Background and Mass Extinctions: The Alternation of Macroevolutionary Regimes

Comparison of evolutionary patterns among Late Cretaceous marine bivalves and gastropods during times of normal, background levels of extinction and during the end-Cretaceous mass extinction indicates that mass extinctions are neither an intensification of background patterns nor an entirely random culling of the biota. During background times, traits such as planktotrophic larval development, broad geographic range of constituent species, and high species richness enhanced survivorship of species and genera. In contrast, during the, end-Cretaceous and other mass extinctions these factors were ineffectual, but broad geographic deployment of an entire lineage, regardless of the ranges of its constituent species, enhanced survivorship. Large-scale evolutionary patterns are evidently shaped by the alternation of these two macroevolutionary regimes, with rare but important mass extinctions driving shifts in the composition of the biota that have little relation to success during the background regime. Lineages or adaptations can be lost during mass extinctions for reasons unrelated to their survival values for organisms or species during background times, and long-term success would require the chance occurrence within a single lineage of sets of traits conducive to survivorship under both regimes.

[1]  T. Hansen,et al.  Larval Dispersal and Species Longevity in Lower Tertiary Gastropods , 1978, Science.

[2]  N. Eldredge Phenomenological Levels and Evolutionary Rates , 1982 .

[3]  D. Raup Size of the Permo-Triassic Bottleneck and Its Evolutionary Implications , 1979, Science.

[4]  R. R. Strathmann THE EVOLUTION AND LOSS OF FEEDING LARVAL STAGES OF MARINE INVERTEBRATES , 1978, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[5]  M. Benton Dinosaur Success in the Triassic: A Noncompetitive Ecological Model , 1983, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[6]  S. Gould,et al.  Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. , 1982, Science.

[7]  M. Benton Macroevolution: Large-scale replacements in the history of life , 1983, Nature.

[8]  J. Jackson,et al.  Biogeographic Consequences of Eurytopy and Stenotopy Among Marine Bivalves and Their Evolutionary Significance , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[9]  P. Bretsky Evolutionary Patterns in the Paleozoic Bivalvia: Documentation and Some Theoretical Considerations , 1973 .

[10]  D. Jablonski,et al.  LARVAL ECOLOGY OF MARINE BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES: PALEOBIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS , 1983 .

[11]  T. Hansen Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity in neogastropods , 1980 .

[12]  D. Russell The Enigma of the Extinction of the Dinosaurs , 1979 .

[13]  J. Pechenik,et al.  Growth Stasis and Limited Shell Calcification in Larvae of Cymatium parthenopeum During Trans-Atlantic Transport , 1984, Science.

[14]  P. Sheehan Reefs are not so different—They follow the evolutionary pattern of level-bottom communities , 1985 .

[15]  E. Vrba,et al.  Individuals, hierarchies and processes: towards a more complete evolutionary theory , 1984, Paleobiology.