Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns

Heidi E. Robeck, Carlo Maley, Michael J. Donoghue

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Temporal diversity patterns have traditionally been analyzed by counting the number of families or genera present over a series of time periods. This approach has been criticized on the grounds that paraphyletic taxa might introduce artifacts. Sepkoski and Kendrick (1993) simulated phylogenetic trees and different classifications of those trees and concluded that paraphyletic taxa need not be rejected. We have reimplemented their model, extended it, and carried out statistical analyses under a variety of experimental conditions. Our results show that the focus on monophyly vs. paraphyly is misplaced. Instead, it appears that the number of groups in the classification and the distribution of the sizes of those groups have dramatic effects on the recovery of diversity information. Furthermore, the influence of these factors depends on whether the fossil record represents a low- or high-frequency sampling of lineages. When sampling is good, the best results are achieved by classifications with large numbers of small taxa. When sampling is poor, however, the best results are achieved by classifications that include some large and medium-sized groups as well as many smaller groups. This suggests that the best estimates of underlying diversity will be achieved by counting (in the same study) taxa assigned to different ranks, so as to best match the inferred quality of the paleontological sample. In practice this will mean abandoning the commitment to counting taxa at a single rank.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)171-187
Number of pages17
JournalPaleobiology
Volume26
Issue number2
StatePublished - Mar 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

taxonomy
sampling
paraphyly
Cefotaxime
fossil record
group size
Artifacts
monophyly
artifact
time series analysis
fossils
phylogenetics
phylogeny
distribution
need
family
effect

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Palaeontology
  • Ecology

Cite this

Robeck, H. E., Maley, C., & Donoghue, M. J. (2000). Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns. Paleobiology, 26(2), 171-187.

Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns. / Robeck, Heidi E.; Maley, Carlo; Donoghue, Michael J.

In: Paleobiology, Vol. 26, No. 2, 03.2000, p. 171-187.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Robeck, HE, Maley, C & Donoghue, MJ 2000, 'Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns', Paleobiology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 171-187.
Robeck HE, Maley C, Donoghue MJ. Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns. Paleobiology. 2000 Mar;26(2):171-187.
Robeck, Heidi E. ; Maley, Carlo ; Donoghue, Michael J. / Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns. In: Paleobiology. 2000 ; Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 171-187.
@article{71fbdaebecb14406a54ce4bdcba9d12b,
title = "Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns",
abstract = "Temporal diversity patterns have traditionally been analyzed by counting the number of families or genera present over a series of time periods. This approach has been criticized on the grounds that paraphyletic taxa might introduce artifacts. Sepkoski and Kendrick (1993) simulated phylogenetic trees and different classifications of those trees and concluded that paraphyletic taxa need not be rejected. We have reimplemented their model, extended it, and carried out statistical analyses under a variety of experimental conditions. Our results show that the focus on monophyly vs. paraphyly is misplaced. Instead, it appears that the number of groups in the classification and the distribution of the sizes of those groups have dramatic effects on the recovery of diversity information. Furthermore, the influence of these factors depends on whether the fossil record represents a low- or high-frequency sampling of lineages. When sampling is good, the best results are achieved by classifications with large numbers of small taxa. When sampling is poor, however, the best results are achieved by classifications that include some large and medium-sized groups as well as many smaller groups. This suggests that the best estimates of underlying diversity will be achieved by counting (in the same study) taxa assigned to different ranks, so as to best match the inferred quality of the paleontological sample. In practice this will mean abandoning the commitment to counting taxa at a single rank.",
author = "Robeck, {Heidi E.} and Carlo Maley and Donoghue, {Michael J.}",
year = "2000",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "171--187",
journal = "Paleobiology",
issn = "0094-8373",
publisher = "Paleontological Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns

AU - Robeck, Heidi E.

AU - Maley, Carlo

AU - Donoghue, Michael J.

PY - 2000/3

Y1 - 2000/3

N2 - Temporal diversity patterns have traditionally been analyzed by counting the number of families or genera present over a series of time periods. This approach has been criticized on the grounds that paraphyletic taxa might introduce artifacts. Sepkoski and Kendrick (1993) simulated phylogenetic trees and different classifications of those trees and concluded that paraphyletic taxa need not be rejected. We have reimplemented their model, extended it, and carried out statistical analyses under a variety of experimental conditions. Our results show that the focus on monophyly vs. paraphyly is misplaced. Instead, it appears that the number of groups in the classification and the distribution of the sizes of those groups have dramatic effects on the recovery of diversity information. Furthermore, the influence of these factors depends on whether the fossil record represents a low- or high-frequency sampling of lineages. When sampling is good, the best results are achieved by classifications with large numbers of small taxa. When sampling is poor, however, the best results are achieved by classifications that include some large and medium-sized groups as well as many smaller groups. This suggests that the best estimates of underlying diversity will be achieved by counting (in the same study) taxa assigned to different ranks, so as to best match the inferred quality of the paleontological sample. In practice this will mean abandoning the commitment to counting taxa at a single rank.

AB - Temporal diversity patterns have traditionally been analyzed by counting the number of families or genera present over a series of time periods. This approach has been criticized on the grounds that paraphyletic taxa might introduce artifacts. Sepkoski and Kendrick (1993) simulated phylogenetic trees and different classifications of those trees and concluded that paraphyletic taxa need not be rejected. We have reimplemented their model, extended it, and carried out statistical analyses under a variety of experimental conditions. Our results show that the focus on monophyly vs. paraphyly is misplaced. Instead, it appears that the number of groups in the classification and the distribution of the sizes of those groups have dramatic effects on the recovery of diversity information. Furthermore, the influence of these factors depends on whether the fossil record represents a low- or high-frequency sampling of lineages. When sampling is good, the best results are achieved by classifications with large numbers of small taxa. When sampling is poor, however, the best results are achieved by classifications that include some large and medium-sized groups as well as many smaller groups. This suggests that the best estimates of underlying diversity will be achieved by counting (in the same study) taxa assigned to different ranks, so as to best match the inferred quality of the paleontological sample. In practice this will mean abandoning the commitment to counting taxa at a single rank.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033912705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033912705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 171

EP - 187

JO - Paleobiology

JF - Paleobiology

SN - 0094-8373

IS - 2

ER -