Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-zeroMar 2024View details →

Data from: Morphological disparity and evolutionary patterns of Cambrian hyoliths

Hyolitha represents one of the major components of the Cambrian evolutionary fauna, first appearing in the Terreneuvian and rapidly diversifying soon after. Recent work has both enriched the hyolith fossil records and expanded our understanding of their biology, but studies documenting the evolutionary trajectory of Cambrian hyoliths remain scarce. Here we present the first study of changes in morphological disparity in Cambrian hyoliths over time with the aim of characterizing the evolutionary trajectory of hyoliths through their primary period of diversification. Our results show that hyoliths occupy distinct regions of morphospace at different times during the Cambrian, with an expansion in morphospace occupation associated with the increase in hyolith diversity in the early Cambrian. Both the Sinsk Event and multiple abiotic factors led to a decline in hyolith diversity in the Miaolingian, and morphological disparity also contracts in association with this reduction in diversity.

Fig. 7 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 7. Evolution of the relative contribution of ammonoid superfamilies to diversity and disparity (mean squared Euclidean distance to the centroid) through the Early and Middle Devonian; based on the analysis of the whorl profiles. A. Relative contribution of ammonoid superfamilies to diversity (sampled-in-bin). B. Fluctuations of the mean squared Euclidean distance to the centroid (black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals computed after 1000 bootstraps) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). C. Relative contribution of ammonoid superfamilies to disparity (mean squared Euclidean distance to the centroid). See Fig. 2 for interval labels.

Fig. 9 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 9. Evolution of the relative contribution of ammonoid superfamilies to diversity and disparity (mean squared Euclidean distance to the centroid) through the Early and Middle Devonian ammonoid zones (biozones numbered from 1 to 30, see Fig. 2); based on the analysis of the whorl profiles. A. Relative contribution of ammonoid superfamilies to diversity (sampled-in-bin). B. Fluctuations of the mean squared Euclidean distance to the centroid (black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals computed after 1000 bootstraps) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). C. Relative contribution of ammonoid superfamilies to disparity (mean squared Euclidean distance to the centroid).

Fig. 6 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 6. Evolution of the morphospace occupation through the seven intervals constituting the Early and Middle Devonian, showing the distribution of ammonoid superfamilies; based on the analysis of the whorl profiles (on each diagram, the horizontal axis corresponds to PC1 and the vertical axis to PC2). See Fig. 2 for interval labels.

Fig. 11 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 11. Variations of the convex hull area computed for PC1 and PC2, based on the analysis of the whorl profiles through the Early and Middle Devonian. Comparison of the measured values with the expected values given diversity, computed by applying the null model of Whalen et al. (2020). A. Fluctuations computed at the interval resolution. B. Fluctuations computed at the biozone resolution. See Fig. 2 for interval labels and biozones.

Fig. 5 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 5. Diagrams showing the morphospace occupation observed for the three stages constituting the Early and Middle Devonian (A–C), with level contours and density curves; based on the analysis of the whorl profiles. The grey dots correspond to the data recorded for the entire studied time interval (Early and Middle Devonian); the black dots refer to the data recorded for each of the studied stage (respectively, Emsian, Eifelian, and Givetian). The colours refer to the density of the data in the morphospace; the red-yellowwhite gradient indicates the decreasing density of occupied areas. Compare also with density curves (in grey) above and to the right of the diagrams.

Fig. 4 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 4. Morphospace occupation observed for the Early and Middle Devonian, based on the analysis of the whorl profiles, with representative examples of shapes. The first two axes explain 95.7% of the variance.

Fig. 3. Ammonoid morphology and dataset. A in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 3. Ammonoid morphology and dataset. A. Morphology of an ammonoid; as an example, the outline of the whorl profile taken at the maximum conch diameter is highlighted by a thick black line (modified from De Baets et al. 2010). B. Dataset analysed here; compilation of drawings of whorl profile outlines corresponding to Early and Middle Devonian ammonoids from Morocco.

Fig. 8 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 8. Disparity and diversity fluctuations through the Early and Middle Devonian; based on the analysis of the whorl profiles. A. Sum of ranges (black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). B. Sum of variances (black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). C. Average displacement (black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). Confidence intervals (error bars) are computed after 1000 bootstraps. See Fig. 2 for interval labels.

Fig. 1 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 1. Simplified geological map of Morocco (modified from Klug 2002b). The square shows the area where Early and Middle Devonian ammonoids are reported (Tafilalt and Ma'der basins).

Fig. 2 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic scheme for the Early and Middle Devonian of the Anti-Atlas of Morocco, showing the distribution of superfamilies through time. Ammonoid biozonation from (Klug 2002a; Aboussalam and Becker 2011; Bockwinkel et al. 2015; Becker et al. 2019). Absolute ages from the Geological Time Scale v. 5.0 (Walker et al. 2018). "Sobolewia sp. nov." and "Afromaenioceras sp. nov" have been introduced by Becker et al. (2004), and Lunupharciceras sp. nov." by Aboussalam and Becker (2011); these new taxa have not yet been formally described but they are mentioned in several studies where they are used to establish the biozonation (e.g., Becker et al. 2004; Aboussalam and Becker 2011).

Fig. 10 in Morphological disparity of early ammonoids: A geometric morphometric approach to investigate conch geometry

Fig. 10. Disparity and diversity fluctuations through the Early and Middle Devonian ammonoid zones (biozones numbered from 1 to 30, see Fig. 2); based on the analysis of the whorl profiles. A. Sum of ranges (black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). B. Sum of variances (black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). C. Average displacement black line with grey area showing the confidence intervals) and sampled-in-bin diversity (blue bars). Confidence intervals (error bars) are computed after 1000 bootstraps.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2022View details →

FIGURE 7. Morphological and size disparity within the latest Cretaceous Transylvanian kogaionids. A–E in Spatial And Temporal Distribution Of The Island-Dwelling Kogaionidae (Mammalia, Multituberculata) In The Uppermost Cretaceous Of Transylvania (Western Romania)

FIGURE 7. Morphological and size disparity within the latest Cretaceous Transylvanian kogaionids. A–E. First upper molars (M1), in occlusal view, drawn to the same scale. A. Barbatodon oardaensis, right M1 UBB ODAN-Mt-13, Oarda de Jos (site TB1), southwestern Transylvanian Basin (from Codrea et al., 2014).B. Small kogaionid (Kogaionon n. sp. or Barbatodon oardaensis; see text for details), left M1 UBB (specimen number not available), Totești-baraj (site RB1), Hațeg Basin (from Codrea et al., 2002). C. Indeterminate kogaionid (?Kogaionon n. sp. in Csiki and Grigorescu, 2002), left M1 LPB (FGGUB) M.1624, Fântânele, Vălioara (site DC2), Hațeg Basin (see Csiki and Grigorescu, 2002). D. Kogaionon ungureanui, left M1 ISER SPT/001 (P4 marks preceding last premolar), Sânpetru (site SP1), Hațeg Basin. E. Barbatodon transylvanicus, right M1 UBB P-Mt3-4, Pui (site PB5), Hațeg Basin (from Solomon et al., 2016). F–J. First lower molars (m1), in occlusal view, drawn to the same scale. F. Barbatodon transylvanicus, right m1 LPB (FGGUB) M.1635, Pui (site PB3), Hațeg Basin. G. Indeterminate kogaionid (Hainina sp. B in Csiki and Grigorescu, 2000), right m1 LPB (FGGUB) M.1613, Fântânele, Vălioara (site DC2), Hațeg Basin. H. Indeterminate kogaionid (Barbatodon n. sp. or Barbatodon oardaensis; see text for details), left m1 UBB TBM V.442, NălațVad (site RB2), Hațeg Basin (from Smith et al., 2002). I. Barbatodon oardaensis, left m1 UBB ODAN-Mt-15, Oarda de Jos (site TB1), southwestern Transylvanian Basin (from Codrea et al., 2014). J. Indeterminate kogaionid, left m1 LPB (FGGUB) M.1618, Fântânele, Vălioara (site DC2), Hațeg Basin. K–O. Ultimate lower premolars (p4), labial view, drawn to the same scale. K. Indeterminate kogaionid, right p4 in dentary fragment MMIRS 655, Petrești-Arini (site TB2), southwestern Transylvanian Basin (see Csiki-Sava et al., 2012). L. Barbatodon oardaensis, left p4 UBB ODAN-Mt-1, Oarda de Jos (site TB1), southwestern Transylvanian Basin (from Codrea et al., 2014). M. Barbatodon oardaensis, right p4 UBB Ng2-01, Negoiu (site RM2), Rusca Montană Basin (from Codrea et al., 2017a). N. Barbatodon transylvanicus, left p4 in dentary LPB (FGGUB) M.1635, Pui (site PB3), Hațeg Basin. O. Barbatodon tran-

opencc-zeroMay 2024View details →

Data from: Mosaic evolution underlies feliform morphological disparity

Constraint is a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. Morphology and ecology both are limited by functional, historical, and developmental factors to a subset of the theoretical range species could occupy. Cat-like carnivorans (Feliformia) offer a unique opportunity to investigate phenotypic constraint, as several feliform clades are purported to be limited to generalized ecomorphological roles, while others possessing extremely specialized durophagous (bone-crushing) and sabertooth morphology. We investigated the evolutionary history of feliforms by considering their phylogeny, morphological disparity and rates of evolution. We recover results that show a mosaic pattern exists in the degree of morphological disparity per anatomical region per clade and ecology. Non-hypercarnivores, such as viverrids (civets and genets), Malagasy euplerids and lophocyonids (extinct hypocarnivores) have the greatest dental disparity, while hypercarnivores (felids, nimravids, many hyaenids) have the lowest dental disparity but highest cranial and mandibular disparity (excluding dentition). However, high disparity is not necessarily associated with high rates of evolution, but instead with ecological radiations. We reveal that relationships between specialization and disparity are not as simple as past research has concluded. Instead, morphological disparity results from an anatomical mosaic of evolution, where different ecologies correlate with and likely channel unique patterns/combinations of disparity per anatomical partition.

Fig. 5 in Morphological disparity in Plio-Pleistocene large carnivore guilds from Italian peninsula

Fig. 5. Disparity values computed for morphospace of each extant and Plio−Pleistocene large carnivore guild. Lines define 95% confidence interval under 999 randomizations. Extant is for all living taxa (N = 34) while Plio−Pleistocene stand for all fossil taxa (N = 23). Kruger, Africa is for Africa, Gunung Lensung, Indonesia for Indonesia, Otishi for South America,, Yellowstone for North America, Krokonose for Czech Republic. Fossil communities are ordered from the youngest to the oldest: Aurelian, 0.3 Ma; Galerian 3, 0.45 Ma; Galerian 2, 0.6 Ma; Galerian 1, 0.8 Ma; Pirro, 1.1 Ma; Valdi− Chiana, 1.5 Ma; Up Valdarno, 1.9 Ma; Montopoli, 2.6 Ma; Triversa, 3.2 Ma.

Fig. 3 in Morphological disparity in Plio-Pleistocene large carnivore guilds from Italian peninsula

Fig. 3. Scatter plots of RW1 (X axis, scale −0.40 / +0.40) versus RW2 (Y axis, scale −0.40 / +0.40). Each extant large carnivore guild is highlighted by closed circles. The Kruger, Africa guild represents Africa, Krokonose is for Czech Republic, Gunung Lensung, Indonesia Lensung for Indonesia, Otishi for South America and Yellowstone for North America.

Fig. 4 in Morphological disparity in Plio-Pleistocene large carnivore guilds from Italian peninsula

Fig. 4. Scatter plots of RW1 (X axis, scale −0.40 / +0.40) versus RW2 (Y axis, scale −0.40 / +0.40). Each Plio−Pleistocene carnivore guild is highlighted by closed circles. Guild are representative of distinct Paleo−Communities trough time: Triversa, 3.2 Ma; Montopoli, 2.6 Ma; Up Valdarno, 1.9 Ma; ValdiChiana, 1.5 Ma; Pirro, 1.1 Ma; Galerian 1, 0.8 Ma; Galerian 2, 0.6 Ma; Galerian 3, 0.45 Ma; and Aurelian, 0.3 Ma.

Fig. 6 in Morphological disparity in Plio-Pleistocene large carnivore guilds from Italian peninsula

Fig. 6. Scatter plot of log number of artiodactyls vs. large carnivore disparity values. Open circles, extant ecosystems; closed, fossil ecosystems. A linear trendline is placed on extant data points. Open circles represent extant ecosystem including Kruger, Africa, Africa; Gunung Lensung, Indonesia Lensung, Indonesia; Otishi, South America; Yellowstone, North America; Krokonose, Czech Republic. Closed circles are fossil communities: Triversa, 3.2 Ma; Montopoli, 2.6 Ma; Up Valdarno, 1.9 Ma; Valdi− Chiana, 1.5 Ma; Pirro, 1.1 Ma; Galerian 1, 0.8 Ma; Galerian 2, 0.6 Ma; Galerian 3, 0.45 Ma; and Aurelian, 0.3 Ma.

opencc-zeroJul 2021View details →

Data from: Phylogenetic sampling affects evolutionary patterns of morphological disparity

Cladistic character matrices are routinely repurposed in analyses of morphological disparity. Unfortunately, the sampling of taxa and characters within such datasets reflects their intended application - to resolve phylogeny, rather than distinguish between phenotypes - resulting in tree shapes that often misrepresent broader taxonomic and morphological diversity. Here we use tree shape as a proxy to explore how sampling can affect perceptions of evolving morphological disparity. Through analyses of simulated and empirical data, we demonstrate that sampling can introduce biases in trait space occupation between clades that are predicted by differences in tree symmetry and branch length distribution. Symmetrical trees with relatively long internal branches predict more expansive patterns of trait space occupation. Conversely, asymmetrical trees with relatively short internal branches predict more compact distributions. Additionally, we find that long external branches predict greater phenotypic divergence by peripheral morphotypes. Taken together, our results caution against the uncritical repurposing of cladistic datasets in disparity analyses. However, they also demonstrate that when morphological diversity is proportionately sampled, differences in tree shape between clades can speak to genuine differences in morphospace occupation. While cladistic datasets may serve as a useful starting point, disparity datasets must attempt to achieve uniformity of lineage sampling across time and topology. Only when all potential sources of bias are accounted for can genuine evolutionary phenomena be distinguished from artefactual signals. It must be accepted that the non-uniformity of the fossil record may preclude representative sampling and, therefore, a faithful characterization of the evolution of morphological disparity.