Project 5263: P. J. Wagner. 2001. Gastropod phylogenetics: Progress, problems, and implications. Journal of Paleontology. 75 (6):1128-1140.
Specimen: † Sinuitopsina plasi (unvouchered)
View: whole specimen (fossil)

Abstract

Twentieth century fossil gastropod systematics relied extensively on neontological paradigms. However, recent appreciation of the extant gastropod diversity suggests that those early paradigms provided very unsound models. This likely is a greater problem for Paleozoic taxa than for Meso-Cenozoic gastropods because Meso-Cenozoic taxa frequently have easily recognized extant relatives whereas Paleozoic taxa frequently do not. Also, many of the taxa that apparently diverged in the Paleozoic now are limpets and retain little information about the morphologies of their coiled ancestors. Snails could be a model taxon for investigating macroevolutionary patterns because of the clade's dense fossil record. However, paleontologists usually study only adult shells (teleoconchs), and many malacologists maintain that teleoconch characters reflect phy- logeny poorly if at all. This is important because many macroevolutionary hypotheses make their most specific predictions given phylogeny. Studies evaluating species- or genus-level relationships typically use more shell characters and states than do studies evaluating suprageneric relationships, as expected if shells evolve rapidly. Monte Carlo tests reject a null hypothesis that rates of homoplasy are equal among shell and soft-anatomy characters for two neogastropod clades, but suggest that these rates differ by less than an order of magnitude. Finally, teleoconch characters fail to unite bellerophontiform species with gastropod muscle scars but successfully unites clusters bellerophontiform species with tergomyan muscle scars. These results corroborate the conventional wisdom that teleoconch character distributions reflect abundant homoplasy, but the results also suggest that these distributions reflect phylogeny, too. If we can control the effects of homoplasy, then gastropods are an excellent ''model'' group for testing macroevolutionary hypotheses such as changing rates of evolution. Two obvious candidates are rates of morphologic evolution among basal neogastropods, and rates of molecular evolution within clades radiating after the K/T mass extinction.


Read the article »

Article DOI: 10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075<1128:GPPPAI>2.0.CO;2

Project DOI: 10.7934/P5263, http://dx.doi.org/10.7934/P5263
This project containsMatrices
  • 2 Media
  • 1 Matrix
  • 1 Document
  • 22 Taxa
  • 2 Specimens
  • 95 Characters
Total size of project's media files: 1018.47k

Download Project SDD File
Total scored cells: 1987
Total media associated with cells: 0
Total labels associated with cell media: 0
Characters
Total characters: 95
Total characters with associated media: 0
Total characters with media with labels: 0
Total character states: 424
Total character states with associated media: 0
Total character states with media with labels:0
Total unordered/ordered characters:64/31
Currently Viewing:
MorphoBank Project 5263
  • Creation Date:
    27 May 2024
  • Publication Date:
    02 July 2024

    This research
    supported by

    Authors' Institutions

    • Field Museum of Natural History



    Members

    member name taxa specimens media chars character
    media
    labels
    cell scorings
    (scored, NPA, "-")
    cell
    medialabels
    rules
    Shreya Jariwala
    Project Administrator
    222295001987
    (1298, 0, 689)
    000


    Taxonomic Overview for Matrix 'M29838' (22 Taxa)

    taxon unscored
    cells
    scored
    cells
    no cell
    support
    NPA
    cells
    "-" cellscell images labels on
    cell images
    member
    access
    [1] † Telamocornu cambriense
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    64842041001
    [2] † Cyrtonellopsis huzzahensis
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    64141048001
    [3] † Sinuitella norvegica
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    154039040001
    [4] † Carcassonnella courtessolei
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    16159033001
    [5] † Thoralispira laevis
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    16966025001
    [6] † Carcassonnella viscainoi
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    15755037001
    [7] † Quasisinuites rapax
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    15451040001
    [8] † Sinuitopsina plasi
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    105149034001
    [9] † Sinuitopsis neglecta
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    15452040001
    [10] † Cyrtodiscus nitidus
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    16761027001
    [11] † Gamadiscus procer
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    76160027001
    [12] † Temnodiscus nitidula
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    105554030001
    [13] † Cyrtolites grandis
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    06059035001
    [14] † Cyrtolites retrorsus
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    66866021001
    [15] † Cyrtolites nodosus
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    76561023001
    [16] † Cyrtolites ornatus
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    06463031001
    [17] † Cyrtolites hornyi
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    66664023001
    [18] † Cyrtolites claysferryensis
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    66866021001
    [19] † Cyrtolites thraivensis
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    66556024001
    [20] † Paracyrtolites subplanus
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    66664023001
    [21] † Paracyrtolites carinatus
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    65857031001
    [22] † Cyrtolites aff. ornatus
    Taxon name last Modified on 05/27/24
    06056035001