Macroevolutionary trends in the Dinosauria: Cope's rule

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 587-595

  Hone, D W E ^a,b,d   Keesey, T M ^c   Pisani, D ^b   Purvis, A ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^c Wills Memorial Building ^*  (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Body size; Clade selection; Cope's rule; Dinosaurs; Phylogenetically independent comparisons; Supertrees

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; DINOSAUR; EVOLUTION; SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BODY SIZE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DINOSAUR; GENETIC SELECTION; HISTOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TIME;

ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; DINOSAURS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY; SELECTION (GENETICS); SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS;

DINOSAURIA;

EID: 18544363929     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00870.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Alexander, R.McN. 1985. Mechanics of posture and gait of some large dinosaurs. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 83: 1-25.
2. Alroy, J. 1998. Cope's rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals. Science 280: 731-734.
3. Alroy, J. 2000. Understanding the dynamics of trends within evolving lineages. Paleobiology 26: 319-329.
4. Arnold, A.J., Kelly, D.C. & Parker, W.C. 1995. Causality and Cope's rule - evidence from the planktonic foraminifera. J. Pal. 69: 203-210.
5. Benton, M.J. 1995. Testing the time axis of phylogenies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 349: 5-10.
6. Benton, M.J. 2002. Cope's rule. In: Encyclopedia of Evolution (M. Pagel, ed.), pp. 185-186. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
7. Bonner, J.T. 1968. Size change in development and evolution. In: Paleobiological Aspects of Growth and Development (D. B. Macurda, ed.), pp. 1-15. Paleontological Society Memoirs. Supplement to J. Pal.
8. Brown, D. & Rothery, P. 1993. Models in Biology: Mathematics, Statistics and Computing. Wiley, New York.
9. Burt, A. 1989. Comparative methods using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 6: 33-53.
10. Carroll, S.B. 2001. Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity. Nature 409: 1102-1109.
11. Colbert, E.C. 1962. The weights of dinosaurs. Am. Mus. Novit. 2076: 1-16.
12. Cope, E.D. 1887. The Origin of the Fittest. Appleton Press, New York.
13. Cope, E.D. 1896. The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution. Open Court Publishing Co., New York.
14. Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, London.
15. Fastovsky, D.E. & Weishampel, D.B. 1996. The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Garland, T., Harvey, P.H. & Ives, I.R. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41: 18-32.
17. Gould, S.J. 1997. Cope's rule as psychological artefact. Nature 385: 199-200.
18. Henderson, D.M. 1999. Estimating the masses and centers of mass of extinct animals by 3-D mathematical slicing. Paleobiology 25: 88-106.
19. Jablonski, D. 1996. Body size and macroevolution. In: Evolutionary Paleobiology (D. Jablonski, D. H. Erwin & J. H. Lipps, eds), pp. 256-289. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
20. Jablonski, D. 1997. Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's rule. Nature 385: 250-252.
21. Kingsolver, J.G. & Pfennig, D.W. 2004. Individual-level selection as a cause of Cope's rule of phyletic size increase. Evolution 58: 1608-1612.
22. Lewin, R. 1990. Dinosaur count reveals surprisingly few species. N. Sci. 128: 30.
23. Marshall, C.R. 1998. Determining stratigraphic ranges. In: The Adequacy of the Fossil Record (S. K. Donovan & C. R. C. Paul, eds), pp. 23-53. Wiley, London.
24. McFadden, B.J. 1992. Fossil Horses: Systematics, Palaeobiology and Evolution of the Family Equidae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
25. McKinney, M.L. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28: 495-516.
26. McShea, D.W. 2000. Trends, tools, and terminology. Paleobiology 26: 330-333.
27. Paul, G.S. 2000. Is there any evolutionary advantage to gigantism? Did the sauropod dinosaurs continue to grow throughout their lives, as some reptiles and fish do? Sci. Am. 284: 116.
28. Pisani, D., Yates, A.M., Langer, M.C. & Benton, M.J. 2002. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 915-921.
29. Poulin, R. 1995. Evolutionary influences on body-size in free-living and parasitic isopods. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 54: 231-244.
30. Purvis, A. & Rambaut, A. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 11: 247-251.
31. Purvis, A. & Webster, A.J. 1999. Phylogenetically independent comparisons and primate phylogeny. In: Comparative Primate Socioecology (P. C. Lee, ed.), pp. 44-70. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
32. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: Why is Animal Size So Important. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
33. Seebacher, F. 1999. A new method to calculate allometric length-mass relationships of dinosaurs. J. Vert. Paleontol. 21: 51-60.
34. Sereno, P.C. 1997. The origin and evolution of dinosaurs. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 25: 435-489.
35. Stanley, S.M. 1973. An explanation of Cope's rule. Evolution 27: 1-26.
36. Vrba, E.S. & Gould, S.J. 1986. The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology 12: 217-228.
37. Webster, A.J. & Purvis, A. 2002. Testing the accuracy of methods for reconstructing ancestral states of continuous characters. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 214: 143-149.
38. Williams, G.C. 1992. Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, Challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.