Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:17:17.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appearance event ordination: a new biochronologic method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

John Alroy
John Alroy*
Affiliation:
Committee on Evolutionary Biology, The University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fundamental goal of biochronology is ordering taxonomic first and last appearance events. The most useful biochronologic data are of the form “the first appearance event of one taxon predates the last appearance event of a second taxon” (FAE < LAE). FAE < LAE data sets are unusually reliable because they converge on a unique solution with greater sampling. The fact that the FAE of one taxon i < the LAE of another taxon j always can be inferred either if i is found lower than j in a stratigraphic section, or if i and j co-occur in at least one taxonomic list. Thus, FAE < LAE data accurately synthesize two disparate sources of information: routine biostratigraphic observations and taxonomic lists that may have no stratigraphic context. Appearance event ordination, the new method introduced here, is intended to summarize FAE < LAE data. The algorithm is founded on the following parsimony criterion: arrangements of FAEs and LAEs should always imply FAEi < LAEj when this is known, and otherwise imply LAEj < FAEi whenever possible. The technique differs from others related to correspondence analysis in its use of FAE < LAE data and explicit definition as a parsimony method. The algorithm is even more unique in that it uses different subsets of FAEi < LAEj statements at each iterative step, converging on separate sets of scores for the FAEs and LAEs. After arranging either the FAEs or the LAEs on the basis of their scores, the other set of scores can be discarded and the best arrangement of the remaining events can be inferred directly. An analysis of the Plio-Pleistocene mammalian record in the Lake Turkana region is used to illustrate the method. Biochronologic resolution on the order of 0.2-1.5 m.y. is achieved. The Turkana species lists by themselves demonstrate enough FAEi < LAEj relationships to resolve the basic biochronologic pattern, but stratigraphic information is still of great use.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , Spring 1994 , pp. 191 - 207
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

Agterberg, F. P., and Nel, L.D. 1982a. Algorithms for the ranking of stratigraphic events. Computers and Geosciences 8:69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agterberg, F. P., and Nel, L.D. 1982b. Algorithms for the scaling of stratigraphic events. Computers and Geosciences 8:163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alroy, J. 1992. Conjunction among taxonomic distributions and the Miocene mammalian biochronology of the Great Plains. Paleobiology 18:326–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1985. Archaeological seriation of an original data matrix. Pp. 95–108in Gradstein, F. M., Agterberg, F. P., Brower, J. C., and Schwarzacher, W. S., eds. Quantitative stratigraphy. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Burroughs, W. A., and Brower, J. C. 1982. Ser, a fortran program for the seriation of biostratigraphic data. Computers and Geosciences 8:137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppens, Y., and Howell, F. C. 1976. Mammalian faunas of the Omo Group: distributional and biostratigraphical aspects. Pp. 177–192in Coppens, Y., Howell, F. C., Isaac, G. L., and Leakey, R. E. F., eds. Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf basin: stratigraphy, paleoecology, and evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Digby, P. G. N., and Kempton, R. A. 1987. Mutivariate analysis of ecological communities. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Edwards, L. E. 1991. Quantitative biostratigraphy. Paleontological Society Short Courses in Paleontology 4:39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenmann, V. 1983. Family Equidae. Pp. 156–214in Harris, J. M., ed. Koobi Fora research project, Vol. 2. The fossil ungulates: Proboscidea, Perissodactyla, and Suidae. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Feibel, C. S., Brown, F. H., and McDougall, I. 1989. Stratigraphic context of fossil hominids from the Omo Group deposits: northern Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:595–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feibel, C. S., Harris, J. M., and Brown, F. H. 1991. Palaeoenvironmental context for the late Neogene of the Turkana Basin. Pp. 321–370in Harris, J. M., ed. Koobi Fora research project, Vol. 3. The fossil ungulates: geology, fossil artiodactyls, and palaeoenvironments. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Flynn, J. J., MacFadden, B. J., and McKenna, M. C. 1984. Land-mammal ages, faunal heterochrony, and temporal resolution in Cenozoic terrestrial sequences. Journal of Geology 92:687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauch, H. G. Jr. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guex, J. 1977. Une nouvelle méthode d'analyse biochronologique. Bulletin de la Laboratoire de Géologie, Université de Lausanne 224:309–322.Google Scholar
Guex, J. 1979. Terminologie et méthodes de la biostratigraphie moderne: commentaires critiques et propositions. Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, Bulletin 74:169–216.Google Scholar
Guex, J. 1991. Biochronological correlations. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. M., Brown, F. H., and Leakey, M. G. 1988. Stratigraphy and paleontology of Pliocene and Pleistocene localities west of Lake Turkana, Kenya. Contributions in Science 399:1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, W. W. 1972. Probabilistic stratigraphy. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 65:255–266.Google Scholar
Hill, M. O. 1973. Reciprocal averaging: an eigenvector method of ordination. Journal of Ecology 61:237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, A. M. 1992. Mammalian fossils and Quaternary biostratigraphy. Quaternary Science Reviews 11:329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyell, C. 1833. Principles of geology, Vol. III. J. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Martin, P. S., and Klein, R. G. 1984. Quaternary extinctions: a prehistoric revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. B. 1964. Time in stratigraphy. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Turner, A., and Wood, B. 1993. Comparative palaeontological context for the evolution of the early hominid masticatory system. Journal of Human Evolution 24:301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, P. P. E., and Bergsten, H. 1991. Assessing the accuracy of fossil datum levels: Globorotalia margaritae Foraminiferida, a Pliocene test case. Journal of Micropalaeontology 9:225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodburne, M. O. 1987. Principles, classification, and recommendations. Pp. 9–17in Woodburne, M. O., ed. Cenozoic mammals of North America: geochronology and biostratigraphy. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar