Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:21:14.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifying historical trends in the completeness of the fossil record and the contributing factors: an example using Aves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Daniel T. Ksepka  and
Clint A. Boyd
Daniel T. Ksepka
Affiliation:
Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8208, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, and Department of Paleontology, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, U.S.A. E-mail: ksepka@gmail.com
Clint A. Boyd
Affiliation:
Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C1100, Austin, Texas 78712, U.S.A. E-mail: clintboyd@stratfit.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improvements in the perceived completeness of the fossil record may be driven both by new discoveries and by reinterpretation of known fossils, but disentangling the relative effects of these processes can be difficult. Here, we propose a new methodology for evaluating historical trends in the perceived completeness of the fossil record, demonstrate its implementation using the freely available software ASCC (version 4.0.0), and present an example using crown-group birds (Aves). Dates of discovery and recognition for the oldest fossil representatives of 75 major lineages of birds were collected for the historical period ranging from 1910 to 2010. Using a comprehensive phylogeny, we calculated minimum implied stratigraphic gaps (MIG range) across these 75 lineages. Our results show that a reduction in global MIG values of 1.35 Ga (billion years) occurred over the past century in avian paleontology. A pronounced increase in the average rate of global MIG reduction is noted in the post-1970s interval (290.5 Myr per decade) compared to the pre-1970s interval (31.9 Myr per decade). Although the majority of the improvement in the fossil record of birds has come from new discoveries, substantial improvement (∼22.5%) has resulted from restudy and phylogenetic revision of previously described fossils over the last 40 years. With a minimum estimate indicating that at least 1.34 Gyr of gaps remain to be filled between the predicted and observed first appearances of major lineages of crown Aves, there is much progress to be made. However, a notable tapering off in the rate of global MIG reduction occurs between 1990 and 2010, suggesting we may be approaching an asymptote of oldest record discoveries for birds. Only future observations can determine whether this is a real pattern or a historical anomaly. Either way, barring the discovery of fossils that substantially push back the minimum age for the origin of crown-clade Aves, new discoveries cannot continue to reduce global MIG values at the average post-1970s rate over the long term.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , Winter 2012 , pp. 112 - 125
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

Andors, A. 1992. Reappraisal of the Eocene groundbird Diatryma (Aves: Anserimorphae). Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 36:109–125.Google Scholar
Angielczyk, K. D., and Kurkin, A. A. 2003. Phylogenetic analysis of Russian Permian dicynodonts (Therapsida: Anomodontia): implications for Permian biostratigraphy and Pangaean biogeography. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 139:157–212.Google Scholar
Baker, A. J., Pereira, S. L., and Paton, T. A. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times of Charadriiformes genera: multigene evidence for the Cretaceous origin of at least 14 clades of shorebirds. Biology Letters 3:205–209.Google Scholar
Bardack, D. 1991. First fossil hagfish (Myxinoidea): a record from the Pennsylvanian of Illinois. Science 254:701–703.Google Scholar
Bardack, D., and Zangerl, R. 1968. First fossil lamprey: a record from the Pennsylvanian of Illinois. Science 162:1265–1267.Google Scholar
Barker, F. K., Cibois, A., Schikler, P., Feinstein, J., and Cracraft, J. 2004. Phylogeny and diversification of the largest avian radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:11040–11045.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1994. Paleontological data and identifying mass extinctions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:181–185.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1999. Early origin of modern birds and mammals: molecules versus morphology. BioEssays 21:1043–1051.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Storrs, G. W. 1994. Testing the quality of the fossil record: paleontological knowledge is improving. Geology 22:111–114.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., Wills, M., and Hitchin, R. 2000. Quality of the fossil record through time. Nature 403:534–537.Google Scholar
Bleiweiss, R. 1998. Fossil gap analysis supports early Tertiary origin of trophically diverse avian orders. Geology 26:323–326.Google Scholar
Bourdon, E. 2005. Osteological evidence for sister group relationship between pseudo-toothed birds (Aves: Odontopterygiformes) and waterfowls (Anseriformes). Naturwissenschaften 92:586–591.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. A., Cleland, T. P., Marrero, N. L., and Clarke, J. A. 2011. Exploring the effects of phylogenetic uncertainty and consensus trees on stratigraphic consistency scores: a new program and a standardized method. Cladistics 27:52–60.Google Scholar
Brodkorb, P. 1963. Catalog of fossil birds, Part 1. Archaeopterygiformes through Ardeiformes. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences 7:179–293.Google Scholar
Brown, J., Rest, J., Garcia-Moreno, J., Sorenson, M., and Mindell, D. 2008. Strong mitochondrial DNA support for a Cretaceous origin of modern avian lineages. BMC Biology 6:6.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. A., Tambussi, C. P., Noriega, J. I., Erickson, G. M., and Ketcham, R. A. 2005. Definitive fossil evidence for the extant avian radiation in the Cretaceous. Nature 433:305–308.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. A., Ksepka, D. T., Stucchi, M., Urbina, M., Giannini, N., Bertelli, S., Narvaez, Y., and Boyd, C. A. 2007. Paleogene equatorial penguins challenge the proposed relationship between biogeography, diversity, and Cenozoic climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 104:11545–11550.Google Scholar
Cooper, A., and Penny, D. 1997. Mass Survival of birds across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: molecular evidence. Science 275:1109–1113.Google Scholar
Cooper, A., and Fortey, R. 1998. Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:151–156.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic theory and methodology in avian paleontology: a critical appraisal. Contributions in Science of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 330:9–16.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. 2001. Avian evolution, Gondwana biogeography and the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:459–469.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J., Barker, F. K., Braun, J., Harshman, J., Dyke, G. J., Feinstein, J., Stanley, S., Cibois, A., Schikler, P., Beresford, P., García-Moreno, J., Sorenson, M. D., Yuri, T., and Mindell, D. P. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships among modern birds (Neornithes): towards an avian tree of life. Pp. 468–489 in Cracraft, J.and Donoghue, M. J., eds. Assembling the tree of life. Oxford Press, New York.Google Scholar
Crowe, T. M., Bowie, R. C. K., Bloomer, P., Mandiwana, T. G., Hedderson, T. A. J., Randi, E., Pereira, S. L., and Wakeling, J. 2006. Phylogenetics, biogeography and classification of, and character evolution in, gamebirds (Aves: Galliformes): effects of character exclusion, data partitioning and missing data. Cladistics 22:495–532.Google Scholar
Ericson, P. G. P., Anderson, C. L., Britton, T., Elzanowski, A., Johansson, U. S., Källersjö, M., Ohlson, J. I., Parsons, T. J., Zuccon, D., and Mayr, G. 2006. Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Biology Letters 4:543–547.Google Scholar
Fara, E., and Benton, M. J. 2000. The fossil record of Cretaceous tetrapods. Palaios 15:161–165.Google Scholar
Feduccia, A. 1999. The origin and evolution of birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1999. Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil record. Nature 389:415–417.Google Scholar
Fountaine, T. M. R., Benton, M. J., Dyke, G. J., and Nudds, R. L. 2005. The quality of the fossil record of Mesozoic birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272:289–294.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., and Rowe, T. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4:105–209.Google Scholar
Hackett, S. J., Kimball, R. T., Reddy, S., Bowie, R. C. K., Braun, E. L., Braun, M. J., Chojnowski, J. L., Cox, W. A., Han, K-L., Harshman, J., Huddleston, C. J., Marks, B. D., Miglia, K. J., Moore, W. S., Sheldon, F. H., Steadman, D. W., Witt, C. C., and Yuri, T. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763–1768.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1994. Comparing the stratigraphic record to estimates of phylogeny. Paleobiology 20:470–483.Google Scholar
Jeffery, C. H., and Emlet, R. B. 2003. Macroevolutionary consequences of developmental mode in temnopleurid echinoids from the Tertiary of southern Australia. Evolution 57:1031–1048.Google Scholar
Kalmar, A., and Currie, D. J. 2010. The completeness of the continental fossil record and its impact on patterns of diversification. Paleobiology 36:51–60.Google Scholar
Kerr, A. M., and Kim, J. 2001. Phylogeny of Holothuroidea (Echinodermata) inferred from morphology. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 133:63–81.Google Scholar
Ksepka, D. T., and Clarke, J. A. 2010. The basal penguin (Aves, Sphenisciformes) Perudyptes devriesi and a phylogenetic evaluation of the penguin fossil record. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 337:1–77.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1933. Handbuch der Palaeornithologie. Gebrüder Bornträger, Berlin.Google Scholar
Marjanovic, D., and Laurin, M. 2007. Fossils, molecules, divergence times, and the origin of lissamphibians. Systematic Biology 56:369–388.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
Mayr, G. 2002. Osteological evidence for paraphyly of the avian order Caprimulgiformes (nightjars and allies). Journal of Ornithology 143:82–97.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 2005. Tertiary plotopterids and a novel hypothesis on the phylogenetic relationships of penguins (Spheniscidae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 43:63–71.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 2007. The renaissance of avian paleontology and its bearing on the higher-level phylogeny of birds. Journal of Ornithology 148(Suppl. to No. 2):S455–S548.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 2009a. Phylogenetic relationships of the paraphyletic ‘caprimulgiform’ birds (nightjars and allies). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 2009b. Paleogene fossil birds. Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Murray, P. F., and Vickers-Rich, O. 2004. Magnificent mihirungs: the colossal flightless birds of the Australian dreamtime. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1959. Adequacy of the fossil record. Journal of Paleontology 33:488–499.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A. 1992. Taxic origin and temporal diversity: the effect of phylogeny. Pp. 88–118 in Novacek, M. J.and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A., and Novacek, M. J. 1992. The fossil record and evolution: comparing cladistic and paleontologic evidence for vertebrate history. Science 255:1690–1693.Google Scholar
Olson, S. L. 1976. Oligocene fossils bearing on the origins of the Todidae and the Momotidae (Aves: Coraciiformes). In Olson, S. L., ed. Collected papers in avian paleontology honoring the 90th birthday of Alexander Wetmore. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 27:111–119.Google Scholar
Olson, S. L. 1985. The fossil record of birds. Pp. 79–238 in Farner, D. S., King, J. R., and Parkes, K. C., eds. Avian biology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Olson, S. L., and Hasegawa, Y. 1979. Fossil counterparts of giant penguins from the North Pacific. Science 206:688–689.Google Scholar
Olson, S. L., and Hasegawa, Y. 1996. A new genus and two new species of gigantic Plotopteridae from Japan (Aves: Pelecaniformes). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:742–751.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2001. Biodiversity in the Phanerozoic: a reinterpretation. Paleobiology 27:583–601.Google Scholar
Phillips, M. J., 2009. Branch-length estimation bias misleads molecular dating for a vertebrate mitochondrial phylogeny. Gene 441:132–140.Google Scholar
Pol, D., and Norell, M. A. 2006. Uncertainty in the age of fossils and the stratigraphic fit to phylogenies. Systematic Biology 55:512–521.Google Scholar
Pol, D., Norell, M. A., and Siddall, M. E. 2004. Measures of stratigraphic fit to phylogeny and their sensitivity to tree size, shape and scale. Cladistics 20:64–75.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1972. Taxonomic diversity during the Phanerozoic. Science 177:1065–1071.Google Scholar
Siddall, M. E. 1998. Stratigraphic fit to phylogenies: a proposed solution. Cladistics 14:201–208.Google Scholar
Stresemann, E. 1959. The status of avian systematics and its unsolved problems. Auk 76:269–289.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1970. How many marine invertebrate fossils? Journal of Paleontology 44:410–415.Google Scholar
von Meyer, H. 1839. Ein vogel im Kreideschiefer des Kantons Glaris. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1:683–685.Google Scholar
von Meyer, H. 1844. [Letter]. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 6:329–340.Google Scholar
Walsh, S. L. 1998. Fossil datum and paleobiological event terms, paleontostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy, and the definition of land mammal “age” boundaries. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18:150–179.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A. 1999. Congruence between stratigraphy and phylogeny: randomization tests and the gap excess ratio. Systematic Biology 48:559–580.Google Scholar
Wills, M., Barrett, P. M., and Heathcote, J. F. 2008. The modified gap excess ratio (GER∗) and the stratigraphic congruence of dinosaur phylogenies. Systematic Biology 57:891–904.Google Scholar