Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-dkqnh Total loading time: 0.225 Render date: 2021-10-19T13:29:29.001Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Mike Foote*
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

Abstract

Paleontological completeness and stratigraphic ranges depend on extinction rate, origination rate, preservation rate, and the length of the interval of time over which observations can be made. I derive expressions for completeness and the distribution of durations and ranges as functions of these parameters, considering both continuous- and discrete-time models.

Previous work has shown that, if stratigraphic ranges can be followed indefinitely forward, and if extinction and preservation occur at stochastically constant rates, then extinction rate and preservability can be estimated from (1) discrete (binned) stratigraphic ranges even if data on occurrences within ranges are unknown, and (2) continuous ranges if the number of occurrences within each range is known. I show that, regardless of whether the window of observation is finite or infinite, extinction and preservation rates can also be estimated from (3) continuous ranges when the number of occurrences is not known, and (4) discrete ranges when the number of occurrences is not known. One previous estimation method for binned data involves a sample-size bias. This is circumvented by using maximum likelihood parameter estimation. It is worth exploiting data on occurrences within ranges when these are available, since they allow preservation rate to be estimated with less variance. The various methods yield comparable parameter estimates when applied to Cambro-Ordovician trilobite species and Cenozoic mammal species.

Stratigraphic gaps and variable preservation affect stratigraphic ranges predictably. In many cases, accurate parameter estimation is possible even in the face of these complications. The distribution of stratigraphic ranges can be used to estimate the sizes of gaps if their existence is known.

Type
Articles
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

Alroy, J. 1992. Conjunction among taxonomic distributions and the Miocene mammalian biochronology of the Great Plains. Paleobiology 18:326343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alroy, J. 1994. Quantitative mammalian biochronology and biogeography of North America. , University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brady, M. S., Sims, H. J., and Grant, A. K. 1996. Extinction and speciation rates: tests of the sensitivity of cohort survivorhip analysis. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 28:A107.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F. 1992. Likelihood. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1988. Survivorship analysis of Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology 14:258271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, D. G. 1948. On the generalized “birth-and-death” process. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 19:115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 16:110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1994. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges: partial relaxation of the assumption of randomly distributed fossil horizons. Paleobiology 20:459469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. R., and Ward, P. D. 1996. Sudden and gradual molluscan extinctions in the latest Cretaceous of Western European Tethys. Science 274:13601363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, C. R. C. 1982. The adequacy of the fossil record. Pp. 75117In Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E., eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction (Systematics Association Special Volume No. 21). Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Pease, C. M. 1985. Biases in the durations and diversities of fossil taxa. Paleobiology 11:272292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A., and Vetterling, W. T. 1986. Numerical recipes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1978. Cohort analysis of generic survivorship. Paleobiology 4:115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1991. A kill curve for Phanerozoic marine species. Paleobiology 17:3748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, A. B. 1964. Time in stratigraphy. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry, 2d ed.W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Solow, A. R. 1996. Tests and confidence intervals for a common upper endpoint in fossil taxa. Paleobiology 22:406410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, A. R., and Smith, W. 1997. On fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 23(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stitt, J. H. 1977. Late Cambrian and earliest Ordovician trilobites, Wichita Mountains Area, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 124:179.Google Scholar
Strauss, D., and Sadler, P. M. 1989. Classical confidence intervals and Bayesian probability estimates for ends of local taxon ranges. Mathematical Geology 21:411427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1989. How good was the fossil record? Clues from the Californian Pleistocene. Paleobiology 15:8394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:130.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1979. Taxonomic survivorship curves. Evolutionary Theory 4:129142.Google Scholar
100
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *