Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T14:56:08.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematics and paleobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Niles Eldredge  and
Michael J. Novacek
Niles Eldredge
Affiliation:
Departments of Invertebrates and Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th St., New York, New York 10024
Michael J. Novacek
Affiliation:
Departments of Invertebrates and Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th St., New York, New York 10024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systematics, ostensibly the “old” paleontology, actually plays a central and crucial role in modern paleobiology. We argue that a revised ontology has recently clarified the nature of species and has expressly added monophyletic groups to the roster of spatiotemporally bounded entities—“individuals”—that are now seen as participants in the evolutionary process. Systematics is the study of species and monophyletic taxa, and fossils alone provide the data on the temporal boundedness of such taxa.

Cladistics (phylogenetic systematics) is explicitly geared to the recognition of monophyletic taxa. We review aspects of the core problem of character analysis in systematics, particularly addressing the still contended issue of the seemingly competitive claims of three methodologies: out-group comparison, comparative ontogeny, and the “paleontological method.” We find that these methods overlap in their basic assumptions to a significant extent, yet each retains a characteristic and distinctive flavor. They are not all “the same,” nor are they always “complementary”—and no one method is superior to the others in all circumstances.

Far from being the Victorian symbol of a moribund science, systematics lies at the very heart of modern paleobiological research, providing the central data for paleobiology's truly unique contribution, both real and potential, to evolutionary biology in general.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 1985 , pp. 65 - 74
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

Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5:296–317.Google Scholar
Blainville, H. M.De, D. 1816. Prodrome d'une nouvelle distribution systematique de règne animale. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816:105–124.Google Scholar
Bown, T. M. and Kraus, M. J. 1979. Origin of the tribosphenic molar and metatherian and eutherian dental formulae. Pp. 172–181. In: Lillegraven, J. A., Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., and Clemens, W. A., eds. Mesozoic Mammals: The First Two-Thirds of Mammalian History. Univ. California Press; Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ciochon, R. L. and Chiarelli, A. B., eds. 1980. Evolutionary Biology of the New World Monkeys and Continental Drift. Plenum; New York.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1981. Pattern and process in paleobiology: the role of cladistic analysis in systematic paleontology. Paleobiology. 7:456–468.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. Facsimile ed., 1967. Atheneum; New York.Google Scholar
Dingus, L. and Sadler, P. M. 1982. The effects of stratigraphic completeness on estimates of evolutionary rate. Syst. Zool. 31:328–334.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 147:45–114.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1985. Unfinished Synthesis. Oxford Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Salthe, S. N. 1984. Hierarchy and evolution. In: Dawkins, R. and M. Ridley, eds. Oxford Surveys in Evol. Biol. 1:182–206.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Stanley, S. M., eds. 1984. Living Fossils. Springer-Verlag; New York.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology. 8:254–264.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. and Jefferies, R. P. S. 1982. Fossils and phylogeny—a compromise approach. In: Joysey, K. A. and A. E. Friday, eds. Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Syst. Assoc. Spec. 21:197–234. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. 1974a. A radical solution to the species problem. Syst. Zool. 23:536–544.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. 1974b. The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. Univ. California Press; Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: patterns of evolution at the species level in Early Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1–28.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. Pp. 41–77. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. and Schoeninger, M. J. 1977. The fossil record and primate phylogeny. J. Human Evol. 6:482–503.Google Scholar
Gregory, W. K. 1910. The orders of mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 27:1–524.Google Scholar
Harper, C. W. Jr., and Platnick, N. I. 1978. Phylogenetic and cladistic hypotheses: a debate. Syst. Zool. 27:354–362.Google Scholar
Haugh, B. N. and Bell, B. M. 1980. Fossilized viscera in primitive echinoderms. Science. 209:653–657.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. Illinois Press; Urbana.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1980. Individuality and selection. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:311–332.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. (Reprint ed., 1982.) Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeit. Zool. Syst. Evol.-Fors. 13:94–128.Google Scholar
McKenna, M. C. 1975. Toward a phylogenetic classification of the Mammalia. Pp. 21–46. In: Luckett, W. P. and Szalay, F. S., eds. Phylogeny of the Primates, a Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum; New York.Google Scholar
Miyazaki, J. M. and Mickevich, M. F. 1982. Evolution of Chesapecten (Mollusca: Bivalvia, Miocene-Pliocene) and the biogenetic law. Evol. Biol. 15:369–409.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. 1978. Ontogeny, phylogeny and the biogenetic law. Syst. Zool. 27:324–345.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. J. and Platnick, N. I. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, K. A. and A. E. Friday, eds. Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Syst. Assoc. Spec. 21:21–74.Google Scholar
Platnick, N. I. 1979. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst. Zool. 28:537–546.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Marshall, L. G. 1980. Variation between groups in evolutionary rates: a statistical test of significance. Paleobiology. 6:9–23.Google Scholar
Salthe, S. N. 1985. Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and Representation. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, B., Hecht, M. K., and Eldredge, N. 1972. Phylogeny and paleontology. Evol. Biol. 6:31–46.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1982. Resolution analysis: a new approach to gaps in the fossil record. Paleobiology. 8:340–353.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology. 4:223–251.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1979. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic diversity. II. Early Phanerozoic families and multiple equilibria. Paleobiology. 5:222–251.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology. 7:36–53.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. (Reprint ed., 1984). Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1975. Recent advances in methods of phylogenetic inference. Pp. 3–19. In: Luckett, W. P. and Szalay, F. S., eds. Phylogeny of the Primates, a Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum; New York.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. and Eldredge, N. 1984. Individuals, hierarchies and processes: toward a more complete evolutionary theory. Paleobiology 10:146–171.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. Wiley; New York.Google Scholar