Cited by 349Evolution and Paleontology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetryPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology

Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and Recent arthropods

Wills, Matthew A., Briggs, Derek E. G., Fortey, Richard A.·1994·Paleobiology

Abstract

Disparity is a measure of the range or significance of morphology in a given sample of organisms, as opposed to diversity, which is expressed in terms of the number (and sometimes ranking) of taxa. At present there is no agreed definition of disparity, much less any consensus on how to measure it. Two possible categories of metric are considered here, one independent of any hypothesis of relationship (phenetics), the other constrained within an evolutionary framework (cladistics). The Early Cambrian radiation was clearly a period of significant morphologic and taxonomic diversification. However, we question the interpretation of its first generation products as numerous body plans at the highest level. Four phenetic and two cladistic measures have been used to compare disparity among Cambrian arthropods with that in the living fauna. Phenetic methods assessing character-state variability and the amount of morphological attribute space occupied yield similar results for Cambrian and Recent arthropods. Assessments of disparity within a taxonomic framework rely on the identification of particular characters that delineate higher level body plans. This requires a phylogenetic interpretation, a cladistic investigation of hierarchical structure in the data. Both sets of arthropods fall within the same major clades, and within this cladistic framework the amount of character-state evolution in the two groups is comparable. None of these methods identifies markedly greater disparity among the Cambrian compared with the Recent taxa. Although measures of disparity are applied here to a consideration of the Cambrian radiation, the metrics clearly have a much wider potential for estimating macroevolutionary trends independently from existing taxonomic frameworks. Geometric morphometry is ideal for measuring morphological variety at lower taxonomic levels, but it requires the recognition of homologous landmarks in all the forms under comparison, or the identification of entire homologous structures. Conventional phenetics has much wider application as it can operate on data coded as discrete homologous character states (this facility is also a requirement of cladistics), which are a more appropriate basis for comparing disparity in markedly dissimilar forms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s009483730001263x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trilobita consistently form a clade in cladistic analyses of Arthropoda.

    “The Trilobita consistently form a clade in cladistic analyses of the Arthropoda (see Wills et al., 1994, for review).”
  • Cladistic analysis of arthropod relationships using living and Cambrian taxa consistently places Trilobita high in the hypothesis of descent.

    “Cladistic analysis of arthropod relationships, using both living and Cambrian taxa, has shown consistently that Trilobita occupies a rather 'high' position in the hypothesis of descent (Wills et al., 1994).”
  • Disparity among Cambrian arthropods is close to that of the Recent, and the morphospace occupied by Recent Arthropoda was already filled by Cambrian time.

    “Disparity among Cambrian arthropods is close to that of the Recent (taking a representative selection of morphologies from the Recent fauna for comparison), ot mpds mpnt t , t t t at occupied by Recent Arthropoda was already filled by Cambrian time.”

    From The Cambrian evolutionary ‘explosion’: decoupling cladogenesis from morphological disparity (1996) · cites this paper as Wills, Briggs & Fortey, 1994

  • The manner in which these data have been analyzed is equally variable, although most studies implement some form of data reduction and ordination.

    “Second, the manner in which these data have been analyzed is equally variable, although most studies implement some form of data reduction and ordination (10,12).”
  • Several analyses that originally spurred the debate used discrete character matrices to compare anatomically very disparate forms.

    “Several of the analyses that originally spurred the debate (10,(21)(22)(23)35) used discrete character matrices to compare anatomically very disparate forms.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G., & Fortey, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
Venue
Paleobiology
Published
1994
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
93-130
ISSN
  • 0094-8373 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5331
OpenAlex
W2131955742
Cited by
349
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
19.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Paleobiology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Keywords
morphological disparity, Cambrian explosion, arthropods, numerical taxonomy, phylogenetic systematics, character state evolution, body plan, macroevolutionary trends, geometric morphometrics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review