AMNIOTE PHYLOGENY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOSSILS

AMNIOTE PHYLOGENY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOSSILS Abstract— Several prominent cladists have questioned the importance of fossils in phylogenctic inference, and it is becoming increasingly popular to simply fit extinct forms, if they are considered at all, to a cladogram of Recent taxa. Gardiner's (1982) and Løvtrup's (1985) study of amniote phylogeny exemplifies this differential treatment, and we focused on that group of organisms to test the proposition that fossils cannot overturn a theory of relationships based only on the Recent biota. Our parsimony analysis of amniote phylogeny, special knowledge contributed by fossils being scrupulously avoided, led to the following best fitting classification, which is similar to the novel hypothesis Gardiner published: (lepidosaurs (turtles (mammals (birds, crocodiles)))). However, adding fossils resulted in a markedly different most parsimonious cladogram of the extant taxa: (mammals (turtles (lepidosaurs (birds, crocodiles)))). That classification is like the traditional hypothesis, and it provides a better fit to the stratigraphic record. To isolate the extinct taxa responsible for the latter classification, the data were successively partitioned with each phylogenetic analysis, and we concluded that: (1) the ingroup, not the outgroup, fossils were important; (2) synapsid, not reptile, fossils were pivotal; (3) certain synapsid fossils, not the earliest or latest, were responsible. The critical nature of the synapsid fossils seemed to lie in the particular combination of primitive and derived character slates they exhibited. Classifying those fossils, along with mammals, as the sister group to the lineage consisting of birds and crocodiles resulted in a relatively poor fit to data; one involving a 2—4 fold increase in evolutionary reversals! Thus, the importance of the critical fossils, collectively or individually, seems to reside in their relative primitive‐ness, and the simplest explanation for their more conservative nature is that they have had less time to evolve. While fossils may be important in phylogenetic inference only under certain conditions, there is no compelling reason to prejudge their contribution. We urge systematists to evaluate fairly all of the available evidence. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Cladistics Wiley

AMNIOTE PHYLOGENY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOSSILS

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/amniote-phylogeny-and-the-importance-of-fossils-3mL9b6Q9CQ
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 1988 The Willi Hennig Society
ISSN
0748-3007
eISSN
1096-0031
DOI
10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00514.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract— Several prominent cladists have questioned the importance of fossils in phylogenctic inference, and it is becoming increasingly popular to simply fit extinct forms, if they are considered at all, to a cladogram of Recent taxa. Gardiner's (1982) and Løvtrup's (1985) study of amniote phylogeny exemplifies this differential treatment, and we focused on that group of organisms to test the proposition that fossils cannot overturn a theory of relationships based only on the Recent biota. Our parsimony analysis of amniote phylogeny, special knowledge contributed by fossils being scrupulously avoided, led to the following best fitting classification, which is similar to the novel hypothesis Gardiner published: (lepidosaurs (turtles (mammals (birds, crocodiles)))). However, adding fossils resulted in a markedly different most parsimonious cladogram of the extant taxa: (mammals (turtles (lepidosaurs (birds, crocodiles)))). That classification is like the traditional hypothesis, and it provides a better fit to the stratigraphic record. To isolate the extinct taxa responsible for the latter classification, the data were successively partitioned with each phylogenetic analysis, and we concluded that: (1) the ingroup, not the outgroup, fossils were important; (2) synapsid, not reptile, fossils were pivotal; (3) certain synapsid fossils, not the earliest or latest, were responsible. The critical nature of the synapsid fossils seemed to lie in the particular combination of primitive and derived character slates they exhibited. Classifying those fossils, along with mammals, as the sister group to the lineage consisting of birds and crocodiles resulted in a relatively poor fit to data; one involving a 2—4 fold increase in evolutionary reversals! Thus, the importance of the critical fossils, collectively or individually, seems to reside in their relative primitive‐ness, and the simplest explanation for their more conservative nature is that they have had less time to evolve. While fossils may be important in phylogenetic inference only under certain conditions, there is no compelling reason to prejudge their contribution. We urge systematists to evaluate fairly all of the available evidence.

Journal

CladisticsWiley

Published: Jun 1, 1988

References

  • Stem species and the stem lineage concept
    Ax, Ax
  • On the phylogenetic arrangement of the Sauropsida
    Baur, Baur
  • On the morphology of the vertebrate skull
    Baur, Baur
  • Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles
    Benton, Benton
  • The olfactory organ and upper lips in Dipnoi, an embryological study
    Bertmar, Bertmar
  • The development of the skeleton, blood‐vessels and nerves in the dipnoan snout, with a discussion on the homology of the dipnoan posterior nostrils
    Bertmar, Bertmar
  • Studies of the vertebrate telencephalon. I. The nuclear configuration of the olfactory and accessory olfactory formations and of the nucleus olfactorius of certain reptiles, birds, and mammals
    Crosby, Crosby; Humphrey, Humphrey
  • Problems of the double circulation in vertebrates
    Foxon, Foxon
  • Pattern cladistics or evolutionary cladistics
    Hill, Hill; Camus, Camus
  • Ontogeny and phylogenetic systematics
    Kluge, Kluge
  • The caecilian cardio‐vascular system and intra‐amphibian relationships
    Lawson, Lawson
  • Evolution of metatherian and eutherian (mammalian) characters: a review based on cladistic methodology
    Marshall, Marshall
  • Dipnoan (lungfish) skulls and the relationships of the group: a study based on new species from the Devonian of Australia
    Miles, Miles
  • Evolution of the telencephalon In nonmammals
    Northcutt, Northcutt
  • The physiological ecology of reptilian eggs and embryos, and the evolution of viviparity within the class Reptilia
    Packard, Packard; Tracy, Tracy; Roth, Roth
  • Homology, a deductive concept
    Rieppel, Rieppel
  • Contributions to forebrain morphology in Dipnoi
    Rudebeck, Rudebeck
  • A reconsideration of the reptilian relationships of Archaeopteryx
    Tarsitano, Tarsitano; Hecht, Hecht
  • Development of the heart in a newt and a frog
    Turner, Turner

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off