Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:56:41.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of phylogenetic analysis for the assessment of species turnover: a case history of Paleocene mammals in North America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

J. David Archibald
J. David Archibald*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182-0057
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the latest Cretaceous and the Paleocene in western North America, disappearance rates for mammalian genera track appearance rates, both reaching their peak in the early Paleocene (Puercan) following the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. Some of the disappearances during this time were pseudoextinctions that resulted when ancestral species disappeared during speciation.

Species-level cladistic analyses and a well-constrained biostratigraphic framework are required to study this form of pseudoextinction. Cladistic analyses show that monophyly cannot be established or rejected for some species because these species lack autapomorphies (uniquely derived character states) that unite their constituent members. Such taxa, termed metaspecies, are potential ancestors to species and higher clades with which they share a node in the cladogram.

A hypothetical species-level cladistic analysis coupled with three different hypothetical biostratigraphies shows how different models of speciation (bifurcation, budding, or anagenesis) result in very different patterns of true versus pseudoextinction. Depending on the speciation model, true extinction can be overestimated by as much as a factor of four, raising the specter of mass extinction. Species-level studies for three early Tertiary mammalian taxa—taeniodont eutherians, taeniolabidid multituberculates, and periptychid ungulates—use the same procedures. They show that almost 25% of disappearances during the early Paleocene (Puercan) for species in the analysis were pseudoextinctions of metaspecies. Budding and anagenetic-like peripatric speciation, but not bifurcation, are seen in the three examples.

Equating disappearance to true extinction can profoundly affect interpretations of faunal turnover, especially during mass extinctions or major faunal reorganizations. Some authors use pseudoextinction to describe the taxonomic rather than evolutionary disappearance of nonmonophyletic groups. Pseudoextinction, as used here refers only to the evolutionary disappearance of metaspecies via speciation. Both usages seem appropriate but should not be confounded.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Winter 1993 , pp. 1 - 27
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

Archibald, J. D. 1982. A study of Mammalia and geology across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in Garfield County, Montana. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 122:1–286Google Scholar
Archibald, J. D. In press. Archaic ungulates (“Condylarthra”). In Janis, C., Scott, K. M., and Jacobs, L., eds. Tertiary mammals in North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. D., and Bryant, L. J. 1990. Differential Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions of non-marine vertebrates: evidence from northeastern Montana. Pp. 549–562in Sharpton, V. L., and Ward, P. D., eds., Global catastrophes in earth history: an interdisciplinary conference in impacts, volcanism, and mass mortality. Special Paper, Geological Society of America 247. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. D., and Lofgren, D. L. 1990. Mammalian zonation near the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Pages 31–50in Bown, T. M., and Rose, K. D., eds. Dawn of the Age of Mammals in the northern part of the Rocky Mountain interior, North America. Special Paper, Geological Society of America 243. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. D., Schoch, R. M., and Rigby, J. K. Jr. 1983. A new subfamily, Conacodontinae, and new species, Conacodon kohlbergeri, of the Periptychidae (Condylarthra, Mammalia). Yale University, Peabody Museum Postilla 191:1–24.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. D., Clemens, W. A., Gingerich, P. D., Krause, D. W., Lindsay, E. H., and Rose, K. D. 1987. First North American land mammal ages of the Cenozoic Era. Pp. 24–76in Woodburne, M. O., ed. Cenozoic mammals of North America: geochronology and biostratigraphy. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ashlock, P. D. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology 20:63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, T. M., and Rose, K. D. 1987. Patterns of dental evolution in early Eocene anaptomorphine primates (Omomyidae) from the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. Paleontological Society Memoir 23. Journal of Paleontology (Suppl.) 61. Paleontological Society, Tulsa, Okla.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, D. R., and McLennan, D. A. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology, and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Bryant, L. J. 1989. Non-dinosaurian lower vertebrates across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in northeastern Montana. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 134:1–107.Google Scholar
Bush, G. L. 1975. Modes of animal speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6:339–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cifelli, R. L., Schaff, C. R., and McKenna, M. C. 1989. The relationships of the Arctostylopidae (Mammalia): new data and interpretation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 152:1–44.Google Scholar
Clemens, W. A., Lillegraven, J. A., Lindsay, E. H., and Simpson, G. G. 1979. Where, when, and what—a survey of known Mesozoic mammal distribution. Pp. 7–58in Lillegraven, J. A., Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., and Clemens, W. A., eds. Mesozoic mammals: the first two-thirds of mammalian history. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Donoghue, M. J. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species concept. Cladistics 4:317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology 39:307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, Th. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher 35:125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibrium: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Pp. 82–115in Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Engelmann, G. F., and Wiley, E. O. 1977. The place of ancestor-descendant relationships in phylogeny reconstruction. Systematic Zoology 26:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, J. A., Estes, R., and de Queiroz, K. 1988. A phylogenetic analysis of Lepidosauromorpha. Pp. 15–98in Estes, R. and Pregill, G., eds. Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families. Essays commemorating Charles L. Camp. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1979. Stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. Pp. 41–77in Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle 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 on Paleontology 28:1–97.Google Scholar
Harper, C. W. Jr. 1975. Standing diversity of fossil groups in successive intervals of geologic time: a new measure. Journal of Paleontology 49:752–757.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. Translated by D. Davis and R. Zangerl. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986. Causes and consequences of mass extinctions: a comparative approach. Pp. 183–229in Elliott, D. K., ed. Dynamics of extinction. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Krause, D. W., and Maas, M. C. 1990. The biogeographic origins of late Paleocene-early Eocene mammalian immigrants to the Western Interior of North America. Pages 71–105in Bown, T. M. and Rose, K. D., eds. Dawn of the Age of Mammals in the northern part of the Rocky Mountain interior, North America. Special Paper, Geological Society of America, 243. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Lillegraven, J. A., and McKenna, M. C. 1986. Fossil mammals from the “Mesaverde” Formation (Late Cretaceous, Judithian) of the Bighorn and Wind River basins, Wyoming, with definitions of Late Cretaceous North American land mammal ages. American Museum Novitates 2840:1–68.Google Scholar
Lofgren, D. L. In press. The Bug Creek problem and the Cretaceous-Tertiary Transition at McGuire Creek, Montana. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. D. 1989. The gauge of speciation: on the frequencies of modes of speciation. Pp. 527–553in Otte, D. and Endler, J. A., eds. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Maas, M. C., and Krause, D. W. In press. Mammalian community structure during the Paleocene of North America. In Stucky, R. K. and Legendre, S., eds. Mammalian evolutionary paleoecology. Historical Biology.Google Scholar
Macnamara, M., and Paterson, H.E.H. 1984. The recognition concept of species. South African Journal of Science 80:312–318.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G. 1981. The Great American Interchange—an invasion induced crisis for South American mammals. Pp. 133–229in Nitecki, M. H., ed. Biotic crises in ecological and evolutionary time. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1982. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36:1119–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Middleton, M. D. 1982. A new species and additional material of Catopsalis (Mammalia, Multituberculata) from the Western Interior of North America. Journal of Paleontology 56:1197–1206.Google Scholar
Norell, 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 Smith, A. B. 1987. Is periodicity of extinctions a taxonomic artefact? Nature (London) 330:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Rose, K. D. 1981. The Clarkforkian Land-Mammal Age and mammalian faunal composition across the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. University of Michigan Papers in Paleontology 26:1–197.Google Scholar
Schoch, R. M. 1986. Systematics, functional morphology and macroevolution of the extinct mammalian order Taeniodonta. Yale University Peabody Museum Bulletin 42:1–307.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1987. Reply to “Is periodicity of extinctions a taxonomic artefact?“ Nature (London) 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
Simmons, N. B. 1987. A revision of Taeniolabis Mammalia: Multituberculata), with a new species from the Puercan of eastern Montana. Journal of Paleontology 6:794–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, N. B., and Miao, D. 1986. Paraphyly in Catopsalis (Mammalia: Multituberculata) and its biogeographic implications. Pp. 87–94in Flanagan, K. M. and Lillegraven, J. A., eds. Vertebrates, phylogeny, and philosophy. University of Wyoming Contributions in Geology, Special Paper 3. University of Wyoming, Laramie.Google Scholar
Sloan, R. E., and Van Valen, L. 1965. Cretaceous mammals from Montana. Science (Washington, D.C.) 148:220–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. B., and Patterson, C. 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology 23:123–216.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1–30.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 1969. Extinction-origination equilibria in the late Cenozoic land mammals of North America. Evolution 23:688–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, M. J. D. 1978. Modes of speciation. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar