Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:04:19.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rate heterogeneity in shell character evolution among lophospiroid gastropods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Peter. J. Wagner
Peter. J. Wagner*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hypotheses about constraints, selection, and other evolutionary processes often predict different rates of change among different characters. For example, it is thought that gross soft anatomical characters change less frequently than do general shell characters. However, some shell characters on primitive gastropods, such as the sinus and selenizone, are thought to be linked to soft anatomy. If both premises are true, then selenizone/sinus characters should change less frequently than other characters. Workers also have documented active trends among gastropod shell characters. One explanation is a driven trend, where the rate of change in one direction (i.e., gain or loss, increase or decrease) is greater than the rate of change in the opposite direction.

Hypotheses about relative rates and biased change are tested here for lophospiroid gastropods. Likelihood analyses test whether hypotheses positing many different rates predict data significantly better than do hypotheses positing few rates. One tree-based approach assumes that a phylogeny is known and thus treats a tree as a model. A second tree-based approach treats phylogeny as an additional hypothesis. This multiparameter approach allows competing rate hypotheses to “assume” a phylogeny that maximizes their likelihoods.

Likelihood tests reject hypotheses of low rate heterogeneity among lophospiroid characters. The most likely hypothesis (which treats phylogeny as an unknown) posits seven rates, with biased changes among three characters (preferential reduction of both sinus depth and sinus width and preferential addition of ornament). The distribution of rates among different character classes is consistent with the prediction that characters associated with internal anatomy should show generally lower rates of change than those associated with gross shell morphology. Evaluating significance when contrasting hypotheses posit different phylogenies is problematic, but the difference in support (log-likelihood) is overwhelming. Even if a model phylogeny is used, we still reject all hypotheses using fewer than six rates and not invoking trends in sinus characters. Thus, it is difficult to avoid rejecting the hypothesis that shell characters are uniformly plastic.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , Spring 2001 , pp. 290 - 310
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

Alroy, J. 1995. Continuous track analysis: a new phylogenetic and biogeographic method. Systematic Biology 44:153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alroy, J. 1998. Cope's rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals. Science 280:731–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandel, K., and Geldmacher, W. 1996. The structure of the shell of Patella crenata connected with suggestions to the classification and evolution of the Archaeogastropoda. Freiberger Forschungsheft C 464:1–71.Google Scholar
Barnard, G. A., Jenkins, G. M., and Winston, C. B. 1962. Likelihood inference and time series. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society A 125:321–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, F. M. 1965. New pleurotomariid gastropods from the western Atlantic, with a summary of the recent species. Bulletin of Marine Science 15:733–796.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and Edwards, A. W. F. 1967. Phylogenetic analysis: models and estimation procedures. Evolution 21:550–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloutier, R. 1991. Patterns, trends, and rates of evolution with the Actinistia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 32:23–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, M. J., and Ackerly, D. D. 1996. Phylogenetic uncertainties and sensitivity analyses in comparative biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 352:1241–1249.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F. 1992. Likelihood (expanded edition). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F., and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1964. Reconstruction of evolutionary trees. Pp. 67–76in Heywood, J. H. and McNeil, J., eds. Phenetic and phylogenetic classification. Systematics Association, London.Google Scholar
Faith, D. P. 1991. Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly. Systematic Zoology 40:366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1973. Maximum-likelihood and minimum-steps methods for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters. Systematic Zoology 22:240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1981a. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17:368–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. 1981b. A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 16:183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1986. Progress in organismal design. Pp. 99–118in Raup, D. M. and Jablonski, D., eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1996. On the probability of ancestors in the fossil record. Paleobiology 22:141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability. Paleobiology 23:278–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretter, V. 1964. Observations on the anatomy of Mikadotrochus amabilis Bayer. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 14:172–184.Google Scholar
Fretter, V., and Graham, A. 1962. British prosobranch mollusks, their function, anatomy and ecology. Ray Society, London.Google Scholar
Goldman, N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 36:182–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. 1988. Trends as changes in variance: a new slant on progress and directionality in evolution. Journal of Paleontology 62:319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haasl, D. M. 1997. The role of shell characters in resolving the phylogeny of Nassarine gastropods (Neogastropoda: Nassariidae). Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 29:A343.Google Scholar
Harasewych, M. G. 1984. Comparative anatomy of four primitive muricacean gastropods: implications for trophonine phylogeny. American Malacological Bulletin 3:11–26.Google Scholar
Harasewych, M. G., and Askew, T. M. 1993. Perotrochus maureri, a new species of pleurotomariid from the western Atlantic (Gastropoda: Pleurotomariidae). Nautilus 106:130–136.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. D. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasagawa, M., Kishino, H., and Yano, T. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 22:160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., Hillis, D. M., and Jones, R. 1996. Parametric bootstrapping in molecular phylogenetics: applications and performance. Pp. 19–45in Ferraris, J. D. and Palumbi, S. R., eds. Molecular zoology: advances, strategies and protocols. Wiley-Liss, New York.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. N. 1986. A functional biology of marine gastropods. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1997. Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's Rule. Nature 385:250–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitution through comparative studies of nuleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16:111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, A. G., and Farris, J. S. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Systematic Zoology 18:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, J. B. 1952. Primitive fossil gastropods and their bearing on gastropod classification. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 117:1–56.Google Scholar
Kool, S. P. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of the Rapaninae (Neogastropoda: Muricidae). Malacologia 35:155–259.Google Scholar
Linsley, R. M. 1977. Some laws of gastropod shell form. Paleobiology 3:196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsley, R. M. 1978a. Locomotion rates and shell form in the Gastropoda. Malacologia 17:193–206.Google Scholar
Linsley, R. M. 1978b. Shell form and the evolution of gastropods. American Scientist 66:432–441.Google Scholar
MacFadden, B. J. 1986. Fossil horses from “Eohippus“ (Hyracotherium) to Equus: scaling, Cope's Law, and the evolution of body size. Paleobiology 12:355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddison, W. P. 1990. A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree? Evolution 44:539–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddison, W. P., and Maddison, D. R. 1992. MacClade, analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
McShea, D. W. 1994. Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution 48:1747–1763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meacham, C. A. 1984. Evaluating characters by character compatibility analysis. Pp. 152–165in Duncan, T. and Stuessy, T. F., eds. Cladistics: perspectives on the reconstruction of evolutionary history. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. J. 1990. The effect of foliate varices on gastropod shell strength and the work of fracture. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 22:36.Google Scholar
Miller, D. J. 1999. Making the most of your shells: construction and microarchitectural characters in muricid gastropod systematics. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 31:A42.Google Scholar
Mindell, D. P., Sites, J. W., and Graur, D. 1989. Speciational evolution: a phylogenetic test with allozymes in Sceloporus (Reptilia). Cladistics 5:49–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooers, A. Ø., and Schluter, D. 1999. Reconstructing ancestor states with maximum likelihood: support for one- and two-rate models. Systematic Biology 48:623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omland, K. E. 1997. Examining two standard assumptions of ancestral reconstructions: repeated loss of dichromatism in dabble ducks (Anatini). Evolution 51:1636–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M. 1994. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 255:37–45.Google Scholar
Pagel, M. 1998. Inferring evolutionary processes from phylogenies. Zoologica Scripta 26:331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M. 1999. The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral character states of discrete characters on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 48:612–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, J. S. 1975. A new Silurian gastropod from Wisconsin and the ecology of uncoiling in Paleozoic gastropods. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 24:211–221.Google Scholar
Ponder, W. F., and Lindberg, D. R. 1997. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 83–265.Google Scholar
Sidor, C. A., and Hopson, J. A. 1998. Ghost lineages and “mammalness”: assessing the temporal pattern of character acquisition in the Synapsida. Paleobiology 24:254–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signor, P. W. III, and Brett, C. E. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology 10:229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. H., and Lieberman, B. S. 1999. Disparity and constraint in olenelloid trilobites and the Cambrian Radiation. Paleobiology 25:459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 1988. Reconstructing the past. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry, 2d ed.W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1993. PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Version 3.1.1. Computer program distributed by program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1976. Interoceanic differences in vulnerability of shelled prey to crab predation. Nature 260:135–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Shell-breaking predation through time. Pp. 649–669in Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L., eds. Biotic interactions in recent and fossil communities. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation—an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., and Carlson, S. J. 2000. The muricid gastropod subfamily Rapaninae: phylogeny and ecological history. Paleobiology 26:19–46.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 21:248–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1996. Contrasting the underlying patterns of active trends in morphologic evolution. Evolution 50:990–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, P. J. 1997. Patterns of morphologic diversification among the Rostroconchia. Paleobiology 23:115–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1999a. Phylogenetics of Ordovician-Silurian Lophospiridae (Gastropoda: Murchisoniina): the importance of stratigraphic data. American Malacological Bulletin 15:1–31.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1999b. Phylogenetics of the earliest anisostrophically coiled gastropods. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 88:1–132.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 2000. Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record: tests and inferences, hypotheses and models. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective. Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):341–371.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J., and Erwin, D. H. 1995. Phylogenetic tests of speciation hypotheses. Pp. 87–122in Erwin, D. H. and Anstey, R. L., eds. New approaches to studying speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wake, D. B. 1991. Homoplasy: the result of natural selection or evidence of design limitations? American Naturalist 138:543–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. C. 1990. Combinatorial weights in phylogenetic analysis: a statistical parsimony procedure. Cladistics 6:269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:1396–1401.Google ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. Journal of Molecular Evolution 39:306–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yochelson, E. L. 1971. A new late Devonian gastropod and its bearing on problems of open coiling and septation. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 3:231–241.Google Scholar