Quick Search:    advanced search

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

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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McGowan, A. J. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Ammonoid taxonomic and morphologic recovery patterns after the Permian–Triassic

¹ Department of the Geophysical Sciences, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA

Taxonomic diversity is only one possible biodiversity metric. Studies of taxonomic and morphologic diversity indicate that the two need not be closely linked. Mass extinctions, and their associated recovery periods, can be viewed as natural experiments for testing the link. After the Permian–Triassic mass extinction (ca. 253 Ma), ammonoid taxonomic diversity rapidly recovered to preextinction levels. Morphologic diversity, measured as variance, was used to compare taxonomic and morphologic recovery patterns of ammonoids after the Permian–Triassic. Morphologic diversity decreased significantly between the first and second stages of the Triassic (Griesbachian and Dienerian, respectively), despite an increase in taxonomic diversity and a tripling of sample size. During the third stage (Smithian), morphologic diversity returned to Griesbachian levels. The loss of representatives from two morphologically distinctive lineages at the end of the Griesbachian, followed by the evolution of many morphologically convergent forms, explains this pattern. These findings strengthen the case that morphologic metrics are valuable complements to taxonomic metrics in characterizing evolutionary patterns.

Key Words: Permian • Triassic • ammonoids • biotic recovery • morphologic evolution

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. M. Stanley Evidence from ammonoids and conodonts for multiple Early Triassic mass extinctions PNAS, September 8, 2009; 106(36): 15264 - 15267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Brayard, G. Escarguel, H. Bucher, C. Monnet, T. Bruhwiler, N. Goudemand, T. Galfetti, and J. Guex Good Genes and Good Luck: Ammonoid Diversity and the End-Permian Mass Extinction Science, August 28, 2009; 325(5944): 1118 - 1121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. B. Saunders, E. Greenfest-Allen, D. M. Work, and S. V. Nikolaeva Morphologic and taxonomic history of Paleozoic ammonoids in time and morphospace Paleobiology, January 1, 2008; 34(1): 128 - 154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. B. Smith Intrinsic versus extrinsic biases in the fossil record: contrasting the fossil record of echinoids in the Triassic and early Jurassic using sampling data, phylogenetic analysis, and molecular clocks Paleobiology, March 1, 2007; 33(2): 310 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Jablonski Mass extinctions and macroevolution Paleobiology, June 1, 2005; 31(2_Suppl): 192 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]