correspondence between morphological jumps and physical breaks is not as consistent as was thought by Brinkmann. Furthermore, it is argued that the association between physical and biological discontinuities is not dependent on linear evolution but rather is the expected condition wherever phyletic evolution occurs. Due to the irregularity and unpredictability of evolutionary change in Kosmoceras, morphologic jumps cannot be used to assess the amount of time missing at diastems.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Spring 1982, pp. 90 - 100
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Brinkmann, R. 1928. Statistisch-phylogenetische Untersuchungen an Ammoniten. Verhandl. V. Internat. Kongr. Vererbungswiss. (Supp. I.) Pp. 496–513.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, R. 1929. Statistisch-biostratigraphische Untersuchungen an mitteljurassischen Ammoniten über Artbegriff und Stammesenwicklung. Abh., Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, Math-Phys. K., N.F. 13(3):1–249.Google Scholar
Callomon, J. H. 1963. Sexual dimorphism in Jurassic ammonites. Trans. Leicester Litt. Philos. Soc. 57:21–66.Google Scholar
Duff, K. L. 1975. Palaeoecology of a bituminous shale—the Lower Oxford Clay of Central England. Paleontology. 18:443–482.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. J. Paleontol. 41:43–65.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1977. Stochastic models in evolutionary paleontology. Pp. 59–78. In: Hallam, A., ed. Patterns of Evolution. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co.; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Crick, R. E. 1981. Evolution of single characters in the Jurassic ammonite Kosmoceras . Paleobiology. 7:200–215.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1973. Introduction to Biostatistics. W. H. Freeman Company; San Francisco, Ca.Google Scholar
Wallis, W. A. and Roberts, H. V. 1956. Statistics. The Free Press; Glencoe, Illinois.Google Scholar
Yule, G. U. 1926. Why do we sometimes get nonsense-correlations between time-series?—study in sampling and the nature of time-series. J. R. Statist. Soc. 89:1–64.Google Scholar