1316
Journal of Paleontology 91(6):1315–1317 Part of this perception comes from how we understand
what we have called bias, and how we respond to it. All data sets have a distribution. For some data, the distribution may be simple, like a normal or an exponential. When we analyze those data, we are required to use methods that are appropriate for that distribution. When we choose those methods, we are said to be specifying a model of the data. This is important, because if our data do not have the distribution required by our methods, the problem is not in the data—the problem is that we have chosen the wrong way to analyze them. For example, in Bayesian phylogenetic methods, one has to
make a set of assumptions called the priors, and one common assumption is the probability of fossil preservation through time, which is generally treated as a constant. There are other priors as well, and a model for each of those must also be spe- cified. If these assumptions or priors are not valid, the approach of molecular phylogeneticists is not to say that the data are biased, but that the model is misspecified. Instead of stopping there, they revise the model so that it better reflects the nature of the world. We need to do the same. We need to think less about bias as an end, and more about model specification as a way forward. We have a long history of focusing on bias and incomple-
teness, but we ought to be focusing on the structure of the fossil record, how the fossil record is actually assembled. Considering that structure will help us to be better at model specification, better at interpreting the fossil record. We already know much about the structure of the fossil
record. For starters, the fossil record is, by and large, time- averaged. For invertebrates, a typical bed contains organisms that lived over a time span on the order of a century (Kowalewski and Bambach, 2003). That structure imposes a lower limit on what we can resolve and therefore what processes we can study. On longer time scales, sequence stratigraphic architecture is the main control on the occurrence of fossils (Holland, 2000), and on even longer time scales, basin forma- tion is what matters most (Holland, 2016). Knowing this structure will let us frame problems that we can test. A skeptic might say that thinking about the fossil record in
terms of structure and model specification rather than bias and incompleteness is merely the swapping of words, but it is much more than that. A focus on structure and model specification reflects a change in outlook and strategy, one that will improve our analyses. It will also improve how other scientists view what can be done with the fossil record and what they think about science of paleontology in general. Our aim should be to emphasize how the fossil record informs us, not that it is biased. We also need to consider what our biological colleagues hear from us and what they see in print. Titles that shout incomple- teness, bias, and megabias do us no favors. I amnot arguing that we should ignore the nature or quality of the fossil record. Absolutely we should consider them; an
attention to the nature of our data is one of the strengths of our field. But we need to go beyond that, far beyond that. When we stop there and write yet another paper about bias in the fossil record, that is what our colleagues hear. When they hear this repeatedly, they conclude that the fossil record is not worth bothering with. We need to go the next step by sampling and analyzing the fossil record with its structure in mind.We need to
use that structure to answer questions about the history of life over those long time scales where paleontology excels.We have real success stories, people that are already doing this, and these guide our way forward. Conservation paleobiology is my first example. So many
taphonomic studies of the 1970s and 1980s and onward cata- logued the many ways in which the fossil record is so different from a modern ecological field sample. It was a message of bias and incompleteness, that our data would never satisfy a modern ecologist. Through her comprehensive examinations of live- dead comparisons, Susan Kidwell (2002, 2013) showed that the fossil record contains a high-fidelity record of species richness and especially abundance, a pattern both unexpected and most welcome. The field of conservation paleobiology is now a robust one, a model of howthe fossil record is directly useful for establishing baselines for modern ecological studies. The key was to embrace the structure of the record. The key was that time-averaging is good; rather than apologize for it, we need to capitalize on it. Mysecond example comes from stratigraphic paleobiology
(Patzkowsky and Holland 2012). We have a tremendous desire to understand why ecosystems go off the rails during mass extinctions and biotic invasions, and how they recover afterwards. In the past, the tendency had been to go through a single stratigraphic column, documenting the upward changes in the fossils and treating that as a simple history or time series. We now know that most of these stratigraphic changes in faunal composition are the result of sampling different environments over time. By knowing the sequence stratigraphic architecture, we can now design sampling strategies that let us distinguish these environmental changes from temporal changes within one environment. This is not simply removing a bias: stratigraphic paleobiology lets us understand ecological changes over time across an entire landscape, aswell as the variation among environments to the same disturbance. Taking into account the structure of the record provides us with a richer interpretation. My third example comes from phylogenetic studies, where
as I mentioned earlier, a common assumption is that preserva- tion is constant over the earth and through time. Peter Wagner and Jonathan Marcot (2013) showed how, with a relatively simple segregation of their data in time bins on different continents, they could allow preservation probability to vary through time and space, producing superior estimates of diver- gence times. Others have had similar success (Sansom et al. 2014, Silvestro et al. 2014), and macrostratigraphy (Peters 2006) has great promise for allowing these kinds of approaches to be done more widely. All of these hinge on understanding and embracing the structure of the fossil record and the sedimentary record in which it is found. As paleontologists, we have an extraordinary data set at our
disposal, and we have the expertise to understand it. We have something that no other field of biology has—time, deep time— and we need to play to that strength. We have access to worlds far different from our own, with biotas, geographies, and climates unlike anyone has seen. All of these offer opportunities to test ideas about how the biological world operates.We cannot test every modern biological process, because some of them operate on a time scale far too fast for us to resolve, but we can test those processes that operate over longer expanses of time
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 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271 |
Page 272 |
Page 273 |
Page 274 |
Page 275 |
Page 276
