Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T19:54:05.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Character selection and the quantification of morphological disparity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2016

Bradley Deline  and
William I. Ausich
Bradley Deline
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, University of West Georgia, 1601 Maple Street, Carrollton, Georgia 30118, U.S.A. E-mail: bdeline@westga.edu
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, 155 South Oval Mall, Columbus, Ohio 43210, U.S.A. E-mail: ausich.1@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A priori choices in the detail and breadth of a study are important in addressing scientific hypotheses. In particular, choices in the number and type of characters can greatly influence the results in studies of morphological diversity. A new character suite was constructed to examine trends in the disparity of early Paleozoic crinoids. Character-based rarefaction analysis indicated that a small subset of these characters (~20% of the complete data set) could be used to capture most of the properties of the entire data set in analyses of crinoids as a whole, noncamerate crinoids, and to a lesser extent camerate crinoids. This pattern may be the result of the covariance between characters and the characterization of rare morphologies that are not represented in the primary axes in morphospace. Shifting emphasis on different body regions (oral system, calyx, periproct system, and pelma) also influenced estimates of relative disparity between subclasses of crinoids. Given these results, morphological studies should include a pilot analysis to better examine the amount and type of data needed to address specific scientific hypotheses.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 68 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved 

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

Ausich, W. I. 1996. Crinoid plate circlet homologies. Journal of Paleontology 70:955–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Deline, B.. 2012. Macroevolutionary transition in crinoids following the Late Ordovician extinction event (Ordovician–Early Silurian). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 361:38–48.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Peters, S. E.. 2005. A revised macroevolutionary history of Ordovician–Early Silurian crinoids. Paleobiology 31:538–551.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., Kammer, T. W., Rhenberg, E. C., and Wright, D. F.. 2015. Early phylogeny of crinoids within the pelmatozoan clade. Palaeontology 58:937–952.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., Bartels, C., and Kammer, T. W.. 2013. Tube foot preservation in the Devonian crinoid Codiacrinus from the lower Devonian Hunsrück Slate, Germany. Lethaia 46:416–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E., Moffat, H. A., and Taylor, W. L.. 1997. Echinoderm tahonomy, taphofacies and lagerstätten. In C. Maples and J. Waters, eds. Geobiology of echinoderms. Paleontological Society Special Paper 3:147–190. Paleontology Society, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Fortey, R. A., and Wills, M. A.. 1992. Morphological disparity in the Cambrian. Science 256:1670–1673.Google Scholar
Butler, R. J., Brusatte, S. L., Andres, B., and Benson, R. B. J.. 2012. How do geological sampling biases affect studies of morphological evolution in deep time? A case study of pterosaur (Reptilia: Archosauria) Disparity. Evolution 66:147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cailliez, F. 1983. The analytical solution of the additive constant problem. Psychometrika 48:343–349.Google Scholar
Ciampaglio, C. N. 2002. Determining the role that ecological and developmental constraints play in controlling disparity: examples from crinoid and blastozoan fossil record. Evolution and Development 4:170–188.Google Scholar
Ciampaglio, C. N. 2004. Measuring changes in articulate brachiopod morphology before and after the Permian mass extinction event: do developmental constraints limit morphological innovation? Evolution and Development 6:260–274.Google Scholar
Ciampaglio, C. N., Kemp, M., and McShea, D. W.. 2001. Detecting changes in morphospace occupation patterns in the fossil record: characterization and analysis of measures of disparity. Paleobiology 27:695–715.Google Scholar
Curran, J. M. 2013. Hotelling: Hotelling’s T-squared test and variants. R package, Version 1.0–2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hotelling.Google Scholar
Deline, B. 2009. The effects of rarity and abundance distributions on measurements of local morphological disparity. Paleobiology 35:175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deline, B. 2015. Quantifying morphological diversity in Early Paleozoic Echinoderms. Pp. 45–48 in Z. Zamora and I. Rábano, eds. Progress in Echinoderm Palaeobiology. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid.Google Scholar
Deline, B., and Ausich, W. I.. 2011. Testing the plateau: a reexamination of disparity and morphologic constraints in early Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 37:214–236.Google Scholar
Deline, B., Ausich, W. I., and Brett, C. E.. 2012. Comparing taxonomic and geographic scales in the morphologic disparity of Ordovician through Early Silurian Laurentian crinoids. Paleobiology 38:538–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1991. The taphonomy of echinoderms: calcareous multi-element skeletons in the marine environment. Pp. 241–269 in S. K. Donovan, ed. Advances in the processes of fossilization. Belhaven, London.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 2007. Disparity: morphological pattern and developmental context. Palaeontology 50:57–73.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits of phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992a. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 89:7325–7329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1992b. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18:1–16.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1994. Morphological disparity in Ordovician–Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. Paleobiology 20:320–344.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:129–152.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1999. Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 25(Suppl. to No. 2): 1–115.Google Scholar
Gerber, S. 2013. On the relationship between the macroevolutionary trajectories of morphological integration and morphological disparity. PLoS ONE 8:e63913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gower, J. C. 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–874.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., and Sprinkle, J.. 2003. The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician, Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system. Bulletins of American Paleontology 364:1–43.Google Scholar
Hetherington, A. J., Sherratt, E., Ruta, M., Wilkinson, M., Deline, B., and Donoghue, P. C. J.. 2015. Do cladistic and morphometric data capture common patterns of morphological disparity? Palaeontology 58:393–399.Google Scholar
Holterhoff, P. F. 1997. Paleocommunity and evolutionary ecology of Paleozoic crinoids. In J. A. Waters and C. G. Maples, eds. Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers 3:69–106.Google Scholar
Hopkins, M. J. 2014. The environmental structure of trilobite morphological disparity. Paleobiology 40:352–373.Google Scholar
Hughes, M., Gerber, S., and Wills, M. A.. 2013. Clades reach highest morphological disparity early in their evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110:13875–13879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, A. W., and Zonneveld, J. P.. 2008. Palaeoecology of Jurassic encrinities: reconstructing crinoid communities from the Western Interior Seaway of North America. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 1–2:58–70.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I.. 2007. Soft-tissue preservation of the hind gut in a new genus of cladid crinoid from the Mississippian (Visean, Asbian) at St. Andrews, Scotland. Palaeontology 50:951–959.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Sumrall, C. D., Zamora, S., Ausich, W. I., and Deline, B.. 2013. Oral region homology in Paleozoic crinoids and other plesiomorphic pentaradial echinoderms. PLoS ONE 8:e77989.Google Scholar
Lanyon, S. M. 1985. Detecting internal inconsistencies in distance data. Systematic Zoology 34:397–403.Google Scholar
Lupia, R. 1999. Discordant morphological disparity and taxonomic diversity during the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation: North American pollen record. Paleobiology 25:1–28.Google Scholar
Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Huburt, M., and Hornik, K.. 2014. Cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package, Version 1.15.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cluster.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Ausich, W. I., and Terry, R. E.. 1989. Comparative taphonomy of echinoderms in carbonate facies: Fort Payne Formation (Lower Mississippian) of Kentucky and Tennessee. Palaios 4:533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F.. 2002. Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview Formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch Region. Journal of Paleontology 76:725–732.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Ausich, W. I.. 2008. A sampling-adjusted macroevolutionary history for Ordovician–Early Silurian crinoids. Paleobiology 34:104–116.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rowlingson, B., and Diggle, P.. 2013. Splancs: spatial and space-time point pattern analysis. R package, Version 2.01-34. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=splancs.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist 102:243–282.Google Scholar
Sansom, R. S., and Wills, M. A.. 2013. Fossilization causes organisms to appear erroneously primitive by distorting evolutionary trees. Scientific Reports 3. doi: 10.1038/srep02545.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D., and Waters, J. A.. 2012. Universal elemental homology in Glyptocystitoids, Hemicosmitoids, Coronoids and Blastoids: steps toward echinoderm phylogenetic reconstruction in derived blastozoa. Journal of Paleontology 86:956–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villier, L., and Eble, G. J.. 2004. Assessing the robustness of disparity estimates: the impacts of morphologic scheme, temporal scale, and taxonomic level in spatangoid echinoids. Paleobiology 30:652–665.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1997. Patterns of morphological diversification among the Rostroconchia. Paleobiology 23:115–150.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 2000. Exhaustion of morphologic character states among fossil taxa. Evolution 54:365–386.Google Scholar
Webster, M., and Hughes, N. C.. 1999. Compaction-related deformation in Cambrian Olenelloid trilobites and its implications for fossil morphometry. Journal of Paleontology 73:355–371.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A. 1998. Cambrian and Recent disparity: the picture form priapulids. Paleobiology 24:177–199.Google Scholar