Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:21:25.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paleontological paradigms and inferences of phylogenetic pattern: a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

F. Robin O'Keefe  and
P. Martin Sander
F. Robin O'Keefe
Affiliation:
Committee on Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: [email protected]
P. Martin Sander
Affiliation:
Institut für Paläontologie der Universität Bonn, Nussallee 8, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we reconstruct the phylogeny of a clade of pachypleurosaurs (Reptilia: Sauropterygia) occurring in Triassic-age deposits in the Monte San Giorgio region, Switzerland. We also present the phylogeny of this clade as a case study for two paradigms of phylogeny reconstruction: cladistics and phenetic/stratigraphic methods. While this dichotomy is not held rigidly by all workers, its advancement by cladists leads us to retain it initially for rhetorical purposes. We review the philosophical bases of species, species concepts, and speciation, as well as cladograms and phylogenies, before introducing the experimental system.

Data are presented from cladistic analyses, phenetic analyses, and stratigraphic information. Phylogeny of the clade is interpreted from both paradigms, and the interpretations are found to be inconsistent. Resolution of the phylogeny rests on the emphasis of one type of data over another. An interpretation of cladogenesis within the genus Neusticosaurus entails rejection of suggestive phenetic and stratigraphic data, whereas an anagenetic interpretation entails reversal of autapomorphies in ancestral taxa. Anagenesis is deemed to be the more probable interpretation, based on the strength of the stratigraphic and phenetic data relative to the character data. Implications of the test case results for phylogeny reconstruction in general are discussed, ending with a call for pluralism in approach.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , Fall 1999 , pp. 518 - 533
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

Anderson, T. W. 1963. Asymptotic theory for principal component analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 34:122–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, S. J., and Bennett, A. F. 1988. Behavioral variation in natural populations. V. Morphological correlates of locomotion in the garter snake (Thomnophis radix). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 34:175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ax, P. 1987. The phylogenetic system: the systematization of organisms on the basis of their phylogenesis. Wiley, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Hitchin, R. 1996. Testing the quality of the fossil record by groups and by major habitats. Historical Biology 12:111–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, E. 1973. Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G., and Strauss, R. 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Special Publication 15.Google Scholar
Bronowski, J. 1977. Humanism and the growth of knowledge. Pp. 74–103in Ariotti, P. E. and Bronowski, R., eds. A sense of the future: essays in natural philosophy. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brooks, D. R., and McLennan, D. A. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology, and behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brown, D. S. 1981. The English Upper Jurassic Plesiosauroidea (Reptilia) and a review of the phylogeny and classification of the Plesiosauria. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 35:253–347.Google Scholar
Bürgin, T., Eichenberger, U., Furrer, H., and Tschanz, K. 1991. Die Prosanto-Formation—eine fischreiche Fossil-Lagerstätte in der Mitteltrias der Silvretta-Decke (Kanton Gaubünden, Schweiz). Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 84:921–990.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. L., and Gaskill, P. 1985. The nothosaur Pachypleurosaurus and the origin of plesiosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 309:343–393.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, B. 1984. Some quantitative methods for studying evolutionary patterns in single characters. Paleobiology 10:308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, J. A., Orr, H. A., and Futuyma, D. J. 1988. Do we need a new species concept? Systematic Zoology 37:190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. Pp. 28–59in Otte, D. and Endler, J., eds. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J., and Eldridge, N., eds. 1979. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Donoghue, M. J. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics 4:317–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlich, P. R., and Raven, P. H. 1969. Differentiation of populations. Science 165:1228–1232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldredge, N. 1979. Cladism and common sense. Pp. 165–199in Cracraft, and Eldredge, 1979.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M., ed. 1992. The units of evolution: essays on the nature of species. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H., and Anstey, R. L. 1995. Speciation in the fossil record. Pp. 11–38in Erwin, D. H. and Anstey, R. L., eds. New approaches to speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. P. 1965. The character of physical law. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis and its application in evolutionary paleobiology. In Gilinsky, N. and Signor, P., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology 4:103–122. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1994. Stratocladistics. Pp. 133–171in Grande, and Rieppel, 1994a.Google Scholar
Flynn, J. J. 1996. Carnivoran phylogeny and rates of evolution: morphological, taxic, and molecular. Pp. 542–581in Gittleman, J. L., ed. Carnivoran behavior, ecology, and evolution, Vol. 2. Comstock, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1996. Perspective: evolutionary patterns in the fossil record. Evolution 50:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1997. Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability. Paleobiology 23:278–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furrer, H. 1995. The Kalkschieferzone (Upper Meride Limestone; Ladinian) near Meride (Canton Ticino, Southern Switzerland) and the evolution of a Middle Triassic intraplatform basin. Eclogae geologicae Helvetiae 88:827–852.Google Scholar
Gaetani, M., Gnaccolini, M., Poliasni, G., Grignani, D., Gorza, M., and Matrellini, L. 1992. An anoxic intraplatform basin in the Middle Triassic of Lombardy (southern Alps, Italy): anatomy of a hydrocarbon source. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 97:329–354.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. Pp. 41–79in Cracraft, and Eldredge, 1979.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1993. Quantification and comparision of evolutionary rates. American Journal of Science 293-A:453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grande, L., and Rieppel, O., eds. 1994a. Interpreting the hierarchy of nature. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Grande, L., and Rieppel, O., eds. 1994b. Introduction to pattern and process perspectives. Pp. 1–5in Grande, and Rieppel, 1994a.Google Scholar
Grant, P. R. 1986. Ecology and evolution of Darwin's finches. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and time. Harper and Row, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Holman, E. W. 1987. Recognizability of sexual and asexual species of rotifers. Systematic Zoology 36:381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. H. 1979. The limits of cladism. Systematic Zoology 28:416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H. 1990. Evolutionary significance of morphospecies: a test with cheilostome Bryozoa. Science 248:579–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolicoeur, P. 1963. The degree of generality of robustness in Martes americana. Growth 27:1–27.Google Scholar
Jolicoeur, P., and Mosimann, J. E. 1960. Size and shape variation in the painted turtle: a principal component analysis. Growth 24:339–354.Google Scholar
Kitching, I. J., Forey, P. L., Humphries, C. J., and Williams, D. M. 1998. Cladistics: the theory and practice of parsimony analysis, 2d ed.Systematics Association Publication 11. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Dyreson, E., Marcot, J. D., Vargas, J. A., Flessa, K. W., and Hallman, D. P. 1997. Phenetic discrimination of biometric simpletons: paleobiological implications of morphospecies in the lingulide brachiopod Glottidia. Paleobiology 23:444–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucera, M., and Malmgren, B. A. 1998. Differences between evolution of mean form and evolution of new morphotypes: an example from Late Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera. Paleobiology 24:49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallet, J. A. 1995. A species definition for the modern synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:294–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 16:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1994. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges: partial relaxation of the assumption of randomly distributed fossil horizons. Paleobiology 20:459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, J. C., and Spencer, H. G. 1989. Why we need a new genetic species concept. Systematic Zoology 38:270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought. Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A. 1996. Ghost taxa, ancestors, and assumptions: a comment on Wagner. Paleobiology 22:454–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norell, M. A., and Novacek, M. J. 1992a. The fossil record and evolution: comparing cladistic and paleontological evidence for vertebrate history. Science 255:1690–1693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norell, M. A., and Novacek, M. J. 1992b. Congruence between superpositional and phylogenetic pattern: comparing cladistic patterns with the fossil record. Cladistics 8:319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Keefe, F. R., Rieppel, O., and Sander, P. M. 1999. Shape disassociation and inferred heterochrony in a clade of pachypleurosaurs (Reptilia, Sauropterygia). Paleobiology 25:504–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panchen, A. L. 1992. Classification, evolution, and the nature of biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panchen, A. L. 1994. Richard Owen and the concept of homology. Pp. 21–62in Hall, B. K., ed. Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E., eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 21:21–74.Google Scholar
Pimentel, R. A. 1979. Morphometrics: the multivariate analysis of biological data. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
Platnick, N. I. 1979. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Systematic Zoology 28:536–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polly, P. D. 1997. Ancestry and species definition in paleontology: a stratocladistic analysis of Paleocene-Eocene Viverravidae (Mammalia, Carnivora) from Wyoming. Contributions of the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 30:1–53.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1968. The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Reisz, R. R., Dilkes, D. W., and Berman, D. S. 1998. Anatomy and relationships of Elliotsmithia longiceps Broom, a small synapsid (Eupelycosauria: Varanopseidae) from the Late Permian of South Africa. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18:602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley, M. 1993. Evolution. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1988. Fundamentals of comparative biology. Birkhäuser, Basel.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1989. A new pachypleurosaur (Reptilia: Sauropterygia) from the Middle Triassic of Monte San Giorgio, Switzerland. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 323:1–73.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1993. Status of the pachypleurosauroid Psilotrachelosaurus toeplitschi Nopcsa (Reptilia, Sauropterygia), from the Middle Triassic of Austria. Fieldiana (Geology) new series 27:1–17.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1994a. Species and history. In Scotland, R. W., Siebert, D. J., and Williams, D. M., eds. Models in phylogeny reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 52:31–50. Clarendon, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1994b. Homology, topology, and typology. Pp. 63–100in Hall, B. K., ed. Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1994c. Middle Triassic reptiles from Monte San Giorgio: recent results and future potential for analysis. In Mazin, J.-M. and Pinna, G., eds. Evolution, ecology and biogeography of the Triassic reptiles. Paleontologia Lombarda new series 2:131–144.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1995. The pachypleurosaur Neusticosaurus (Reptilia, Sauropterygia) from the Middle Triassic of Perledo, northern Italy. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 1995:205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1997. Revision of the sauropterygian reptile genus Cymatosaurus Fritsch, 1894, and the relationships of Germanosaurus Nopcsa, from the Middle Triassic of Europe. Fieldiana (Geology) new series 36:1–38.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1997b. Falsificationist versus verificationist approaches to history. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(Suppl. to No. 3):71A.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1998. The systematic status of Hanosaurua hupehensis (Reptilia, Sauropterygia) from the Triassic of China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18:545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O., and Grande, L. 1994. Summary and conclusions. Pp. 227–255in Grande, and Rieppel, 1994a.Google Scholar
Sander, P. M. 1989. The pachypleurosaurids (Reptilia: Nothosauria) from the Middle Triassic of Monte San Giorgio (Switzerland), with the description of a new species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 325:561–670.Google Scholar
Shea, B. T. 1985. Bivariate and multivariate growth allometry: statistical and biological considerations. Journal of Zoology series A 206:367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddall, M. E., and Kluge, A. G. 1997. Probabilism and phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 13:313–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record. Blackwell Scientific, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society of Vertebrate Paleotology. 1997. Fifty-seventh annual meeting, Abstracts of papers. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(Suppl. to No. 3).Google Scholar
Stefani, M., Arduini, P., Garassino, A., Pinna, G., Teruzzi, G., and Trombetta, G. L. 1992. Paleoenvironment of extraordinary fossil biotas from the Upper Triassic of Italy. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali 132:309–335.Google Scholar
Szalay, F. S. 1977. Ancestors, descendants, sister groups, and testing of phylogenetic hypotheses. Systematic Zoology 26:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tintori, A., Musico, G., and Nardon, S. 1985. The Triassic fossil fishes localities in Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 91:197–210.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1996. Ghost taxa, ancestors, assumptions, and expectations: a reply to Norell. Paleobiology 22:456–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1998. A likelihood approach for evaluating estimates of phylogenetic relationships among fossil taxa. Paleobiology 24:430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J., and Erwin, D. H. 1995. Phylogenetic tests of speciation models. Pp. 87–122in Erwin, D. H. and Anstey, R. L., eds. New approaches to speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J., and Sidor, C. A. 1999. Age rank/clade rank criteria: paraphyly, sampling, and the meaning of “stratigraphic consistency.” Systematic Biology (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1978. The evolutionary species concept re-considered. Systematic Zoology 27:17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1979. Ancestors, species, and cladograms: remarks on the symposium. Pp. 211–227in Cracraft, and Eldredge, 1979.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R. 1935. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. 9. Pachypleurosaurus edwardsii Cornalia sp., Osteologie—Variationsbreite—Biologie. Abhandlungen der schweizerischen Paläontologischen Gesellschaft 56:1–80.Google Scholar
Zapfe, H., and König, H. 1980. Neue Reptilienfunde aus der Mitteltrias der Gailtaler Alpen (Kärnten, Österreich). Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Abteilung I 189:65–82.Google Scholar