Abstract
General ecophenotypic patterns, of particular interest when they apply to all, or most, taxa of the group concerned, can never be demonstrated until after monophyletic taxa have been recognized, that is, until after the initial stages of phylogeny construction have been carried out. In criticizing certain dalmanellid phylogenies, and based in large part on a study of five ‘species subgroups’. Hurst & Watkins (1978; Geologica et Palaeontologica 12) postulate ecophenotypic patterns for Isorthis, and Hurst (1978; Palaeontology 21) postulates general patterns of ecophenotypic variation for dalmanellid brachiopods. These patterns may be invalid for four reasons: (1) Univariate and ‘bivariate’ statistical analysis of the samples used to define the five subgroups reveals no significant differences between subgroups, or vertical trends, for the very morphological characters claimed to exhibit the ecophenotypic patterns; (2) Hurst & Watkins' discriminant function analysis contains procedural errors and its results are ambiguous; (3) several of the five subgroups represent mixtures of unrelated taxa; (4) in recognizing the alleged patterns, Hurst & Watkins ignored contrary evidence from many taxa (and from many dalmanellid studies). □Brachiopoda, Dalmanellidae, Silurian, ecology, evolution, systematics.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call