Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-4hcbs Total loading time: 0.251 Render date: 2021-12-04T19:05:35.028Z 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

Uncorrelated change produces the apparent dependence of evolutionary rate on interval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

H. David Sheets
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Canisius College, 2001 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14208. E-mail: sheets@gort.canisius.edu
Charles E. Mitchell
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, New York 14260. E-mail: cem@nsm.buffalo.edu

Abstract

An intriguing phenomenon in the study of evolutionary rates of morphological change measured from fossil lineages has been the dependence of these rates on the inverse of the measurement interval. This effect has been reported across wide ranges of species as well as within single lineages, and has been interpreted as representing a smooth extension of evolutionary rate from generational timescales to paleontological timescales, suggesting that macroevolution may be simply microevolution extended over longer intervals. There has been some debate about whether this inverse dependence is a real feature of evolutionary change, or a mathematical or psychological artifact associated with the interpretation of data.

Our analysis indicates that the strong inverse dependence of rate on interval is an artifact produced by the phenomenon of spurious self-correlation. Spurious self-correlation can appear in any calculation when a ratio is plotted against its denominator, as is done in plotting rate versus interval, and when these two quantities are not well correlated with one another. We demonstrate that the effect of spurious self-correlation appears in seven published data sets of evolutionary rate that range from taxonomically broad compendia to studies of single families. The effect obscures the underlying information about the dependence of evolutionary change on interval that is present in the data sets. In five of the seven data sets examined there is no significant correlation between the extent of evolutionary change and elapsed time. Where such a correlation does exist, the inverse dependence of rate on interval length is weakened. We describe the role played by taxonomic, dynamic, and character inhomogeneity in producing the lack of correlation of change with interval in each of these data sets. This lack of correlation of change with interval, and the accompanying inverse correlation of rate with interval, most likely arises from discontinuous modes of evolutionary change in which a distinct long-term dynamic dominates net change over geological time spans. It is poorly explained by the extrapolationary microevolutionary models that have been said to account for this phenomenon.

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

Arnold, A. J., Kelly, D. C., and Parker, W. C. 1995. Causality and Cope's Rule: evidence from the planktonic foraminifera. Journal of Paleontology 69:203210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1987. Random walk and the existence of evolutionary rates. Paleobiology 13:446464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1988. Random walk and the biometrics of morphological characters. Evolutionary Biology 23:369398.Google Scholar
Bowring, S. A., and Erwin, D. H. 1998. A new look at evolutionary rates in deep time: Uniting paleontology and high-precision geochronology. GSA Today 8:18.Google Scholar
Clyde, W. C., and Gingerich, P. D. 1994. Rates of evolution in the dentition of early Eocene Cantius: comparison of size and shape. Paleobiology 20:506522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freund, J. E., and Walpole, R. E. 1980. Mathematical statistics, 3d ed.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1983. Rates of evolution: effects of time and temporal scaling. Science 222:159161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gingerich, P. D. 1984. Smooth curve of evolutionary rates: a psychological and mathematical artifact (response). Science 226:995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1993. Quantification and comparison of evolutionary rates. American Journal of Science 293A:453478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1984. Smooth curve of evolutionary rate: a psychological and mathematical artifact. Science 226:994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. 1949. Suggestions as to quantitative measure of rates of evolution. Evolution 3:5156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallam, A. 1975. Evolutionary size increase and longevity in Jurassic bivalves and ammonites. Nature 258:493496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallam, A. 1978. How rare is phyletic gradualism and what is its evolutionary significance? Evidence from Jurassic bivalves. Paleobiology 4:1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, A. P., and Kinnison, M. T. 1999. Perspective: the pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:16371653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenney, B. C. 1982. Beware of spurious self-correlations! Water Resources Research 18:10411048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtén, B. 1959. Rates of evolution in fossil mammals. Cold Springs Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 24:205215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. 1966. On the measurement of relative variability. Systematic Zoology 15:141142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFadden, B. J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in fossil horses: hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North America. Paleobiology 11:245257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFadden, B. J. 1986. Fossil horses from “Eohippus” (Hyracotherium) to Equus: scaling, Cope's Law, and the evolution of body size. Paleobiology 12:355369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFadden, B. J. 1988. Fossil horses from “Eohippus” (Hyracotherium) to Equus, 2: rates of dental evolution revisited. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 35:3748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFadden, B. J. 1992. Fossil horses: systematics, paleobiology, and evolution of the Family Equidae. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. B. 1997. Fractals and scaling in finance: discontinuity, concentration, risk. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. B. 1998. Multifractals and 1/f Noise: wild self-affinity in physics. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Maurer, B. A., Brown, J. H., and Rusler, R. D. 1992. The micro and macro in body size evolution. Evolution 46:939953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middleton, G. W. 2000. Data analysis in the earth sciences using Matlab. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. 1897. On a form of cpurious correlation which may arise when indices are used in the measurement of organs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 60:489502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnick, R. E. 1986. A fractal model for the distribution of stratigraphic hiatuses. Journal of Geology 95:885890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnick, R. E. 1988. A fractal model for the distribution of stratigraphic hiatuses: a reply. Journal of Geology 96:102103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnick, R. E., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1998. A multifractal model for macroevolution. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 30:A37.Google Scholar
Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridley, M. 1983. Evolution. Blackwell Scientific, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarPubMed
Roopnarine, P. D., Byars, G., and Fitzgerald, P. 1999. Anagenetic evolution, stratophenetic patterns, and random walk models. Paleobiology 25:4157.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. Journal of Geology 89:569584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1993. Time scale dependence of the rates of unsteady geologic processes. In Armentrout, J. M., Bloch, R., Olson, H. C., and Perkins, B. F., eds. Rates of geologic processes, tectonics, sedimentation, eustasy and climate. Gulf Coast Section SEPM Research Conference 14:221228.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1999. The influence of hiatuses on sediment accumulation rates. GeoResearch Forum 5:1540.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M., and Strauss, D. J. 1990. Estimation of completeness of stratigraphical sections using empirical data and theoretical models. Journal of the Geological Society, London 147:471485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlager, W., Marsal, D., van der Geest, P. A. G., and Sprenger, A. 1998. Sedimentation rates, observation span, and the problem of spurious correlation. Mathematical Geology 30:547556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, P. R. 1996. Plus ca change—a model for stasis and evolution in different environments. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 127:209227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1985. Rates of evolution. Paleobiology 11:1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M., and Yang, X. 1987. Approximate evolutionary stasis for bivalve morphology over millions of years: a multivariate, multilineage study. Paleobiology 13:113139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waythomas, C. F., and Williams, G. P. 1988. Sediment yield and spurious correlation—toward a better portrayal of the annual suspended-sediment load of rivers. Geomorphology 1:309316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, S. L. 1998. Rates of floral change scale to duration of measurement. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 30:A37.Google Scholar

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.

Uncorrelated change produces the apparent dependence of evolutionary rate on interval
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.

Uncorrelated change produces the apparent dependence of evolutionary rate on interval
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.

Uncorrelated change produces the apparent dependence of evolutionary rate on interval
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? *