Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:05:58.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Mike Foote
Mike Foote*
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology and Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two methods are discussed for assessing the contributions of subgroups to the morphological disparity of the larger group containing them. (1) Given an ordination of points representing specimens or species in morphological space, morphological disparity of the entire group is measured as the average squared distance of points from the centroid. The contribution that a subgroup makes to morphological disparity is measured as the average squared distance of its points from the overall centroid (not the subgroup centroid), weighted by the subgroup sample size relative to the total group sample size. Thus, morphological disparity of a group can be additively partitioned into the disparity components of its subgroups, and the relative contributions of these subgroups can be assessed quantitatively. (2) An alternative approach is to compare morphological disparity of a group to the disparity it would have if a certain subgroup were omitted. If the resulting disparity differs substantially from the original disparity, then the subgroup in question is considered to have a significant effect on morphological disparity. Because some subgroups are very centralized in morphological space, omitting them can cause an increase in morphological disparity when disparity is measured as the average dissimilarity among species. In general, relatively large subgroups that are located peripherally in morphospace make the greatest contributions to morphological disparity, and failure to sample smaller groups often has little effect on disparity estimates. The two methods are applied to morphological disparity in trilobites, partitioned at different levels in the taxonomic hierarchy. Results of the two methods are intuitively reasonable and largely in agreement, and point to the predominance of Early Cambrian olenelloids, Cambro-Ordovician Libristoma, Ordovician Asaphina and Cheirurina, Siluro-Devonian Phacopida and Phacopina, and Devonian Proetida.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 403 - 419
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

Briggs, D. E. G., Fortey, R. A., and Wills, M. A. 1992. Morphological disparity in the Cambrian. Science 256:1670–1673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cherry, L. M., Case, S. M., Kunkel, J. G., Wyles, J. S., and Wilson, A. C. 1982. Body shape metrics and organismal evolution. Evolution 36:914–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edgecombe, G. D. 1992. Trilobite phylogeny and the Cambrian-Ordovician “event”: cladistic reappraisal. Pp. 144–177In Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Efron, B. 1982. The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. 1991. Statistical data analysis in the computer age. Science 253:390–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldredge, N., and Braniša, L. 1980. Calmoniid trilobites of the Lower Devonian Scaphiocoelia Zone of Bolivia, with remarks on related species. Bulletin, American Museum of Natural History 165:181–289.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 2d ed.Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1989. Perimeter-based Fourier analysis: a new morphometric method applied to the trilobite cranidium. Journal of Paleontology 63:880–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1991a. Morphologic patterns of diversification: examples from trilobites. Palaeontology 34:461–485.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991b. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 28:101–140.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992a. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 89:7325–7329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1992b. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1993. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., and Gould, S. J. 1992. Cambrian and Recent morphological disparity. Science 258:1816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortey, R. A. 1990. Ontogeny, hypostome attachment and trilobite classification. Palaeontology 33:529–576.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1988. Classification of the trilobite suborder Asaphina. Palaeontology 31:165–222.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1975. Proetida—a new order of trilobites. Fossils and Strata 4:227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1990. Evolutionary radiations in the Trilobita. Pp. 139–164In Taylor, P. D. and Larwood, G. P., eds. Major evolutionary radiations. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Whittington, H. B. 1989. The Trilobita as a natural group. Historical Biology 2:125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1991. The disparity of the Burgess Shale arthropod fauna and the limits of cladistic analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology 17:411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, J. C. 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53:325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., and Sprinkle, J. 1992. Rise of echinoderms in the Paleozoic evolutionary fauna: significance of paleoenvironmental controls. Geology 20:407–410.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harland, W. B., Armstrong, R. L., Cox, A. V., Craig, L. E., Smith, A. G., and Smith, D. G. 1990. A geologic time scale 1989. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Harrington, H. J., et al. 1959. Systematic descriptions. Pp.O170–O539 In Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Part O, Arthropoda 1. The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. D. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, P. D., and Thomas, A. T. 1983. A review of the trilobite suborder Scutelluina. Special Papers in Palaeontology 30:141–160.Google Scholar
Nixon, K. C., and Wheeler, Q. D. 1992. Measures of phylogenetic diversity. Pp. 216–234In Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1981. Extinction: bad genes or bad luck? Acta Geologica Hispanica 16:25–33.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1985. Mathematical models of cladogenesis. Paleobiology 11:42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Gould, S. J. 1974. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology 23:305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runnegar, B. 1987. Rates and modes of evolution in the Mollusca. Pp. 39–60In Campbell, K. S. W. and Day, M. F., eds. Rates of evolution. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Swan, A. R. H. 1984. Morphology and morphologic diversity of mid-Carboniferous (Namurian) ammonoids in time and space. Paleobiology 10:195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slowinski, J. B., and Guyer, C. 1989. Testing the stochasticity of patterns of organismal diversity: An improved null model. American Naturalist 134:907–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. 2d ed.W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1974. Multivariate structural statistics in natural history. Journal of Theoretical Biology 45:235–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogl, C., and Wagner, G. P. 1990. Interspecific variability in randomly evolving clades: models for testing hypotheses on the relative evolutionary flexibility of quantitative traits. Systematic Zoology 39:109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. H., Humphries, C. J., and Vane-Wright, R. I. 1991. Measuring biodiversity: taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities. Australian Systematic Botany 4:665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar