Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:49:41.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survivorship in the Bivalvia: comparing living and extinct genera and families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Norman L. Gilinsky
Norman L. Gilinsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

George Gaylord Simpson was one of the first paleontologists to apply survivorship analysis to the study of fossil taxa. His finding that the survivorship curve for extant bivalve genera plotted above that for extinct genera led him to conclude that bivalve genera are drawn from at least two distinct distributions of longevities, and formed the fundamental basis for his influential concepts of horotelic and bradytelic evolutionary rates. Survivorship curves presented in this paper show the same pattern of disjunct survivorship in genera from the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology and in families from Sepkoski's compendium.

Some of the observed differences between survivorship curves are artificial, occurring because long-lived genera and families are more likely to survive to the Recent than short-lived genera and families. The living fauna thus contains a disproportionate number of long-lived genera and families, and the survivorship curve for the living fauna is expected to lie above that for the extinct fauna for this reason alone—even if all longevities are drawn from the same distribution. Recognition of this bias led Raup (1975) to question the significance of the survivorship patterns presented by Van Valen (1973), and Stanley's (1984) acceptance of Raup's argument led him to dismiss the survivorship pattern discovered by Simpson. But statistical analysis using bootstrapping shows that this bias accounts for only a small proportion of the difference between survivorship curves. Other biases considered, such as “pull of the Recent,” “asymmetrical range truncation,” and erroneous concatenation of stratigraphic ranges, do not account for the pattern either. Although still other biases, as yet unknown, cannot definitively be ruled out, it appears that the longevities of extinct and living bivalve taxa are meaningfully different, and that the fundamental causes are biological.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , Fall 1988 , pp. 370 - 386
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

Literature Cited

Campbell, L., Campbell, S., Colquhoun, D., and Ernissee, J. 1975. Plio-Pleistocene faunas of the Central Carolina Coastal Plain. Geologic Notes, South Carolina State Development Board, Division of Geology 19:52–124.Google Scholar
Cox, L. R. and Others. 1969. Bivalvia. Pp.N1-N1224. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas; Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N. L. and Bambach, R. K. 1986. The evolutionary bootstrap: a new approach to the study of taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 12:251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. J. and Clark, V. A. 1975. Survival Distributions: reliability applications in the biomedical sciences. John Wiley & Sons; New York. 331 pp.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Estabrook, G., and MacLeod, N. 1987. Testing for equality of rates of evolution. Paleobiology 13:272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemche, H. 1957. A new living deep-sea mollusc of the Cambro-Devonian Class Monoplacophora. Nature 179:413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, A. A. 1964. Neogene Mollusks from Northwestern Ecuador. Paleontological Research Institution; Ithaca, New York. 256 pp.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1983. The decade of North American Geology 1983 geologic time scale. Geology 11:503–504.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1972. Taxonomic diversity during the Phanerozoic. Science 177:1065–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M. 1975. Taxonomic survivorship curves and Van Valen's Law. Paleobiology 1:82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1978. Cohort analysis of generic survivorship. Paleobiology 4:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1987. Major features of the fossil record and their implications for evolutionary rate studies. Pp. 1–14. In Campbell, K. S. W., and Day, M. F. (eds.), Rates of Evolution. Allen & Unwin; London.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1984. Constructional morphology of bivalves: evolutionary pathways in primary versus secondary soft-bottom dwellers. Paleontology 27:207–237.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1975. Stratigraphic biases in the analysis of taxonomic survivorship. Paleobiology 1:343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. A Compendium of Fossil Marine Families. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions to Biology and Geology No. 51. 125 pp.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press; New York. 237 pp.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution. W. H. Freeman & Co.; San Francisco. 332 pp.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1984. Does bradytely exist? Pp. 278–280. In Eldredge, N., and Stanley, S. M. (eds.), Living Fossils. Springer-Verlag; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1–30.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1979. Taxonomic survivorship curves. Evolutionary Theory 4:129–142.Google Scholar