Cited by 50Evolution and Paleontology StudiesGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMarine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology

Can fast early rates reconcile molecular dates with the Cambrian explosion?

Open access
Bromham, L. D., Hendy, M. D.·2000·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Molecular dates consistently place the divergence of major metazoan lineages in the Precambrian, leading to the suggestion that the 'Cambrian explosion' is an artefact of preservation which left earlier forms unrecorded in the fossil record. While criticisms of molecular analyses for failing to deal with variation in the rate of molecular evolution adequately have been countered by analyses which allow both site-to-site and lineage-specific rate variation, no analysis to date has allowed the rates to vary temporally. If the rates of molecular evolution were much higher early in the metazoan radiation, molecular dates could consistently overestimate the divergence times of lineages. Here, we use a new method which uses multiple calibration dates and an empirically determined range of possible substitution rates to place bounds on the basal date of divergence of lineages in order to ask whether faster rates of molecular evolution early in the metazoan radiation could possibly account for the discrepancy between molecular and palaeontological date estimates. We find that allowing basal (interphylum) lineages the fastest observed substitution rate brings the minimum possible divergence date (586 million years ago) to the Vendian period, just before the first multicellular animal fossils, but excludes divergence of the major metazoan lineages in a Cambrian explosion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2000.1108

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Estimating maximum and minimum possible rates for a given data set requires several calibration dates, which are not always available, and gives conservative assessments of molecular dates suitable only for rejecting particular hypotheses as inconsistent with the data.

    “Estimating maximum and minimum possible rates for a given data set requires several calibration dates, which are not always available, and gives conservative assessments of molecular dates that are suitable only for rejecting particular hypotheses as being inconsistent with the data 55 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [55]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bromham, L. D., & Hendy, M. D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Massey University (NZ)
Corresponding author
Bromham, L. D.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2000-05-22
Volume
267
Issue
1447
Pages
1041-1047
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2018170589
Cited by
50
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
Keywords
Cambrian explosion, divergence time estimation, molecular evolution rate, substitution rate variation
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Evolution, Fossils, Models, Biological

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