Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T03:28:50.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

J. John Sepkoski Jr. and
David C. Kendrick
J. John Sepkoski Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
David C. Kendrick
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , Spring 1993, pp. 168 - 184
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

Allmon, W. D. 1992. Genera in paleontology: definition and significance. Historical Biology 6:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. 1974. Patterns of faunal evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 49:311–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archibald, J. D., and Bryant, L. J. 1990. Differential Cretaceous/Tertiary extinctions of nonmarine vertebrates; evidence from northeastern Montana. Pp. 549–562in 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. 119–147in 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. 194–263in 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
Darwin, C. 1959. On the origin of species. J. Murray, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D. 1992. Trilobite phylogeny and the Cambrian-Ordovician “event”: cladistic reappraisal. Pp. 144–177in 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. 103–122in 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. 148in 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. 19–38in 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. 28–58in 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. 89–118in 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. 1991. A kill curve for Phanerozoic marine species. Paleobiology 17:37–48.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. 1986. Periodic extinctions of families and genera. Science 231:833–836.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. 136–156in Gilinsky and Signor, eds. 1991.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1992a. Diversity in the Phanerozoic oceans: a partisan review. Pp. 210–236in 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. 77–100in 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. 3–36in 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. 129–150in 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