Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T22:44:04.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Congruence between parsimony and stratigraphy: comparisons of three indices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Rebecca Hitchin  and
Michael J. Benton
Rebecca Hitchin
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom. E-mail: R.Hitchin@bristol.ac.uk
Michael J. Benton
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom. E-mail: Mike.Benton@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Use of quantitative statistical tests can show that there is generally good congruence between estimated cladistic hypotheses of relationship and observed stratigraphy. A data set of 376 cladograms of fishes, continental tetrapods, and echinoderms was tested using three metrics, Spearman Rank Correlation (SRC), Relative Completeness Index (RCI), and Stratigraphic Consistency Index (SCI), to explore the relationships between the indices and differences in results among the three groups of organisms.

There is a strong relationship between SCI and SRC, since both tests measure the same aspect of the fossil record. There is no relationship between RCI and either SCI or SRC. There is a highly significant relationship, as expected, between SRC coefficients and the number of taxa in a cladogram, but no such relationship for RCI or SCI (except in fishes). There is no significant relationship between any of the indices and either the number of internal nodes or tree balance.

Echinoderms show the best stratigraphic consistency of nodes, while continental tetrapods have the best matching of stratigraphic age and cladistic node order. Fishes have the worst match of age and clade ranks, but they do have the most complete fossil record as measured by the RCI. They are followed by echinoderms, and then continental tetrapods, which have the least complete record. This seems to show that life in an aquatic environment leads, in general, to a more complete fossil record.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Winter 1997 , pp. 20 - 32
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

Allison, P. A., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1991. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ax, P. 1987. The phylogenetic system. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1993. The fossil record 2. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1994. Palaeontological data, and identifying mass extinctions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:181–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benton, M. J. 1995. Testing the time axis of phylogenies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 349:5–10.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Simms, M. J. 1995. Testing the marine and continental fossil records. Geology 23:601–604.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Storrs, G. W. 1994. Testing the quality of the fossil record: Paleontological knowledge is improving. Geology 22:111–114.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Storrs, G. W. 1996. Diversity in the past: comparing cladistic phylogenies and stratigraphy. pp. 19–40In Hochberg, M. E., Clobert, J., and Barbault, R., eds. Aspects of the genesis and maintenance of biological diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle 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
Caldwell, M. W., Carroll, R. L., and Kaiser, H. 1995. The pectoral girdle and forelimb of Carsosaurus marchesetti (Aigialosauridae), with a preliminary phylogenetic analysis of mosasauroids and varanoids. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15:516–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clos, L. M. 1995. A new species of Varanus (Reptilia: Sauria) from the Miocene of Kenya. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15:254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species. J. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Denton, R. K. Jr., and O'Neill, R. C. 1995. Prototeuis stageri gen. et sp. nov., a new teiid lizard from the Upper Cretaceous Marshalltown Formation of New Jersey, with a preliminary phylogenetic revision of the Teiidae. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15:235–253.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1991. The taphonomy of echinoderms: calcareous multi-element skeletons in the marine environment. pp. 241–269in Donovan, S. K., ed. The processes of fossilization. Belhaven, London.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R., and de Queiroz, K. 1988. A phylogeny of Iguanidae. pp. 283–368In Estes, R. and Pregill, G., eds. Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families. Essays Commemorating Charles L. Camp. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1994. Stratocladistics: morphological and temporal patterns and their relation to phylogenetic process. pp. 113–171In Grande, L. and Rieppel, O., eds. Interpreting the hierarchy of nature. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Forey, P. L. 1988. Golden jubilee for the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae. Nature 336:727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forey, P. L. 1991. Latimeria chalumnae and its pedigree. Environmental biology of fishes 32:75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, B. G., and Schaeffer, B. 1989. Interrelationships of lower actinopterygian fishes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 97:135–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K. J., and May, R. M. 1992. Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356:281–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., and Rowe, T. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4:105–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grismer, L. L. 1988. Phylogeny, taxonomy, classification, and biogeography of eublepharid geckos. pp. 283–368In Estes, R. and Pregill, G., eds. Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families. Essays Commemorating Charles L. Camp. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Hitchin, R., and Benton, M. J. 1997. Stratigraphic indices and tree balance. Systematic Biology (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1991. When are fossils better than extant taxa in phylogenetic analysis? Systematic Zoology 40:458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1994. Comparing the stratigraphic record to estimates of phylogeny. Paleobiology 20:470–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecointre, H. L. V., Lecointre, G., and Perasso, R. 1993. A 28S RNA-based phylogeny of the gnathostomes: first steps in the analysis of conflict and congruence with morphologically-based cladograms. Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution 2:31–51.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A. 1992. Taxic origin and temporal diversity: The effect of phylogeny. pp. 89–118In Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A. 1993. Tree-based approaches to understanding history: comments on ranks, rules, and the quality of the fossil record. Science 293A:407–417.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A., and Novacek, M. J. 1992a. Congruence between superpositional and phylogenetic patterns: Comparing cladistic patterns with fossil records. Cladistics 8:319–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norell, M. A., and Novacek, M. J. 1992b. The fossil record and evolution: comparing cladistic and paleontologic evidence for vertebrate history. Science 255:1691–1693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novacek, M. J. 1992. Fossils as critical data for phylogeny. pp. 46–88In Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1981. Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12:195–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platnick, N. I. 1979. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Systematic Zoology 28:537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1972. Taxonomic diversity during the Phanerozoic. Science 215:1065–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, T. A., Joiner, B. L., and Ryan, T. A. 1985. Minitab handbook. Duxbury Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Shipman, P. 1981. Life history of a fossil. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London.Google Scholar
Siddall, M. E. 1996. Stratigraphic consistency and the shape of things. Systematic Biology 45:111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprent, P. 1989. Applied nonparametric statistical methods. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Van Andel, T. H. 1981. Consider the incompleteness of the geological record. Nature 294:397–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar