Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 400–408

The fossil record and estimating divergence times between lineages: Maximum divergene times and the importance of reliable phylogenies

  • Charles R. Marshall
Article

Summary

Bounded estimates on divergence times between lineaes are crucial to the calculation of absolute rates of molecular evolution. Upper (minimum) bounds on divergence times are easily estimated based on earliest fossil finds. Lower (maximum) bounds are more difficult to estimate; the age of putative ancestors may be used, though in practice it is virtually impossible to distinguish ancestors from primitive sister groups, which do not, of logical necessit, consitute lower bounds on divergence times. Two relatively new approaches to estimating lower bounds directly assess the incompleteness of the fossil record. The first uses taphonomic control groups to distinguish real absences from nonpreservation, while the second, and probably more powerful, uses the quality of the fossil recored to estimate confidence intervals on the bases of stratigraphic ranges. For some groups, especially vertebrates, the inclusion or exclusion of problematic fossils can dramaticaly affect estimated lower bounds on divergence times, often swamping the uncertainties due to the incompleteness of the fossil record and/or corelation and dating errors. When datable paleogeographic events reflect ancient divisions of faunas, a lower bound on the divergence time of speices within a fauna can be established based on the geologic, rather than fossil, record. The fossil records of hominids, eutherianmammals, echinoids, and geese are used as examples.

Key words

Fossil record Divergence times Phylogeny Condiference intervals Ancestors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beadle SC (1989) Ontogenetic regulatory mechanisms, heterochrony, and eccentricity in dendrasterid sand dollars. Paleobiology 15:205–222Google Scholar
  2. Beverley SM, Wilson AC (1984) Molecular evolution inDrosophila and the higher Diptera II. A time scale for fly evolution. J Mol Evol 21:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottjer DJ, Jablonski D (1988) Paleoenvironmental patterns in the evolution of post-Paleozoic benthic marine invertebrates. Palaois 3:540–560Google Scholar
  4. Carleton MD, Eshelman RE (1979) A synopsis of fossil grasshopper mice, genusOnychomys, and their relationships to recent species. Univ Mich Pap Paleontol 21:1–63Google Scholar
  5. Cracraft J (1974) Phylogenetic models and classification. Syst Zool 23:71–90Google Scholar
  6. Cracraft J, Eldredfge N (1979) Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York, 233 pGoogle Scholar
  7. Day MH (1986) Guide to fossil man. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 432 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Durham JW (1966) Clypeasteroids. In: Moore RC (ed) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part U. Echinodermata 3. Univ Kansas press and Geol Soc Am 2:U450–U491Google Scholar
  9. Eldredge N, Cracraft J (1980) Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New York, 349 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Englemann GF, Wiley EO (1977). The place of ancestor-descendant scendant relationships in phylogeny. Syst Zool 26:1–11Google Scholar
  11. Farris JS (1976) Phylogenetic classification of fossils with recent species. Syst Zool 25:271–282Google Scholar
  12. Goodman M (1981) Decoding the pattner of protein evolution. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 37:105–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helm-Bychowski KM, Wilson AC (1986) Rates of nuclear DNA evolution in pheasant-like birds: evidence from restriction maps. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:688–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hickman CJ (1969) The Oligocene marine molluscan fauna of the Eugene formation in Oregon. Univ Oreg Mus Nat Hist Bull 16:1–112Google Scholar
  15. Jensen M (1981) Morphology and classification of Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860—a cladistic analysis. Vidensk Medd Dan Naturhist Foren Khobenhav 143:7–99Google Scholar
  16. Kielan-Jaworowszka Z, Bown TM, Lillegraven JA (1979) Eutheria. In: Lillegraven JA, Kielan-Jaworowska Z, Clemens WA (eds) Mesozoic mammals. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, pp 221–258Google Scholar
  17. Kier PM (1977) The poor fossil record of the regular echinoid. Paleobiology 3:168–174Google Scholar
  18. Li W-H, Luo C-C, Wu C-I (1985) Evolution of DNA sequences. In: MacIntyre RJ (ed) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Plenum, New York, pp 1–94Google Scholar
  19. Linder RA, Durham JW, Orr WN (1988) New late Oligocene echinoids from the central western Cascades of Oregon. J Paleontol 62:945–958Google Scholar
  20. Marshall CR (1990) Confidence interals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology (in press)Google Scholar
  21. McKinney ML (1986) Biostratigraphic gap analysis. Geology 14:36–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Novacek MJ (1982) Information for molecular studies from anatomical and fossil evidence on higher eutheiran phylogeny. In: Goodman M (ed) Macromolecular sequences in systematics and evolutionary biology. Plenum, New York, pp 3–41Google Scholar
  23. Ochman H, Wilson AC (1987) Evolution in bacgeria: evidence for a universal substitution rate in cellular genomes. J Mol Evol 26:74–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul CRC (1982) The adequacy of the fossil record. In: Joysey KA, Kriday AE (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp 75–117Google Scholar
  25. Pilbeam D (1986) Hominoid evolution and hominoid origins. Am Anthropol 88:295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scherer S (1989) The relative-rate test of the molecular clock hypothesis: anote of caution. Mol Biol Evol 6:436–441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schoch RM (1986) Phylogeny reconstruction in paleontology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 351 pGoogle Scholar
  28. Seilacher A (1979) Constructional morpholog of sand dollars. Paleobiology 5:191–221Google Scholar
  29. Shaw AB (1964) Time in stragigraphy. McGraw-Hill, New York, 365 pGoogle Scholar
  30. Shields GF, Wilson AC (1987) Calibration of mitochondrial evolution in geese. J Mol Evol 24:212–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith AB (1984) Echinoid palaeobiology. Allen and Unwin, London, 190 pGoogle Scholar
  32. Springer M, Lilje A (1988) Biostratigraphy and gap analysis: the expected squence of biostratigraphic events. J Geol 96: 228–236Google Scholar
  33. Strauss D, Sadler PM (1989) Classical confidence interals and Bayesian probability estimates for the ends of local taxon ranges. Math Geol 21:411–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tuttle RH (1988) What's new in African paleoanthropology? Annu Rev Anthropol 17:391–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiley EO (1981) Phylogenetics. Wiley and Sons, New York 439 pGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson AC, Carlson SS, White TJ (1977) Biochemical evolution. Annu Rev Biochem 46:573–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson AC, Ochman H, Prage EM (1987) Molecular time scale for evolution. Trends Genet 3:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles R. Marshall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, Geophysical Sciences and the Committee on Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversitybloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations