Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Journal of Paleontology

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by ANSTEY, R. L. Articles by PACHUT, J. F. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

CLADISTIC AND PHENETIC RECOGNITION OF SPECIES IN THE ORDOVICIAN BRYOZOAN GENUS PERONOPORA

¹ Department of Geological Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824-1115, <anstey{at}msu.edu>
² Department of Geology, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis 46202-5132, <jpachut{at}iupui.edu>

We compare cladistic, phenetic, stratophenetic, and typological methods of recognizing species within a single well-sampled, long-lived Ordovician bryozoan genus, Peronopora Nicholson, 1881. A consensus of 11 methods recognizes 14 species within Peronopora, each of which has both cladistic and phenetic support, and support by at least four different methods. Comparison of methods was based on: 1) the number of species recognized; 2) the degree of splitting of consensus groups; 3) consistency in determining first and last appearance datums, and stratigraphic ranges; 4) consistency in the number of specimens assigned to species; 5) stability in recognizing geographic distributions; and 6) correlations with character heritability. The five methods most closely approaching consensus were: 1) Ward clustering on Euclidean distance; 2) K-means splitting; 3) Ward clustering on correlation coefficients; 4) cladistic parsimony; and 5) cladistic parsimony plus iterative discriminant analysis. The three methods farthest from consensus were: 1) stratophenetics; 2) average linkage on Euclidean distance; and 3) conventional typology. Cladistic parsimony is the only method that can recognize all 14 consensus clusters. We argue that the overall advantages of parsimony analysis outweigh the merits of the various phenetic approaches in recognizing paleontological species. We also argue that given sufficient allochrony in sampling, cladistic structure is detectable both within and among species. Recognizing species based on fixed character states would require at least 72 species in our material.

The crown groups of Pachut and Anstey (2002) are herein recognized as monophyletic species in the sense of Mishler and Theriot (2000), one of which we designate as a new species, P. browni. Six of our eight nonmonophyletic stem groups are recognized in this paper as metaspecies in the sense of Donoghue (1985) and Gauthier et al. (1988). Two of our stem groups are phenetically indistinguishable from phyletically contiguous crown groups, and we attribute the failure of parsimony analysis to recognize the monophyly of these groups to homoplasy.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. F. Pachut and R. L. Anstey Inferring evolutionary modes in a fossil lineage (Bryozoa: Peronopora) from the Middle and Late Ordovician Paleobiology, March 1, 2009; 35(2): 209 - 230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. F. PACHUT and R. L. ANSTEY INFERRING EVOLUTIONARY ORDER AND DURATIONS USING BOTH STRATIGRAPHY AND CLADISTICS IN A FOSSIL LINEAGE (BRYOZOA: PERONOPORA) Palaios, September 1, 2007; 22(5): 476 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. HUNT MORPHOLOGY, ONTOGENY, AND PHYLOGENETICS OF THE GENUS POSEIDONAMICUS (OSTRACODA: THAEROCYTHERINAE) Journal of Paleontology, July 1, 2007; 81(4): 607 - 631. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]