Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:11:35.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the value of taxonomic standardization in evolutionary studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Stephen J. Culver ,
Martin A. Buzas  and
Laurel S. Collins
Stephen J. Culver
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23508
Martin A. Buzas
Affiliation:
Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
Laurel S. Collins
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, Box 6666, New Haven, Connecticut 06511
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Species duration data for living benthic foraminifera derived from an extensive literature search have been compiled and analyzed to investigate rates and patterns of species origination. The same data subjected to taxonomic standardization through examination of many specimens lodged in museum collections indicate strikingly different, and more realistic, rates and patterns.

Evolutionary generalizations based on data generated from the literature only are often unreliable and may be directly in opposition to reality. Extensive attempts at taxonomic standardization should be the norm in paleobiological investigations.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Spring 1987 , pp. 169 - 176
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

Buzas, M. A. and Culver, S. J. 1984. Species duration and evolution: benthic Foraminifera on the Atlantic continental margin of North America. Science. 225:829–830.Google Scholar
Culver, S. J. 1980. A bibliography of Recent North American benthic Foraminifera. J. Foramin. Res. 10:286–302.Google Scholar
Culver, S. J. and Buzas, M. A. 1980. Distribution of Recent benthic Foraminifera off the North American Atlantic coast. Smithson. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 6:1–512.Google Scholar
Douglas, R. G. and Woodruff, F. 1981. Deep-Sea Foraminfera. Pp. 1233–1328. In: Emiliani, C., ed. The Oceanic Lithosphere. Wiley; New York.Google Scholar
Durazzi, J. T. and Stehli, F. G. 1972. Average generic age, the planetary temperature gradient, and pole location. Syst. Zool. 21:384–389.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. G. and Buzas, M. A. 1973. Species diversity: patterns in modern and Miocene Foraminifera of the eastern margins of North America. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 84:217–238.Google Scholar
Hayward, B. W. and Buzas, M. A. 1979. Taxonomy and paleocology of Early Miocene benthic Foraminifera of northern New Zealand and the North Tasman Sea. Smithson. Contrib. Paleobiol. 36:1–154.Google Scholar
Hecht, A. D. and Agan, B. 1972. Diversity and age relationships in Recent and Miocene bivalves. Syst. Zool. 21:308–312.Google Scholar
Holman, E. W. 1983. Time scales and taxonomic survivorship. Paleobiology. 9:20–25.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. and Valentine, J. W. 1981. Onshore-offshore gradients in Recent Eastern Pacific shelf faunas and their paleobiogeographic significance. Pp. 441–453. In: Scudder, G. G. E. and Reveal, J. H., eds. Evolution Today, Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F. 1978. Bias in the published fossil record. Paleobiology. 4:367–372.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1985. Mass extinction patterns of marine invertebrate groups and some implications for a causal phenomenon. Palebiology. 11:227–233.Google Scholar
Pease, C. M. 1985. Biases in the durations and diversities of fossil taxa. Paleobiology. 11:272–292.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1982. A critical assessment of punctuated equilibria. I. Duration of taxa. Evolution. 36:1144–1157.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. 1975. Stratigraphic biases in the analysis of taxonomic survivorship. Paleobiology. 1:343–355.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology. 4:223–251.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. 1982. A Compendium of Fossil Marine Families. Milwaukee Public Mus. Contr. Biol. Geol. no. 51. 125 pp.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. 1984. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. III. Post-Paleozoic families and mass extinctions. Paleobiology. 10:246–267.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. 332 pp. W. H. Freeman; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stehli, F. G. and Wells, J. W. 1971. Diversity and age patterns in hermatypic corals. Syst. Zool. 20:115–126.Google Scholar
Walton, W. R. 1964. Recent foraminiferal ecology and paleoecology. pp. 151–237. In: Imbrie, J. and Newell, N., eds. Approaches to Paleoecology. Wiley; New York.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. and Signor, P. W. III. 1983. Evolutionary tempo in Jurassic and Cretaceous Ammonites. Paleobiology. 9:183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar