Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sheldon & gradually evolving trilobites

Expand Messages
  • Cliff Lundberg
    Some comments on Sheldon s article, now that I ve read it. This was the article claiming gradual evolution occurred in certain trilobite lineages, in
    Message 1 of 1 , May 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Some comments on Sheldon's article, now that I've read it. This was the
      article claiming gradual evolution occurred in certain trilobite lineages,
      in opposition to PE. My problem with the paper was the claim of gradual
      elaboration, not the claim of gradualism in general, but this is not an issue
      for Sheldon, who is evidently comfortable with evolutionary reversion:
      trilobites adding segments for a while, then reducing the number for a
      while, whatever. In my own thinking, evolutionary reduction in number of
      skeletal segments is a one-way trip.

      The article (Nature 330: #6148) is the cover story, and comes with an
      overview piece by John Maynard Smith discussing the significance of
      Sheldon's more statistical presentation. Smith begins with a confusing
      discussion of randomness, punctuationism, adaptation, and species
      selection, then segues into a defense of Sheldon's interpretations, giving
      the reader a clue that this is shaky ground.

      In the Sheldon article I learn that the end-members of his claimed evolutionary
      lineages had been previously assigned to different species and even genera,
      but that he has overridden these determinations. He chafes at the application
      of binomial taxonomy to fossils and the requirement that specimens "from
      different horizons" be amassed in order to make proper species descriptions.
      Basically he seems to believe one should have a free hand in constructing
      phylogenies. He sees intermediate morphology and plugs it into his series
      in the appropriate place, regardless of trends. He allows for "trend reversals"
      which to me rather weakens the concept of the trend. For me the trend is solid.
      Parts are lost, not gained. Apparent elaborations in number of skeletal parts
      are erroneous interpretations.

      He refers to partially developed ribs (counted as 0.5 ribs) as "incipient",
      rather than 'vestigial', clearly favoring an elaborative trend in which a
      partially developed element is on its way to fully developed status.

      "No genus, locally at least, appears to have been represented by more than
      one species at any particular time." This is odd, but highly convenient if the
      object is to show changes in a species rather than variants within a genus.

      Anyway, the paper shows how poor the evidence is for gradual elaboration
      in the number of skeletal segments. But again, Sheldon is merely concerned
      with gradualism vs. PE here, and does not address my issues head-on.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.