The impact of the Pull of the Recent on the history of marine diversity

Science

Volumn 300, Issue 5622, 2003, Pages 1133-1135

  Jablonski, David ^a   Roy, Kaustuv ^b   Valentine, James W ^c   Price, Rebecca M ^a   Anderson, Philip S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; STRATIGRAPHY;

MARINE DIVERSITY;

MARINE ENGINEERING;

BIODIVERSITY; CENOZOIC; FOSSIL RECORD; HISTORY; MOLLUSC; SAMPLING BIAS;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CENOZOIC; FOSSIL; GENUS; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MOLLUSC; NONHUMAN; PLIOCENE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; STRATIGRAPHY;

ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; EVOLUTION; FOSSILS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MOLLUSCA; TIME;

ANIMALIA; BIVALVIA; CELLULAR ORGANISMS; INVERTEBRATA; MOLLUSCA;

EID: 0038626238     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1083246     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. A. B. Smith, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 356, 351 (2001).
2. A. V. Markov, Paleontol. J. 36, 121 (2000).
3. D. M. Raup, Bull. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. 13, 85 (1979).
4. J. Alroy et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 6261 (2001).
5. S. E. Peters, M. Foote, Paleobiology 27, 583 (2001).
6. M. Foote, Paleobiology 26, 74 (2000).
7. Although the Pull of the Recent is sometimes used as a blanket term for all factors that might affect sampling in the fossil record in younger relative to older rocks [e.g., (33)], here we retain Raup's original definition (3).
8. J. J. Sepkoski Jr., J. Paleontol. 71, 533 (1997).
9. J. J. Sepkoski Jr., Bull. Am. Paleontol. 363, 1 (2002).
10. J. J. Sepkoski Jr., in Global Events and Event Stratigraphy in the Phanerozoic, O. H. Walliser, Ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1996), pp. 35-51.
11. Such an operational protocol constitutes a conservative test, in that it will maximize the Pull of the Recent: subgenera tend to have fewer species and are more limited geographically than full genera and are, therefore, less likely to be recorded in a given time interval than the more inclusive genera to which they belong.
12. A. I. Miller, J. J. Sepkoski Jr., Paleobiology 14, 364 (1988).
13. J. B. C. Jackson, K. G. Johnson, Science 293, 2401 (2001).
14. R. C. Moore, Ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, and University of Kansas Press, and Lawrence, KS, 1969-1971), vol. N, Parts 1 to 3, Bivalvia.
15. J. W. Valentine, Paleobiology 15, 95 (1989).
16. C. P. Glover, S. M. Kidwell, J. Geol. 101, 729 (1993).
17. E. M. Harper, in The Adequacy of the Fossil Record, S. K. Donovan, C. R. C. Paul, Eds. (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1998), pp. 243-267.
18. As predicted by experimental work in the laboratory and the field (16, 34), shell mineralogy was less important than the organic content of shell microstructures: 25% of the missing taxa but only 16% of the taxa recorded in the Pliocene or Pleistocene have shells containing high-organic microstructures such as nacre. The latter difference, although in the expected direction, is at P = 0.08 (resampling with replacement, 1000 iterations).
19. T. A. Darragh, Alcheringa 9, 83 (1985).
20. J. D. Gage, P. A. Tyler, Deep-Sea Biology (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991).
21. D. Jablonski, D. M. Raup, Science 268, 389 (1995).
22. J. M. Adrain, S. R. Westrop, Science 289, 110 (2000).
23. The increased scrutiny of this time interval over the past two decades has yielded only a few descriptions of new bivalve faunas or taxa: only 108 species (6%) were described in or after 1980. Thus, the high recovery rates and the mild "Pull of the Tertiary" are not attributable to extensive new work on Maastrichtian bivalves.
24. A. B. Smith, C. H. Jeffery, Spec. Pap. Palaeontol. 63, 1 (2000); only 14% of the 243 valid species in this survey were described after 1980.
25. M. Foote, J. J. Sepkoski Jr., Nature 398, 415 (1999).
26. J. W. Valentine, Palaeontology 12, 684 (1969).
27. J. J. Sepkoski Jr., R. K. Bambach, D. M. Raup, J. W. Valentine, Nature 293, 435 (1981).
28. M. J. Benton, Geol. J. 36, 211 (2001).
29. J. A. Crame, B. R. Rosen, Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 194, 153 (2002).
30. J. W. Valentine, T. C. Foin, D. Peart, Paleobiology 4, 55 (1978).
31. J. J. Sepkoski Jr., Paleobiology 14, 221 (1988).
32. R. K. Bambach, Paleobiology 19, 372 (1993).
33. C. M. Pease, Paleobiology 18, 89 (1992).
34. M. M. R. Best, S. M. Kidwell, Paleobiology 26, 103 (2000).
35. These analyses were prompted by discussions with the Paleobiology Database group, of which D.J. and K.R. are members. We thank the late J. J. Sepkoski Jr. for encouragement and access to his then-unpublished database, S. M. Kidwell for information on mineralogy and microstructure, and L. C. Anderson, A. G. Beu, E. V. Coan, T. A. Darragh, H. H. Dijkstra, S. H. Kidwell, M. A. Kosnik, K. Lamprell, J. Martinell, P. Middelfart, G. Paulay, J. A. Schneider, J. D. Taylor, J. Todd, T. R. Waller, P. J. Wagner, and A. Warén for taxonomic assistance and advice. We also thank M. Foote, E. M. Harper, and S. M. Kidwell for reviews. Supported by the National Science Foundation; D.J. is an Honorary Research Fellow of the Natural History Museum, London.