Literature DB >> 19204990

Distinguishing heat from light in debate over controversial fossils.

Philip C J Donoghue1, Mark A Purnell.   

Abstract

Fossil organisms offer our only direct insight into how the distinctive body plans of extant organisms were assembled. However, realizing the potential evolutionary significance of fossils can be hampered by controversy over their interpretation. Here, as a guide to evaluating palaeontological debates, we outline the process and pitfalls of fossil interpretation. The physical remains of controversial fossils should be reconstructed before interpreting homologies, and choice of interpretative model should be explicit and justified. Extinct taxa lack characters diagnostic of extant clades because the characters had not yet evolved, because of secondary loss, or because they have rotted away. The latter, if not taken into account, will lead to the spurious assignment of fossils to basally branching clades. Conflicting interpretations of fossils can often be resolved by considering all the steps in the process of anatomical analysis and phylogenetic placement, although we must accept that some fossil organisms are simply too incompletely preserved for their evolutionary significance to be realized.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19204990     DOI: 10.1002/bies.200800128

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioessays        ISSN: 0265-9247            Impact factor:   4.345


  27 in total

1.  Experimental taphonomy of giant sulphur bacteria: implications for the interpretation of the embryo-like Ediacaran Doushantuo fossils.

Authors:  J A Cunningham; C-W Thomas; S Bengtson; F Marone; M Stampanoni; F R Turner; J V Bailey; R A Raff; E C Raff; P C J Donoghue
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Distinguishing geology from biology in the Ediacaran Doushantuo biota relaxes constraints on the timing of the origin of bilaterians.

Authors:  John A Cunningham; Ceri-Wyn Thomas; Stefan Bengtson; Stuart L Kearns; Shuhai Xiao; Federica Marone; Marco Stampanoni; Philip C J Donoghue
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Evolution of centralized nervous systems: two schools of evolutionary thought.

Authors:  R Glenn Northcutt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Non-random decay of chordate characters causes bias in fossil interpretation.

Authors:  Robert S Sansom; Sarah E Gabbott; Mark A Purnell
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  A new ophiocistioid with soft-tissue preservation from the Silurian Herefordshire Lagerstätte, and the evolution of the holothurian body plan.

Authors:  Imran A Rahman; Jeffrey R Thompson; Derek E G Briggs; David J Siveter; Derek J Siveter; Mark D Sutton
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Palaeontology: Decay distorts ancestry.

Authors:  Derek E G Briggs
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  The revival of a so-called rotten fish: the ontogeny of the Devonian acanthodian Triazeugacanthus.

Authors:  Marion Chevrinais; Richard Cloutier; Jean-Yves Sire
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.703

8.  Naked chancelloriids from the lower Cambrian of China show evidence for sponge-type growth.

Authors:  Pei-Yun Cong; Thomas H P Harvey; Mark Williams; David J Siveter; Derek J Siveter; Sarah E Gabbott; Yu-Jing Li; Fan Wei; Xian-Guang Hou
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  The eyes of Tullimonstrum reveal a vertebrate affinity.

Authors:  Thomas Clements; Andrei Dolocan; Peter Martin; Mark A Purnell; Jakob Vinther; Sarah E Gabbott
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Decay of vertebrate characters in hagfish and lamprey (Cyclostomata) and the implications for the vertebrate fossil record.

Authors:  Robert S Sansom; Sarah E Gabbott; Mark A Purnell
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.