Pattern and process in paleobiology: the role of cladistic analysis in systematic paleontology | Paleobiology | Cambridge Core

Systematics and paleontology have had a long conceptual relationship, united by the common goal of reconstructing the history of life. Yet, with few exceptions, paleontologists have had little input into formulating systematic theory and methodology. The reasons for this apparently relate to two conceptual-philosophical traditions of post-Darwinian paleontology: (1) the widespread adoption of a species concept in which taxa are viewed as nondiscrete, arbitrarily designated segments of evolutionary continua, and (2) the belief that phylogenetic reconstruction is primarily an empirical matter of tracing evolutionary change through the stratigraphic record.

Available systematic evidence supports the hypothesis that species are real, discrete units in space and time and that, unless they are postulated to be directly ancestral to another species, they can be defined by the possession of one or more evolutionary novelties (derived characters). Species beginnings are delineated by speciation (vicariance) events and their terminations by subsequent speciation events or by extinctions.

Natural groups are composed of taxa that have shared a common genealogical history. Cladistic analysis is a method to construct and test hypotheses of monophyly and thereby define natural groups. Cladistic hypotheses are necessary to investigate many of the major questions within contemporary paleobiology. Virtually no studies of evolutionary rates, patterns of taxonomic diversity, modes of taxic evolution, and patterns of morphological diversification can be undertaken without reference to cladistic hypotheses about the composition of natural groups.

Because paleobiology is historical in its content, paleontologists are greatly limited in their ability to use paleontological data to investigate questions about the evolutionary process. According to current evolutionary theory, the concepts of adaptation and natural selection relate to genetic and ecological processes that take place within local populations (microevolution). If so, then data relevant to examining these phenomena are likely to be lacking in paleontological samples. Consequently, explanations of paleontological pattern that include process-related concepts such as adaptation and natural selection are axiomatic in their logical structure and thus cannot be falsified or critically evaluated by that paleontological pattern.

Ashlock, P. D. 1979. An evolutionary systematist's view of classification. Syst. Zool. 28:441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, W. J. 1977. Foundations and methods of evolutionary classification. Pp. 851–895. In: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C., and Hecht, B. M., eds. Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonde, N. 1975. Origin of “higher groups”: viewpoints of phylogenetic systematics. Coll. Int. C.N.R.S. No. 218:293–324.Google Scholar

Boucot, A. J. 1979. Cladistics: is it really different from classical taxonomy? Pp. 199–210. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bretsky, S. S. 1979. Recognition of ancestor-descendant relationships in invertebrate paleontology. Pp. 113–163. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brundin, L. 1966. Transantarctic relationships and their significance, as evidenced by chironomid midges. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskap. Handl. 11:1–472.Google Scholar

Cifelli, R. L. 1981. Patterns of evolution among the Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla (Mammalia). Evolution. 35:433–440.Google ScholarPubMed

Cracraft, J. 1979. Phylogenetic analysis, evolutionary models, and paleontology. Pp. 7–39. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cracraft, J. 1981. The use of functional and adaptive criteria in phylogenetic systematics. Am. Zool. 21:21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cracraft, J. 1982. Geographic differentiation, cladistics, and vicariance biogeography: reconstructing the tempo and mode of evolution. Am. Zool.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croizat, L., Nelson, G. J., and Rosen, D. E. 1974. Centers of origin and related concepts. Syst. Zool. 23:265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eldredge, N. 1979a. Alternative approaches to evolutionary theory. Bull. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 13:7–19.Google Scholar

Eldredge, N. 1979b. Cladism and common sense. Pp. 165–198. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar

Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Pp. 82–115. In: Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper & Co.; San Francisco.Google Scholar

Gaffney, E. S. 1979. An introduction to the logic of phylogeny reconstruction. Pp. 79–111. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gingerich, P. D. 1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. Pp. 41–77. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gingerich, P. D. and Schoeninger, M. 1977. The fossil record and primate phylogeny. J. Human Evol. 6:483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gould, S. J. 1980. The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline. Paleobiology. 6:96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria; the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology. 3:115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halstead, L. B. 1978. The cladistic revolution—can it make the grade. Nature. 276:759–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harper, C. W. Jr. 1976. Phylogenetic inference in paleontology. J. Paleontol. 50:180–193.Google Scholar

Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentraverlag; Berlin.Google Scholar

Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. Illinois Press; Urbana.Google Scholar

Hull, D. L. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy—two thousand years of stasis (1). Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 15:2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lauder, G. F. 1981. Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology. 7:430–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill; New York.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeit. f. zool. Syst. u. Evolutionsforschung. 12:94–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michener, C. D. 1978. Dr. Nelson on taxonomic methods. Syst. Zool. 27:112–118.Google Scholar

Nelson, G. J. 1978. From Candolle to Croizat: comments on the history of biogeography. J. Hist. Biol. 11:269–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nelson, G. and Platnick, N. I. 1978. The perils of plesiomorphy: widespread taxa, dispersal, and phenetic biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nelson, G. J. and Platnick, N. I. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar

Patterson, C. 1977. The contribution of paleontology to teleostean phylogeny. Pp. 579–643. In: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C., and Hecht, B. M., eds. Major Patterns in Vertebrate Phylogeny. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patterson, C. 1981. Methods of paleobiogeography. Pp. 446–489. In: Nelson, G. and Rosen, D. E., eds. Vicariance Biogeography: a Critique. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar

Platnick, N. I. and Nelson, G. J. 1978. A method of analysis for historical biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raup, D. M. and Marshall, L. G. 1980. Variation between groups in evolutionary rates: a statistical test of significance. Paleobiology. 6:9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago.Google Scholar

Rosen, D. E. 1978. Vicariant patterns and historical explanation in biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosen, D. 1979. Fishes from the uplands and intermontane basins of Guatemala: revisionary studies and comparative geography. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162:267–376.Google Scholar

Schopf, T. J. M., Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., and Simberloff, D. S. 1975. Genomic versus morphologic rates of evolution: influences of morphologic complexity. Paleobiology. 1:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sepkoski, J. J. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology. 4:223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1947. Holarctic mammalian faunas and continental relationships during the Cenozoic. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 58:613–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1960. Notes on the measurement of faunal resemblance. Am. J. Sci. 258A:300–311.Google Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1963. The meaning of taxonomic statements. Pp. 1–31. In: Washburn, S. L., ed. Classification and Human Evolution. Aldine; Chicago.Google Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1975. Recent advances in methods of phylogenetic inference. Pp. 3–19. In: Luckett, W. P. and Szalay, F. S., eds. Phylogeny of the Primates. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, G. G. 1980. Why and How: Some Problems and Methods in Historical Biology. Pergamon Press; New York.Google Scholar

Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. W. H. Freeman & Co.; San Francisco.Google Scholar

Szalay, F. S. 1977. Ancestors, descendants, sister groups and testing of phylogenetic hypotheses. Syst. Zool. 26:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Valen, L. 1978. Why not to be a cladist. Evol. Theory. 3:285–299.Google Scholar

Vrba, E. S. 1980. Evolution, species and fossils: how does life evolve? South African J. Sci. 76:61–84.Google Scholar

Wiley, E. O. 1975. Karl R. Popper, systematics, and classification: a reply to Walter Bock and other evolutionary taxonomists. Syst. Zool. 24:233–243.Google Scholar

Wiley, E. O. 1979a. Ancestors, species, and cladograms—remarks on the symposium. Pp. 211–225. In: Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiley, E. O. 1979b. An annotated Linnaean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Syst. Zool. 28:308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: the Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. John Wiley & Sons; New York.Google Scholar