title: Assessing the role of cladogenesis in macroevolution by integrating fossil and molecular evidence.
abstract: Assessing the extent to which population subdivision during cladogenesis is necessary for long-term phenotypic evolution is of fundamental importance in a broad range of biological disciplines. Differentiating cladogenesis from anagenesis, defined as evolution within a species, has generally been hampered by dating precision, insufficient fossil data, and difficulties in establishing a direct link between morphological changes detectable in the fossil record and biological species. Here we quantify the relative frequencies of cladogenesis and anagenesis for macroperforate planktic Foraminifera, which arguably have the most complete fossil record currently available, to address this question. Analyzing this record in light of molecular evidence, while taking into account the precision of fossil dating techniques, we estimate that the fraction of speciation events attributable to anagenesis is <19% during the Cenozoic era (last 65 Myr) and <10% during the Neogene period (last 23 Myr). Our central conclusion--that cladogenesis is the predominant mode by which new planktic Foraminifera taxa become established at macroevolutionary time scales--differs markedly from the conclusion reached in a recent study based solely on fossil data. These disparate findings demonstrate that interpretations of macroevolutionary dynamics in the fossil record can be fundamentally altered in light of genetic evidence.
authors: Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. luke.strotz@mq.edu.au
authors: Luke C
authors: LC
authors: Strotz
authors: Andrew P
authors: AP
authors: Allen
mesh_terms: D005075:Biological Evolution; D005580:Fossils; D049810:Genetic Speciation
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 26;105(34):12382-6
references: 18713868
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 16;96(6):2864-8
references: 10077602
references: Biol Lett. 2012 Feb 23;8(1):139-42
references: 21900313
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Feb;14(2):72-77
references: 10234259
references: Mol Ecol. 2009 Apr;18(8):1692-706
references: 19302352
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 May 18;101(20):7657-62
references: 15136732
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Jan;25(1):14-20
references: 19720426
references: Evolution. 1990 Mar;44(2):416-434
references: 28564388
references: Nature. 2000 May 4;405(6782):43-7
references: 10811211
references: J Mol Evol. 1997 Sep;45(3):285-94
references: 9302323
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 13;103(24):9130-5
references: 16754845
references: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2011 Nov;86(4):900-27
references: 21492379
references: Ecol Lett. 2006 Aug;9(8):947-54
references: 16913938
references: J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2008 May-Jun;55(3):163-9
references: 18460153
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Jul 7;274(1618):1651-8
references: 17456460
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 15;106(50):21224-9
references: 19996180
references: Syst Biol. 2006 Jun;55(3):512-21
references: 16861213
references: Bioinform Biol Insights. 2009 Nov 11;3:155-77
references: 20140067
references: Am Nat. 2007 Feb;169(2):227-44
references: 17211806