Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:05:34.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A re-evaluation of evolutionary stasis between the bivalve species Chione erosa and Chione cancellata (Bivalvia: Veneridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Peter D. Roopnarine
Peter D. Roopnarine*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Demonstrating stasis in the fossil record has proven to be problematic with respect to both data collection and analysis. A previous approach is morphometric analysis of lineages sampled temporally and geographically. A hypothesis of stasis is apparently supported if morphological distances between descendent species and ancestral species are no greater than those between geographically distant samples of the descendent species. Evidence presented in this paper conflicts with such interpretations for at least one bivalve lineage, Chione erosa–Chione cancellata, of the late Neogene of tropical America. The direction and magnitude of morphological variance were quantified between two geographically distant groups of C. cancellata from the Recent, and compared to Pleistocene samples of C. cancellata and Pliocene samples of C. erosa. The results indicate that, although the magnitude of intraspecific geographic variation is as great as interspecific temporal variation, the species are morphologically discrete groups. The direction of morphological variance is as important as its magnitude, and interpretations overlooking this point are at best equivocal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , March 1995 , pp. 280 - 287
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

Bookstein, F. L. 1987. Random walk and the existence of evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 13:446–464.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1988. Random walk and the biometrics of morphological characters. Evolutionary Biology, 23:369–398.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Cambridge University Press, New York, 435 p.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L., and Reyment, R. A. 1989. Microevolution in Brazilina studied by canonical variate analysis and analysis of landmarks. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 51:657–679.Google Scholar
Boulding, E. G., Buckland-Nicks, J., and Van Alstyne, K. L. 1993. Morphological and allozyme variation in Littorina sitkana and related Littorina species from the northeastern Pacific. The Veliger, 36:43–68.Google Scholar
Dall, W. H. 1902. Synopsis of the Veneridae and of the North American Recent species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 26(1312):335–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dall, W. H. 1903. Tertiary fauna of Florida. Veneridae. Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science, 3:1219–1334.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Monographs in Population Biology 21. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 336 p.Google Scholar
Geary, D. H. 1987. Evolutionary tempo and mode in a sequence of the Upper Cretaceous bivalve Pleuriocardia. Paleobiology, 13:140–151.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1974. Stratigraphic record of Early Eocene Hyopsodus and the geometry of mammalian phylogeny. Nature, 248:107–109.Google Scholar
Jung, P. 1969. Miocene and Pliocene mollusks from Trinidad. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 55:293–657.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1984. Multivariate analysis of evolutionary patterns of seven Miocene Chesapeake Group molluscs. Journal of Paleontology, 58:1235–1250.Google Scholar
Levinton, J. 1988. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge University Press, New York, 637 p.Google Scholar
Linneaus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae per regna triae naturae. Editio duodecima, retormata. Stockholm, Volume 1, Regnum animale. Pt. 2:533–1327.Google Scholar
Malmgren, B. A., and Kennett, J. P. 1981. Phyletic gradualism in a late Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal lineage; DSDP Site 284, southwest Pacific. Paleobiology, 7:230–240.Google Scholar
McGill, R., Tukey, J. W., and Larsen, W. A. 1978. Variations of box plots. The American Statistician, 32:12–16.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1990. Classifying and analysing evolutionary trends, p. 28–58. In McNamara, K. J. (ed.), Evolutionary Trends. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Palmer, K. 1927. The Veneridae of Eastern America, Cenozoic and Recent. Palaeontographica Americana, 1:209–522.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 1993. Systematics, biogeography and extinction of chionine bivalves in the late Neogene of tropical America. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Davis, 280 p.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 859 p.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1985. Rates of evolution. Paleobiology, 11:13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M., and Yang, X. 1987. Approximate evolutionary stasis for bivalve morphology over millions of years: a multivariate multilineage study. Paleobiology, 13:113–139.Google Scholar
Weisbord, N. E. 1964. Late Cenozoic pelecypods from northern Venezuela. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 45:5–564.Google Scholar
Williamson, P. G. 1981. Palaeontological documentation of speciation in Cenzoic molluscs from Turkana Basin. Nature, 293:437–443.Google Scholar