Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:40:39.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Molecular clock divergence estimates and the fossil record of Cetartiodactyla

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Jessica M. Theodor
Jessica M. Theodor*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Illinois State Museum, Springfield 62703,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Molecular clock estimates of divergence times for artiodactyls and whales vary widely in their agreement with the fossil record. Recent estimates indicate that the divergence of whales from artiodactyls occurred 60 Ma, a date which compares well with the first appearances of fossil whales around 53.5 Ma, and artiodactyls at 55 Ma. Other estimates imply significant gaps in the fossil record. A date of 65 Ma for the divergence of Suidae and Ruminantia predates the appearance of Ruminantia by over 10 million years, and an estimate of 58 Ma for the divergence of Suidae from Cetacea implies a gap of over 20 million years. Further, although a molecular clock estimate has not been reported, the hypothesis that hippos are the closest living relatives of the whales implies a potential ghost lineage for hippos of over 40 million years. There are only two living species of hippos, and their fossil record is sparse, while cetaceans and other artiodactyls are speciose and have rich fossil records. A 40-million-year gap in the fossil record of hippos could be explained by several possibilities: inadequate biogeographic sampling, taphonomic biases, or undifferentiated primitive morphology. Similarly, a number of possible problems may exist in the molecular data: rate variation in the genes sampled, the low numbers of genes examined, and insufficient age calibrations. In addition, there are potential problems in molecular phylogeny estimation, such as long branch attraction and inappropriate taxonomic sampling. Additional estimates of divergence times among living taxa should provide a broader framework for comparison with the fossil record and provide information to help identify which of these factors are causing conflict.

Type
Selected Papers from the Sixth North American Paleontological Convention
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 39 - 44
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

Arnason, U., and Gullberg, A. 1996. Cytochrome b nucleotide sequences and the identification of five primary lineages of extant cetaceans. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 13(2):407–417.Google Scholar
Bajpai, S., and Gingerich, P. D. 1998. A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(26):15464–15468.Google Scholar
Barnes, L. G., and Goedert, J. L. 2000. The world's oldest known odontocete (Mammalia: Cetacea). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 20(Supplement to No. 3):28A.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Deino, A. L., Hill, A., Kingston, J. D., and Saunders, J. J. 2002. Geology and geochronology of the middle Miocene Kipsaramon site complex, Muruyur Beds, Tugen Hills, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 42:11–38.Google Scholar
Berta, A., Ray, C. E., and Wyss, A. R. 1989. Skeleton of the oldest known pinniped, Enaliarctos mealsi. Science, 244:60–62.Google Scholar
Bromham, L., Penny, D., Rambaut, A., and Hendy, M. D. 2000. The power of relative rates tests depends on the data. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 50(3):296–301.Google Scholar
Colbert, E. H. 1935. Distributional and phylogenetic studies on Indian fossil mammals. IV. The phylogeny of the Indian Suidae and the origin of the Hippopotamidae. American Museum Novitates, 799:1–24.Google Scholar
Drake, R. E., Van Couvering, J. A., Pickford, M., Curtis, G. H., and Harris, J. A. 1988. New chronology for the Early Miocene mammalian faunas of Kisingiri, western Kenya. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 145:479–491.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 17:368–376.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. M. 1976. Molecular evolutionary clocks, p. 160–178. In Ayala, F. J. (ed.), Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Fordyce, R. E. 1989. Origins and evolution of Antarctic marine mammals. Special Publication of the Geological Society, London, 47:269–281.Google Scholar
Fordyce, R. E., and Barnes, L. G. 1994. The evolutionary history of whales and dolphins. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 22:419–455.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J. 1997. More DNA support for a Cetacea/Hippopotamidae clade: the blood clotting protein gene γ-fibrinogen. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 14(5):537–543.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J. 1998. Molecular evidence for the phylogenetic affinities of Cetacea, p. 63–111. In Thewissen, J. G. M. (ed.), The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea. Plenum Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J., Hayashi, C., Cronin, M. A., and Arctander, P. 1996. Evidence from milk casein genes that cetaceans are close relatives of hippopotamid artiodactyls. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 13(7):954–963.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J., Milinkovitch, M., Waddell, V., and Stanhope, M. 1999. Stability of cladistic relationships between Cetacea and higher-level artiodactyl taxa. Systematic Biology, 48(1):6–20.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1989. New earliest Wasatchian mammalian fauna from the Eocene of Northwestern Wyoming: composition and diversity in a rarely sampled high-floodplain assemblage. University of Michigan Papers in Paleontology, 28:1–97.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., ul Haq, M., Zalmout, I. S., Khan, I. H., and Malkani, M. S. 2001. Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science, 293:2239–2242.Google Scholar
Graur, D., and Higgins, D. G. 1994. Molecular evidence for the inclusion of cetaceans within the Order Artiodactyla. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 11(3):357–364.Google Scholar
Huchon, D., Catzeflis, F. M., and Douzery, E. J. P. 2000. Variance of molecular datings, evolution of rodents and the phylogenetic affinities between Ctenodactylidae and Hystricognathi. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B, Biological Science, 267(1441):393–402.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Crandall, K. A. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28:437–466.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Rannala, B. 1997. Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science, 276:227–232.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. L., and Downs, W. R. 1994. The evolution of murine rodents in Asia. In Tomida, Y., Li, C., and Setoguchi, T. (eds.), Rodents and Lagomorph Families of Asian Origin and Diversification. National Science Museum Monograph, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Janis, C. M., Scott, K. M., and Jacobs, L. L. 1998. Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America, Volume 1, Terrestrial Carnivores, Ungulates, and Ungulatelike Mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Kumar, S., and Hedges, B. S. 1998. A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution. Nature, 392:917–920.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology, 16:1–10.Google Scholar
McKenna, M. C., and Bell, S. K. 1997. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Milinkovitch, M. C., Bérubé, M., and Palsb⊘ll, P. J. 1998. Cetaceans are highly derived artiodactyls, p. 113–131. In Thewissen, J. G. M. (ed.), The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea. Plenum Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Nikaido, M., Matsuno, F., Hamilton, H., Brownell, R. L., Cao, Y., Ding, W., Zuoyan, Z., Shedlock, A. M., Fordyce, R. E., Hasegawa, M., and Okada, N. 2001. Retroposon analysis of major cetacean lineages: the monophyly of toothed whales and the paraphyly of river dolphins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(13):7384–7389.Google Scholar
Nikaido, M. A., Rooney, P., and Okada, N. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96:10261–10266.Google Scholar
Norman, J. E., and Ashley, M. V. 2000. Phylogenetics of Perissodactyla and tests of the molecular clock. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 50(1):11–21.Google Scholar
Pearson, H. S. 1927. On the skulls of early Tertiary Suidae, together with an account of the otic region in some other primitive Artiodactyla. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, CCXV(B):389–460.Google Scholar
Pickford, M. 1983. On the origins of the Hippopotamidae together with descriptions of two new species, a new genus and a new subfamily from the Miocene of Kenya. Géobios, 16:193–217.Google Scholar
Posada, D., and Crandall, K. A. 1998. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics, 14(9):817–818.Google Scholar
Robinson, M., Gouy, M., Gautier, C., and Mouchiroud, D. 1998. Sensitivity of the relative-rate test to taxonomic sampling. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 15(9):1091–1098.Google Scholar
Sarich, V. M., and Wilson, A. C. 1967. Immunological time scale for hominid evolution. Science, 158:1200–1203.Google Scholar
Savage, D. E., and Russell, D. E. 1983. Mammalian Paleofaunas of the World. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Solounias, N., Barry, J. C., Bernor, R. L., Lindsay, E. H., and Raza, S. Mahmood 1995. The oldest bovid from the Siwaliks, Pakistan. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 15(4):806–814.Google Scholar
Soltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., Savolainen, V., Crane, P. R., and Barraclough, T. G. 2002. Rate heterogeneity among lineages of tracheophytes: integration of molecular and fossil data and evidence for molecular living fossils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(7):4430–4435.Google Scholar
Sorhannus, U., and Van Bell, C. 1999. Testing for equality of molecular evolutionary rates: a comparison between a relative-rate test and a likelihood ratio test. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 16(6):849–855.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1992. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (PAUP). Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L., Olsen, G. J., Waddell, P. J., and Hillis, D. M. 1996. Phylogenetic inference, p. 407–543. In Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C., and Mable, B. K. (eds.), Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Tajima, F. 1993. Simple methods for testing the molecular clock hypothesis. Genetics, 135:599–607.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. G. M., Williams, E. M., Roe, L. J., and Hussain, S. T. 2001. Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls. Nature, 413:277–281.Google Scholar
Tourasse, N. J., and Li, W.-H. 1999. Performance of the relative-rate test under nonstationary models of nucleotide substitution. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 16(8):1068–1078.Google Scholar
Wayne, R. K., Van Valkenburgh, B., and O'Brien, S. J. 1991. Molecular distance and divergence time in carnivores and primates. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 8(3):297–319.Google Scholar