No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Bootstrapping and the Fossil Record
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 July 2017
Extract
A new statistical term has been cropping up in the literature of paleobiological analysis: bootstrapping. This term, which refers to a relatively new general-purpose statistical method, has appeared in papers on subjects as diverse as rates of morphological change (Kitchell et al., 1987), patterns of morphological difference (between dextral and sinistral snail shells, for instance; Gould et al., 1985), survivorship analysis (Gilinsky, 1988), mass extinctions (Hubbard and Gilinsky, in press), the shapes of diversity paths (Gilinsky and Bambach, 1986), and periodicity of extinction (Connor, 1986). Some other papers do not explicitly mention the word bootstrapping, but nonetheless use methods that are quite similar (e.g., Raup and Sepkoski, 1984). Jennifer A. Kitchell convened an entire symposium on the subject at the Fourth North American Paleontological Convention in 1986. What is bootstrapping, and why is it being so widely applied in analytical paleobiology?
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1991 Paleontological Society
References
Connor, E.F.
1986. Time series analysis of the fossil record, p. 119–148. In
Raup, D.M., and Jablonski, D. (eds.), Patterns and Processes in the History of Lxfe. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Diaconis, P., and Efron, B.
1984. Computer-intensive methods in statistics. Scientific American, 248 (5):116–130.Google Scholar
Efron, B.
1979a. Computers and the theory of statistics: thinking the unthinkable. SIAM Reviews, 21:460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B.
1979b. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B.
1981. Nonparametric standard errors and confidence intervals. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 9:139–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B., and Gong, G.
1983. A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. American Statistician, 37:36–48.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N.L.
1988. Survivorship in the Bivalvia: comparing living and extinct genera and families. Paleobiology, 14:370–386.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N.L., and Bambach, R.K.
1986. The evolutionary bootstrap: a new approach to the study of taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology, 12:251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilinsky, N.L., and Good, I.J.
1989. Analysis of clade shape using queueing theory and the fast Fourier transform. Paleobiology, 15:321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J., and Raup, D.M.
1975. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 7:1088.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J., Raup, D.M., Sepkoski, J.J. Jr., Schopf, T.J.M., and Simberloff, D.S.
1977. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology, 3:23–40.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J., Young, N.D., and Kasson, B.
1985. The consequences of being different: sinistral coiling in Cerion. Evolution, 39:1364–1379.Google Scholar
Hubbard, A.E., and Gilinsky, N.L.
1992. Mass extinctions as statistical phenomena: an examination of the evidence using Chi-square tests and bootstrapping. Paleobiology, In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyatt, A.
1868. On the parallelism between the different stages of life in the individual and those in the entire group of the molluscous Order Tetrabranchiata. Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History, 1:193–209.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J.A., Estabrook, G., and Macleod, N.
1987. Testing for equality of rates of evolution. Paleobiology, 13:272–285.Google Scholar
Malmgren, B.A., Berggren, W.A., and Lohmann, G.P.
1983. Evidence of punctuated gradualism in the Late Neogene Globorotalia tumida lineage of planktonic foraminifera. Paleobiology, 9:377–389.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M.
1975. Taxonomic survivorship curves and Van Valen's Law. Paleobiology, 4:1–15.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M.
1977. Stochastic models in evolutionary paleontology, p. 59–78. In
Hallam, A. (ed.), Patterns of Evolution as Illustrated by the Fossil Record. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Boyajian, G.E.
1988. Patterns of generic extinction in the fossil record. Paleobiology, 14:109–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D.M., and Gould, S.J.
1974. Stochastic simulation and the evolution of morphology – towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology, 23:305–322.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., Gould, S.J., Schopf, T.J.M., and Simberloff, D.S.
1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology, 81:525–542.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Sepkoski, J.J. Jr.
1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science, 215:1501–1503.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Sepkoski, J.J. Jr.
1984. Periodicity of extinctions in the geologic past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 81:801–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schindewolf, O.H.
1950. Grundfragen der Paläontologie. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, 506 p.Google Scholar
Schopf, T.J.M., Raup, D.M., Gould, S.J., and Simberloff, D.S.
1975. Genomic versus morphologic rates of evolution: influence of morphologic complexity. Paleobiology, 1:63–70.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J.J. Jr.
1982. A compendium of fossil marine families. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions to Biology and Geology, 51:1–125.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G.
1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York, 237 p.Google Scholar
Stanley, S.M.
1984. Does bradytely exist?, p. 278–280. In
Eldredge, N., and Stanley, S.M. (eds.), Living Fossils. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S.M., Signor, P. W. III, Lidgard, S., and Karr, A.F.
1981. Natural clades differ from “random” clades: simulations and analyses. Paleobiology, 7:115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodruff, D.S. and Gould, S.J.
1980. Geographic differentiation and speciation in Cerion – a preliminary discussion of patterns and processes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 14:389–416.Google Scholar