Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:34:43.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intrinsic versus extrinsic biases in the fossil record: contrasting the fossil record of echinoids in the Triassic and early Jurassic using sampling data, phylogenetic analysis, and molecular clocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Andrew B. Smith
Andrew B. Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom. E-mail: a.smith@nhm.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four independent lines of evidence, (1) the quality of specimen preservation, (2) taxonomic collection curves, (3) molecular divergence estimates, and (4) ghost lineage analysis of a genus-level cladogram, point to echinoids having a much poorer fossil record in the Triassic than in the Lower Jurassic. Furthermore, preservational differences between Triassic and Lower Jurassic echinoids have remained a consistent feature over 160 years of discovery. Differences exist in how effectively paleontologists have collected the fauna from available outcrops in the Triassic and Lower Jurassic. Collection curves suggest that rocks have been more efficiently searched for their fossils in Europe than elsewhere in the world, and that Lower Jurassic faunas are better sampled from available outcrop than Triassic faunas. The discovery of Triassic taxa has quickened in pace over the past 4 decades (though largely driven by a single Lagerstätte—the St. Cassian beds) while discoveries of new taxa from the Lower Jurassic have slowed. Molecular analysis of extant families and ghost lineage analysis of Triassic and Lower Jurassic genera both point to poorer sampling of Triassic faunas. This difference in the quality of the fossil record may be partially explained by differences in rock outcrop area, as marine sedimentary rocks are much less common in the Triassic than in the Lower Jurassic. However, improving biomechanical design of the echinoid test over this critical time interval was probably as important, and better explains observed preservational trends. Changes in the quality of the echinoid fossil record were thus driven as much by intrinsic biological factors as by sampling patterns.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , Spring 2007 , pp. 310 - 323
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

Alroy, J. 2003. Global databases will yield reliable measures of global biodiversity. Paleobiology 29:26–29.Google Scholar
Alroy, J., Marshall, C. R., Bambach, R. K., Bezusko, K., Foote, M., Fürsich, F. T., Hansen, T. A., Holland, S. M., Ivany, L. C., Jablonski, D., Jacobs, D. K., Jones, D. C., Kosnik, M. A., Lidgard, S., Low, S., Miller, A. I., Novack-Gottshall, P. M., Olszewski, T. D., Patzkowsky, M. E., Raup, D. M., Roy, K., Sepkoski, J. Jr., Sommers, M. G., Wagner, P. J., and Webber, A. 2001. Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:6261–6266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benton, M. J. 1998. The quality of the fossil record of the vertebrates. Pp. 269–303 in Donovan, S. K. and Paul, C. R. C., eds. The adequacy of the fossil record. Wiley, Chichester, U.K. Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Ayala, F. J. 2003. Dating the tree of life. Science 300:1698–1700.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A., Jones, C. M., Marshall, B., and Maxwell, P. A. 2003. Estimating the rock volume bias in paleobiodiversity studies. Science 301:358–360.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Foote, M., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A., Matcham, I., Jones, C. M., Maxwell, P. A., and Marshall, B. A. 2006. Second-order sequence stratigraphic controls on the quality of the fossil record at an active margin: New Zealand Eocene to Recent shelf molluscs. Palaios 21:86–105.Google Scholar
Cranston, K., and Rannala, B. 2005. Closing the gap between rocks and clocks. Heredity 94:461–462.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1993. The great Paleozoic crisis: life and death in the Permian. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1996. Understanding biotic recoveries: extinction survival and preservation during the end-Permian mass extinction. Pp. 223–229 in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 2001. Lessons from the past: biotic recoveries from mass extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:5399–5403.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 2006. How life on Earth nearly ended 250 million years ago. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H., and Pan, H. 1996. Recoveries and radiations: gastropods after the Permo-Triassic mass extinction. In Hart, M. B., ed. Biotic recovery from mass extinction events. Geological Society of London Special Publication 102:223–229.Google Scholar
Hess, H., Ausich, W. I., Brett, C. E., and Simms, M. J. 1999. Fossil crinoids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S. M. 2000. The quality of the fossil record: a sequence stratigraphic perspective. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):148–168.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Baumiller, T. 1990. Experimental disintegration of regular echinoids: roles of temperature, oxygen and decay thresholds. Paleobiology 16:247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1977. Triassic echinoids. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 30:1–88.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1984. Echinoids from the Triassic (St. Cassian) of Italy, their latern supports, and a revised phylogeny of Triassic echinoids. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 56:1–41.Google Scholar
Langley, C. H., and Fitch, W. 1974. An estimation of the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 3:161–177.Google Scholar
Looy, C. V., Brugman, W. A., Dilcher, D. L., and Visscher, H. 1999. The delayed resurgence of equatorial forests and the Permian-Triassic ecology crisis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96:13857–13862.Google Scholar
Maxwell, W. D., and Benton, M. J. 1990. Historical tests of the absolute completeness of the fossil record of tetrapods. Paleobiology 16:322–335.Google Scholar
McGowan, A. J. 2004. Ammonoid taxonomic and morphologic recovery patterns after the Permian-Triassic. Geology 32:665–668.Google Scholar
Miller, K. G., Kominz, M. A., Browning, J. V., Wright, J. D., Mountain, G. S., Katz, M. E., Sugarman, P. J., Cramer, B. S., Christie-Blick, N., and Pekar, S. F. 2005. The Phanerozoic record of global sea-level change. Science 310:1293–1298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Near, T. J., Meylan, P. A., and Shaffer, H. B. 2005. Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: an example using turtles. American Naturalist 165:137–146.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1998. Adequacy, completeness and the fossil record. Pp. 1–22 in Donovan, S. K. and Paul, C. R. C., eds. The adequacy of the fossil record. Wiley, Chichester, U.K. Google Scholar
Payne, J. L. 2005. Evolutionary dynamics of gastropod size across the end-Permian extinction and through the Triassic recovery interval. Paleobiology 31:269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. L., Lehrmann, D. J., Wei, J., and Knoll, A. H. 2006. The pattern and timing of biotic recovery from the end-Permian mass extinction on the Great Bank of Guizhou, Guizhou Province, South China. Palaios 21:63–85.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2001. Biodiversity in the Phanerozoic: a reinterpretation. Paleobiology 27:583–601.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2002. Determinants of extinction in the fossil record. Nature 416:420–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfefferkorn, H. W. 1999. Recuperation from mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96:13597–13599.Google Scholar
Retallack, G. J., Veevers, J. J., and Morante, R. 1996. Global coal gap between Permian–Triassic extinction and Middle Triassic peat-forming plants. Geological Society of America Bulletin 108:195–207.Google Scholar
Rodland, D. L., and Bottjer, D. J. 2001. Biotic recovery from the end-Permian mass extinction: behavior of the inarticulate brachiopod Lingula as a disaster taxon. Palaios 16:95–101.Google Scholar
Sanderson, M. J. 2002. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:101–109.Google Scholar
Schubert, J. K., and Bottjer, D. J. 1995. Aftermath of the Permian-Triassic mass extinction: paleoecology of Lower Triassic carbonates in the western USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 116:1–39.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology 7:36–53.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1990. Echinoid evolution from the Triassic to the Lower Jurassic. Cahiers Université Catholique de Lyon, série Sciences 3:79–117.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record: discovering evolutionary patterns. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 2001 Large-scale heterogeneity of the fossil record; implications for Phanerozoic biodiversity studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 356:351–67.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 2005. Growth and form in echinoids: the evolutionary interplay of plate accretion and plate addition. Pp. 181–196 in Briggs, D. E. G., ed. Evolving form and function: fossils and development. Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven, Conn. Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Hollingworth, N. T. J. 1990. Tooth structure and phylogeny of the Upper Permian echinoid Miocidaris keyserlingi . Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 48:47–60.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Peterson, K. J. 2002. Dating the time of origin of major clades: molecular clocks and the fossil record. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 30:65–88.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., Pisani, D., Mackenzie-Dodds, J. A., Stockley, B., Webster, B. L., and Littlewood, D. T. J. 2006. Testing the molecular clock: molecular and paleontological estimates of divergence times in the Echinoidea (Echinodermata). Molecular Biology and Evolution 23:1832–1851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP∗. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (∗and other methods), Version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. Google Scholar
Thorne, J. L., and Kishino, H. 2002. Divergence time and evolutionary rate estimation with multilocus data. Systematic Biology 51:689–702.Google Scholar
Twitchett, R. J. 1999. Paleoenvironments and faunal recovery after the end-Permian mass extinction. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 154:27–37.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J., Kosnik, M. A., and Lidgard, S. 2006. Abundance distributions imply elevated complexity of post-Paleozoic marine ecosystems. Science 314:1289–1292.Google Scholar
Wheeley, J. R., and Twitchett, R. J. 2005. Palaeoecological significance of a new Griesbachian (Early Triassic) gastropod assemblage from Oman. Lethaia 38:37–45.Google Scholar
Yang, Z., and Rannala, B. 2006. Bayesian estimation of species divergence times under a molecular clock using multiple fossil calibrations with soft bounds. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23:212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zardini, R. 1973. Fossili di Cortina: Atlante degli echinodermi cassiani (Trias medio-superiore) della regione domolitica attorno a Cortina d'Ampezzo. Foto Ghedina, Cortina d'Ampezzo.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Smith supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Smith supplementary material(File)
File 73.2 KB