PARAREPTILE COMPLETENESS
using less precise, easier to implement meth- ods does not substantially change the results. The CCMb is extremely easy to implement, as it only requires phylogenetic data matrices, which are readily available from publications; but it is the most biased method of the three. CCMa is more precise, but also more time- consuming with respect to data assemblage in the form of a list of elements, and direct access to specimens is required. In addition to the slightly different focus of each metric, these aspects of speed versus accuracy need to be taken into account when choosing between these metrics and their applicability to indivi- dual fossil clades.
Conclusion Our completeness study of Parareptilia, one of
the major clades of amniotes, demonstrates that their fossil record, with respect to the quality of specimens, is of high quality and with particu- larly high values of character completeness when compared with most previously studied verte- brate groups, indicating that the available data are a solid basis for phylogenetic analyses and further macroevolutionary studies. There is no effect of body size on completeness, whereas ecology seems to have an impact on preserva- tion. Our study shows that although different implementations reflect slight variations in the results, the differences do not seem to affect our interpretation of the parareptilian fossil record. It is nevertheless important to keep these issues in mind when examining the completeness of a clade; for example, when calculating the CCM one must consider the intended purposes of the original charactermatrices used, whichwill have influenced the character selection and, by exten- sion, the completeness scores.
Acknowledgments We are firstofall grateful to Johannes
Müller for discussions and providing access to specimens of Emeroleter levi, and likewise to Daniela Schwarz, Curator of Fossil Reptiles, Fossil Birds and Ichnofossils at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, for access to specimens of Mesosaurus. We also wish to thank Christian Kammerer for his constant support and his helpful comments and our many colleagues at
693
theMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin. Finally, we are grateful for the reviewers taking the time to read through the text and provide con- structive comments. This study was financially supported by the Languedoc-Roussillon region, the University of Montpellier, and a Sofja Kovalevskaja Award, which was awarded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and donated by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research. This is Paleobiology Database official publication number 261.
Literature Cited
Alroy, J. 2010. The shifting balance of diversity among major marine animal groups. Science 329:1191–1194.
Barrett, P. M., A. J. McGowan, and V. Page. 2009. Dinosaur diver- sity and the rock record. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 276:2667–2674.
Beardmore, S. R., P. J.Orr, T. Manzocchi, H. Furrer, andC. Johnson. 2012. Death, decay and disarticulation: modelling the skeletal taphonomy of marine reptiles demonstrated using Serpianosaurus (Reptilia; Sauropterygia). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 337–338:1–13.
Bell,M., P.Upchurch, P.
D.Mannion, and G. T. Lloyd.
2013.Using the character completenessmetric to examine completeness ofMesozoic dinosaurs: aMaastrichtian high and a paleoequatorial low. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Program and Abstracts, 84.
Benson, R. B. J., and P. Upchurch. 2013. Diversity trends in the establishment of terrestrial vertebrate ecosystems: interactions between spatial and temporal sampling biases. Geology 41:43–46.
Benson, R. B. J., R. J. Butler, J. Lindgren, and A. S. Smith. 2010. Meso- zoic marine tetrapod diversity: mass extinctions and temporal het- erogeneity in geological megabiases affecting vertebrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 277:829–834.
Benson, R. B. J., R. J. Butler, J. Alroy, P.
D.Mannion, M. T. Carrano, andG. T. Lloyd. 2016. Near-stasis in the long-term diversification of Mesozoic tetrapods. PLoS Biology 14:e1002359.
Benton, M. J., V. P. Tverdokhlebov, and M. V. Surkov. 2004. Eco- system remodelling among vertebrates at the Permian–Triassic boundary in Russia. Nature 432:97–100.
Benton, M. J., A. M. Dunhill, G. T. Lloyd, and F. G. Marx. 2011. Assessing the quality of the fossil record: insights from vertebrates. Geological Society of London Special Publication 358:63–94.
Benton, M. J., M. Ruta, A. M. Dunhill, andM. Sakamoto. 2013. The first half of tetrapod evolution, sampling proxies, and fossil
record quality. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoe- cology 372:18–41.
Berman, D. S., R. R. Reisz, D.M. Scott, A. C. Henrici, S. S. Sumida, and T. Martens. 2000. Early Permian bipedal reptile. Science 290:969–972.
Bever, G. S., T. R. Lyson, D. J. Field, and B.-A. S. Bhullar. 2015. Evolutionary origin of the turtle skull. Nature 525:239–242.
Brocklehurst, N., and J. Fröbisch. 2014. Current and historical perspectives on the completeness of the fossil record of pelycosaurian-grade synapsids. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatol- ogy, Palaeoecology 399:114–126.
Brocklehurst, N., P. Upchurch, P. D. Mannion, and J. O’Connor. 2012. The completeness of the fossil record of Mesozoic birds: implications for early avian evolution. PLoS One 7:e39056.
Brocklehurst, N., C. F. Kammerer, and J. Fröbisch. 2013. The early evolution of synapsids, and the influence of sampling on their fossil record. Paleobiology 39:470–490.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192
