化石记录中能发现现代隐性物种吗?姬蛙蜥个案研究。

IF 6.1 1区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Till Ramm, Jaimi A Gray, Christy A Hipsley, Scott Hocknull, Jane Melville, Johannes Müller
{"title":"化石记录中能发现现代隐性物种吗?姬蛙蜥个案研究。","authors":"Till Ramm, Jaimi A Gray, Christy A Hipsley, Scott Hocknull, Jane Melville, Johannes Müller","doi":"10.1093/sysbio/syae067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Comparisons of extant and extinct biodiversity are often dependent on objective morphology-based identifications of fossils and assume a well-established and comparable taxonomy for both fossil and modern taxa. However, since many modern (cryptic) species are delimitated mainly via external morphology and / or molecular data, it is often unclear to what degree fossilized (osteological) remains allow classification to a similar level. When intraspecific morphological variation in extant taxa is poorly known, the definition of extinct species as well as the referral of fossils to extant species can be heavily biased, particularly if fossils are represented by incomplete isolated skeletal elements. This problem is especially pronounced in squamates (lizards and snakes) owing to a lack of osteological comparative knowledge for many lower taxonomic groups, concomitant with a recent increase of molecular studies revealing great cryptic diversity. Here, we apply a quantitative approach using 3D geometric morphometrics on 238 individuals of 14 genera of extant Australian and Papua New Guinean agamid lizards to test the value of two isolated skull bones (frontals and maxillae) for inferring taxonomic and ecological affinities. We further test for the consistency of intra- and interspecific morphological variability of these elements as a proxy for extinct taxonomic richness. We show that both bones are diagnostic at the generic level, and both can infer microhabitat and are of palaeoecological utility. However, species-level diversity is likely underestimated by both elements, with ~30-40% of species pairs showing no significant differences in shape. Mean intraspecific morphological variability is largely consistent across species and bones and thus a useful proxy for extinct species diversity. Reducing sample size and landmark completeness to approximate fossil specimens led to decreased classification accuracy and increased variance of morphological disparity, raising further doubts on the transferability of modern species borders to the fossil record of agamids. Our results highlight the need to establish appropriate levels of morphology-based taxonomic or ecological groupings prior to comparing extant and extinct biodiversity.</p>","PeriodicalId":22120,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Biology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Modern Cryptic Species Detectable in the Fossil Record? A Case Study on Agamid Lizards.\",\"authors\":\"Till Ramm, Jaimi A Gray, Christy A Hipsley, Scott Hocknull, Jane Melville, Johannes Müller\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sysbio/syae067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Comparisons of extant and extinct biodiversity are often dependent on objective morphology-based identifications of fossils and assume a well-established and comparable taxonomy for both fossil and modern taxa. However, since many modern (cryptic) species are delimitated mainly via external morphology and / or molecular data, it is often unclear to what degree fossilized (osteological) remains allow classification to a similar level. When intraspecific morphological variation in extant taxa is poorly known, the definition of extinct species as well as the referral of fossils to extant species can be heavily biased, particularly if fossils are represented by incomplete isolated skeletal elements. This problem is especially pronounced in squamates (lizards and snakes) owing to a lack of osteological comparative knowledge for many lower taxonomic groups, concomitant with a recent increase of molecular studies revealing great cryptic diversity. Here, we apply a quantitative approach using 3D geometric morphometrics on 238 individuals of 14 genera of extant Australian and Papua New Guinean agamid lizards to test the value of two isolated skull bones (frontals and maxillae) for inferring taxonomic and ecological affinities. We further test for the consistency of intra- and interspecific morphological variability of these elements as a proxy for extinct taxonomic richness. We show that both bones are diagnostic at the generic level, and both can infer microhabitat and are of palaeoecological utility. However, species-level diversity is likely underestimated by both elements, with ~30-40% of species pairs showing no significant differences in shape. Mean intraspecific morphological variability is largely consistent across species and bones and thus a useful proxy for extinct species diversity. Reducing sample size and landmark completeness to approximate fossil specimens led to decreased classification accuracy and increased variance of morphological disparity, raising further doubts on the transferability of modern species borders to the fossil record of agamids. Our results highlight the need to establish appropriate levels of morphology-based taxonomic or ecological groupings prior to comparing extant and extinct biodiversity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syae067\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syae067","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现存生物多样性和已灭绝生物多样性的比较通常依赖于对化石进行客观的形态鉴定,并假定化石和现代类群都有完善的、可比较的分类法。然而,由于许多现代(隐性)物种主要是通过外部形态和/或分子数据来划分的,因此通常还不清楚化石(骨学)遗骸在多大程度上可以将物种分类提升到类似的水平。当对现生类群的种内形态变异知之甚少时,对已灭绝物种的定义以及将化石归入现生物种可能会产生严重偏差,尤其是当化石是由不完整的孤立骨骼元素代表时。这个问题在有鳞类动物(蜥蜴和蛇)中尤为突出,因为许多低等分类群缺乏骨骼学比较知识,而最近越来越多的分子研究揭示了巨大的隐匿多样性。在此,我们采用三维几何形态计量学的定量方法,对现存澳大利亚和巴布亚新几内亚14属的238个个体进行了研究,以检验两块孤立的头骨(额骨和上颌骨)在推断分类学和生态学亲缘关系方面的价值。我们还进一步测试了这些元素在种内和种间形态变异的一致性,以此作为已灭绝物种分类丰富度的代表。我们的研究表明,这两种骨骼都具有类属水平的诊断能力,都可以推断微生境,并具有古生态学的作用。然而,这两种元素可能低估了物种层面的多样性,约有30-40%的物种对在形态上没有明显差异。不同物种和骨骼的种内形态变异平均值基本一致,因此是已灭绝物种多样性的有效代表。将样本量和地标完整性降低到近似化石标本的程度会导致分类准确性下降和形态差异的增加,从而使人们进一步怀疑现代物种边界对姬蛙类化石记录的可转移性。我们的研究结果突出表明,在比较现生和已灭绝的生物多样性之前,有必要建立适当的基于形态学的分类学或生态学分组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are Modern Cryptic Species Detectable in the Fossil Record? A Case Study on Agamid Lizards.

Comparisons of extant and extinct biodiversity are often dependent on objective morphology-based identifications of fossils and assume a well-established and comparable taxonomy for both fossil and modern taxa. However, since many modern (cryptic) species are delimitated mainly via external morphology and / or molecular data, it is often unclear to what degree fossilized (osteological) remains allow classification to a similar level. When intraspecific morphological variation in extant taxa is poorly known, the definition of extinct species as well as the referral of fossils to extant species can be heavily biased, particularly if fossils are represented by incomplete isolated skeletal elements. This problem is especially pronounced in squamates (lizards and snakes) owing to a lack of osteological comparative knowledge for many lower taxonomic groups, concomitant with a recent increase of molecular studies revealing great cryptic diversity. Here, we apply a quantitative approach using 3D geometric morphometrics on 238 individuals of 14 genera of extant Australian and Papua New Guinean agamid lizards to test the value of two isolated skull bones (frontals and maxillae) for inferring taxonomic and ecological affinities. We further test for the consistency of intra- and interspecific morphological variability of these elements as a proxy for extinct taxonomic richness. We show that both bones are diagnostic at the generic level, and both can infer microhabitat and are of palaeoecological utility. However, species-level diversity is likely underestimated by both elements, with ~30-40% of species pairs showing no significant differences in shape. Mean intraspecific morphological variability is largely consistent across species and bones and thus a useful proxy for extinct species diversity. Reducing sample size and landmark completeness to approximate fossil specimens led to decreased classification accuracy and increased variance of morphological disparity, raising further doubts on the transferability of modern species borders to the fossil record of agamids. Our results highlight the need to establish appropriate levels of morphology-based taxonomic or ecological groupings prior to comparing extant and extinct biodiversity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Biology
Systematic Biology 生物-进化生物学
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Biology is the bimonthly journal of the Society of Systematic Biologists. Papers for the journal are original contributions to the theory, principles, and methods of systematics as well as phylogeny, evolution, morphology, biogeography, paleontology, genetics, and the classification of all living things. A Points of View section offers a forum for discussion, while book reviews and announcements of general interest are also featured.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信