Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:41:23.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sampling, taxonomic description, and our evolving knowledge of morphological diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Mike Foote
Mike Foote*
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological analysis of four higher taxa of fossil marine invertebrates shows that, over the history of paleontology, there is no general tendency for morphologically extreme or modal species and genera to be described preferentially early or late. Reconstructing the expected evolutionary sequences of morphological disparity that would have been estimated at various times during the past century and a half reveals features that are sensitive to sampling (for example, peak trilobite disparity in the Ordovician, peak of post-Paleozoic crinoid disparity in the Triassic, and peak blastoid disparity in the Permian), as well as more robust features (for example, increase in trilobite disparity from the Cambrian to the Ordovician, continued increase in trilobite disparity despite a drop in taxonomic diversity after the Early Ordovician, decrease in blastoid disparity from the Devonian to the Carboniferous, and increase in crinoid disparity from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous followed by decline during the Cretaceous). Although we still have much to learn about the evolution of form, in many respects our view of the history of biological diversity is mature.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 181 - 206
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Allmon, W. D. 1992. Genera in paleontology: definition and significance. Historical Biology 6:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelin, N. P. 1878. Iconographia crinoideorum in stratis sueciae siluricis fossilium. Samson and Wallin, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Arendt, Yu. A. 1974. Morskie lilii Tsirtokrinidy. Academy of Sciences USSR, Institute of Paleontology. Trudy 144:1–251.Google Scholar
Arendt, Yu. A., Breimer, A., and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1968. A new blastoid from the Lower Namurian of North Kazachstan (USSR). Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B 71:159–174.Google Scholar
Austin, T., and Austin, T. Jr. 1843. Descriptions of several new genera and species of Crinoidea. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 11:195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrande, J. 1846. Nouveaux trilobites. Supplément à la notice préliminaire sur le système Silurien et les trilobites de Bohěme. Libraire Calve, Prague.Google Scholar
Barrande, J. 1852. Crustacés: Trilobites. Système Silurien du centre de la Bohěme. Ière partie. Recherches paléontologiques. 1(1):1–935.Google Scholar
Barrande, J. 1887. Classes des Echinodermes. Ordre des Cystidées. Système Silurien du centre de la Bohěme. Ière partie. Recherches paléontologiques 7(1):1–233.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S., and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America Special Paper 45:1–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, E. 1854. On some new genera and species of Cystidea from the Trenton Limestone. Canadian Journal 2:215–218, 250-253, 268-274.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1861-1865. Geological Survey of Canada. Palaeozoic fossils, Vol. 1. Containing descriptions and figures of new or little known species of organic remains from the Silurian rocks. Dawson Brothers, Montreal.Google Scholar
Blackburn, T. M., and Gaston, K. J. 1994. Animal body size distributions change as more species are described. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 257:293–297.Google ScholarPubMed
Brezinski, D. K. 1992. Permian trilobites from West Texas. Journal of Paleontology 66:924–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, B. N. 1953. Trilobites from the lower Champlainian formations of the Appalachian Valley. Geological Society of America Memoir 55:1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Orbigny, A. 1840-1841. Histoire naturelle, génerate et particulière, des Crinoïdes, vivans et fossiles. Reprint, 1858, J.-B. Baillière, Paris.Google Scholar
d'Orbigny, A. 1849-1852. Prodrome du paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques et rayonnés faisant suite au Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphique. Victor Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Dalman, J. W. 1827. Om Palaeaderna eller de så kallade Trilobiterna. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakadamiens, Handlingar 1:226–294. [Translated 1828 as über die Palaeaden oder die sogenannten Trilobiten. Johann Leonhard Schrag, Berlin.]Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. Jr., and Carpenter, P. H. 1882. On certain points in the morphology of the Blastoidea, with descriptions of some new genera and species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 5, 9:213–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, R. Jr., and Carpenter, P. H. 1886. Catalogue of the Blastoidea in the Geological Department of the British Museum (Natural History), with an account of the morphology and systematic position of the group, and a revision of the genera and species. British Museum, London.Google Scholar
Fay, R. O. 1961. Blastoid studies. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 3:1–147.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1989. Perimeter-based Fourier analysis: a new morphometric method applied to the trilobite cranidium. Journal of Paleontology 63:880–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1991a. Morphologic patterns of diversification: examples from trilobites. Palaeontology 34:461–485.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991b. Morphologic and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 28:101–140.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992a. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1992b. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 89:7325–7329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1993a. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1993b. Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity. Paleobiology 19:403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1995a. Morphological diversification of Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 21:273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1995b. Morphology of Carboniferous and Permian crinoids. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 29:135–184.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1996a. Perspective: evolutionary patterns in the fossil record. Evolution 50:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1996b. Ecological controls on the evolutionary recovery of post-Paleozoic crinoids. Science 274:1492–1495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, E. 1848. On the Cystideae of the Silurian rocks of the British Islands. Memoirs of the Great Britain Geological Survey and of the Museum of Practical Geology in London 2:483–534.Google Scholar
Gislén, T. 1924. Echinoderm studies. Zooligska Bidrag från Uppsala 9:1–316.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, G. A. 1826–44. Petrefacta Germaniae. Arnz, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Goldring, W. 1923. The Devonian crinoids of the state of New York. New York State Museum Memoir 16:1–670.Google Scholar
Green, J. 1832. A monograph of the trilobites of North America. Joseph Brano, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H. 1995. Triassic crinoids. Zentralblatt für Geologie und Paläontologie, Teil II. 1995:1–22.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1852. Palaeontology of New York, Vol. 2. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower Middle Division of the New-York System. New York State Natural History Survey, Albany.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1858. Palaeontology of Iowa. Iowa Geological Survey Report 1:473–724.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1862. Contributions to palaeontology. New York State Cabinet Annual Report 15:115–153.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C., and Labandeira, C. C. 1995. The stability of species in taxonomy. Paleobiology 21:401–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1899. Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen, 1, Thecoidea und Cystoidea. Julius Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 3:1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kummel, B. and Steele, G. 1962. Ammonites from the Meekoceras gracilitatus Zone at Crittenden Spring, Elko County, Nevada. Journal of Paleontology 36:638–703.Google Scholar
Labandeira, C. C., and Hughes, N. C. 1994. Biometry of the Late Cambrian trilobite genus Dikelocephalus and its implications for trilobite systematics. Journal of Paleontology 68:492–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lochman, C., and Duncan, D. 1944. Early Upper Cambrian faunas of central Montana. Geological Society of America Special Paper 54:1–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loriol, P. de. 1877-1879. Monographie des crinoïdes fossiles de la Suisse. Mémoires de la Société Paléontologique Suisse 4:1–52, 5: 53–124, 6: 125–300.Google Scholar
Loriol, P. de. 1882-1884. Paléontologie française, ou description des fossiles de la France, Série 1, Animaux invertébrés. Terrain Jurassique, Part 1. G. Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Loriol, P. de. 1884-1889. Paléontologie française, ou description des fossiles de la France, Série 1, Animaux invertébrés. Terrain Jurassique, Part 2. G. Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1983. Systematics of the fissiculate Blastoidea. University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology Papers on Paleontology 22:1–291.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr. 1995. Geometry of evolution in the biconvex Brachiopoda: morphological effects of mass extinction. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 197:357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A natural history of the Crinoidea, or lily-shaped animals; with observation on the genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites. C. Frost, Bristol.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A., and Gurley, W. F. E. 1890. Description of some new genera and species of Echinodermata, from the Coal Measures and Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural History Annual Report 16:327–373.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Plummer, F. B. 1940. Crinoids from the Upper Carboniferous and Permian strata in Texas. University of Texas Publication 3945:1–459.Google Scholar
Morris, S. F. 1988. A review of British trilobites, including a synoptic revision of Salter's monograph. Palaeontographical Society Monograph 140(574):1–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S. F., and Fortey, R. A. 1985. Catalogue of the type and figured specimens of Trilobita in the British Museum (Natural History). British Museum, London.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. B. 1913. Crinoiderne i Danmarks Kridtaflejringer. Danmarks Geologiske Unders⊘gelse, Ser. 2, 26:1–120.Google Scholar
Owen, D. D., and Shumard, B. F. 1850a. Descriptions of fifteen new species of Crinoidea from the sub-carboniferous limestone of Iowa, collected during the U. S. Geological Survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota in the years 1848-1849. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Journal, new series, 2:57–70.Google Scholar
Owen, D. D., and Shumard, B. F. 1850b. Descriptions of seven new species of Crinoidea from the sub-carboniferous limestone of Iowa and Illinois. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Journal, new series, 2:89–94.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1967. British Ordovician cystoids, Part 1. Palaeontographical Society Monograph 127(536):1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1980. The natural history of fossils. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1984. British Ordovician cystoids, Part 2. Palaeontographical Society Monograph 136(563):65–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. C. 1843. On an entirely new form of Encrinite from the Dudley Limestone. Proceedings of the Geological Society of London 4:160.Google Scholar
Pearson, E. S. 1926. Further note on the distribution of range in samples taken from a normal population. Biometrika 18:173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, R. E. 1943. Lower Cretaceous crinoids from Texas. Journal of Paleontology 17:451–475.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, H. W. 1961. A monograph on the Cretaceous Crinoidea. Biologiske Skrifter 12:1–428.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41:43–65.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1991. The future of analytical paleobiology. In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Paleontological Society Short Courses in Paleontology No. 4:207–216. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Raymond, P. E. 1925. Some trilobites of the Lower Middle Ordovician of eastern North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 67:3–180.Google Scholar
Resser, C. E. 1938. Cambrian system (restricted) of the southern Appalachians. Geological Society of America Special Paper 15:1–140.Google Scholar
Ross, R. J. Jr. 1951. Stratigraphy of the Garden City Formation in northeastern Utah, and its trilobite faunas. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University 6:1–161.Google Scholar
Ross, R. J. Jr. 1979. Additional trilobites from the Ordovician of Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1066-D:1–13.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Swan, A. R. H. 1984. Morphology and morphologic diversity in mid-Carboniferous (Namurian) ammonoids in time and space. Paleobiology 10:195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1996. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology 22:189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Say, T. 1825. On two genera and several species of Crinoidea. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Journal, series 1, 4:289–296.Google Scholar
Schultze, L. 1867. Monographie der Echinodermen des Eifler Kalkes. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse) 26:113–230.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1993. Ten years in the library: new data confirm paleontological patterns. Paleobiology 19:43–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Bambach, R. K., Raup, D. M., and Valentine, J. W. 1981. Phanerozoic marine diversity and the fossil record. Nature 293:435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumard, B. F. 1855. Palaeontology. Description of new species of organic remains. Missouri Geological Survey Annual Report 1–2 (2):185–238.Google Scholar
Simms, M. J. 1989. British Lower Jurassic crinoids. Palaeontographical Society Monograph 142(581):1–103.Google Scholar
Sowerby, G. B. 1825. Note on the foregoing paper, together with a description of a new species of Pentremites. Zoological Journal 2:316–318.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Institution Publication 2501:1–486.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926a. American Silurian crinoids. Smithsonian Institution Publication 2871:1–239.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926b. Unusual forms of fossil crinoids. Proceedings, United States National Museum 67(5):1–137.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1973. Morphology and evolution of blastozoan echinoderms. Special Publication of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1982. Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1:1–369.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1961. Late Desmoinesian crinoid faunule from Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 93:1–189.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, R. E., and Bookstein, F. L. 1990. The structure of individual variation in Miocene Globorotalia. Evolution 44:416–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trautschold, H. 1867. Einige Crinoideen und andere Thierreste des jüngeren Bergkalks im Gouvernement Moskau. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou 40(2[3]):1–49.Google Scholar
Troost, G. 1835. On the Pentremites reinwardtii, a new fossil; with remarks on the genus Pentremites (Say), and its geognostic position in the state of Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky. Pennsylvania Geological Society Transactions 1:224–231.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1974. Multivariate structural statistics in natural history. Journal of Theoretical Biology 45:235–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogdes, A. W. 1890. A bibliography of Paleozoic Crustacea from 1698 to 1889. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 63:1–177.Google Scholar
Vogdes, A. W. 1917. Palaeozoic Crustacea. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 3:1–141.Google Scholar
Vogdes, A. W. 1925a. Palaeozoic Crustacea. Part I, A bibliography of Palaeozoic Crustacea. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 4:88–115.Google Scholar
Vogdes, A. W. 1925b. Palaeozoic Crustacea. Part II, A list of the genera and subgenera of the Trilobita. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 4:5–88.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1897. The North American Crinoidea Camerata. Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoir 20:1–897, 21:plates 1-83.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Diversity patterns among early gastropods: contrasting taxonomic and phylogenetic descriptions. Paleobiology 21:410–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlenberg, G. 1821. Petrifacata telluris svecanae. Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis 8:1–116.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1916a. Cambrian geology and paleontology, III, No. 3, Cambrian trilobites. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 64:157–258.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1916b. Cambrian geology and paleontology, III, No. 5, Cambrian trilobites. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 64:303–456.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1916. Die permischen Echinodermen von Timor, Teil I. Paläontologie von Timor, Part 6, No. 11:1–329.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1924a. Die permischen Echinodermen von Timor, Teil II. Paläontologie von Timor, Part 14, No. 23:1–81.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1924b. Die permischen Blastoiden von Timor. Jaarboek van het Mijnwezen in Nederlandsch Oost-Indië, Verhandelingen 51:163–233.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1931. Neue Beiträge zur Kenntnis der permischen Echinodermen von Timor. VI. Blastoidea. Dienst van den Mijnbouw in Nederlandsch-Indië, Wetenschappelijke Mededeelingen 16:38–74.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1940. Neue Blastoideen aus dem Perm von Timor mit einem Beitrag zur Systematik der Blastoideen. Geological Expedition of the University of Amsterdam to the Lesser Sunda Islands in the south eastern part of the Netherlands East Indies 1:215–277.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A. 1990. The palaeobiogeography of the Blastoidea (Echinodermata). In Palaeozoic palaeogeography and biogeography. McKerrow, W. S. and Scotese, C. R., eds. Geological Society of London Memoir 12:339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1969. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, 1942-1968. Geological Society of America Memoir 137:1–341.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1977. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, 1969-1973. Geological Society of America Microform Publication 8:1–235.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1986. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, 1974-1980. Geological Society of America Microform Publication 16:1–405.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1988. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids and coronate echinoderms, 1981-1985. Geological Society of America Microform Publication 18:1–235.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1993. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, 1986-1990. Geological Society of America Microform Publication 25:1–204.Google Scholar
Weishampel, D. B. 1996. Fossils, phylogeny, and discovery: a cladistic study of the history of tree topologies and ghost lineage durations. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1954. Status of invertebrate paleontology, 1953. VI. Arthropoda: Trilobita. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 114:155–288.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B., and Evitt, W. R. 1953. Silicified Middle Ordovician trilobites. Geological Society of America Memoir 59:1–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 1957. Evolutionary rates of brachiopods. Geological Magazine 94:201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar