Naming evolution's winners and losers

Jul 29, 2009 By Stuart Wolper
Naming evolution's winners and losers
A crocodile (Photo credit: Michael Alfaro/UCLA)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Mammals and many species of birds and fish are among evolution's "winners," while crocodiles, alligators and a reptile cousin of snakes known as the tuatara are among the losers, according to new research by UCLA scientists and colleagues.

"Our results indicate that mammals are special," said Michael Alfaro, a UCLA assistant professor of ecology and and lead author of the research.

The study, published July 24 in the early online edition of , also shows that new species emerge nearly as often as they die off.

Alfaro and his colleagues analyzed and fossils from 47 major vertebrate groups and used a computational approach to calculate whether the "species richness" of each group was exceptionally high or low. The research allows scientists to calculate for the first time which animal lineages have exceptional rates of success.

Among the evolutionary winners are most modern birds, including the songbirds, parrots, doves, eagles, hummingbirds and pigeons; a group that includes most mammals; and a group of fish that includes most of the fish that live on coral reefs, said Alfaro, an evolutionary biologist.

A group with the scientific name Boreoeutheria, which consists of many mammals, has diversified about seven times faster than scientists would have expected, beginning about 110 million years ago, Alfaro and his colleagues calculated. The group includes primates and carnivores, as well as bats and rodents. Pouched mammals, such as kangaroos, are not as richly varied as other mammals, Alfaro said.

Modern birds have diversified about nine times faster than expected, starting about 103 million years ago, and the group of fish that live on coral reefs has diversified about eight times faster than expected, he said.

Who are the evolutionary losers?

and alligators are nearly 250 million years old yet have diversified into only 23 species, Alfaro said. They are diversifying a staggering 1,000 times slower than would have been expected. "Their species richness is so low, given how old they are," he said.

The tuatara, which lives in New Zealand and resembles lizards — although it is actually a distant cousin — has only two species. "In the same period of time that produced more than 8,000 species of snakes and lizards, there were only two species of ," Alfaro said.

Why are there not thousands of species of tuataras?

"That is one of the big mysteries about biodiversity," Alfaro said. "Why these evolutionary losers are still around is a very hard thing to explain. They have been drawing inside straights for hundreds of millions of years. It's a real mystery to biologists how there can be any tuataras, given their low rate of speciation. They must have something working for them that has allowed them to persist. In species richness, these are losers, but in another sense, this highlights how unique they are. There are incredibly disparate patterns of species richness."

Tuataras were a bit more diverse in their heyday; there may have been a few dozen species of them, most of which have become extinct, Alfaro said.

In contrast, there are more than 9,000 bird species, more than 5,400 mammal species, approximately 5,500 frog species, some 3,000 snake species and 5,200 lizard species, Alfaro said.

The number of frog species, although it sounds high, is about what Alfaro would expect, given how old they are — approximately 250 million years old.

"Our analysis suggests we should not be surprised to see a group with that many species in that amount of time," Alfaro said.

There are almost 60,000 species of jawed vertebrates. Alfaro and his colleagues report evidence for exceptional diversification rates in nine taxonomic groups of jawed vertebrates. Interestingly, their findings do not coincide with traditional scientific explanations for why there are so many mammals, birds and fish.

"The timing of the rate increases does not correspond to the appearance of key characteristics that have been invoked to explain the evolutionary success of these groups, such as hair on mammals or mammals' well-coordinated chewing ability or feathers on birds," Alfaro said.

"Our results suggest that something more recent is the cause of the biodiversity. It may be that something more subtle explains the evolutionary success of , birds and fish. We need to look for new explanations."

Co-authors on the PNAS paper are Luke Harmon, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Idaho; Francesco Santini, a UCLA postdoctoral scholar in Alfaro's laboratory; Chad Brock, a graduate student of biology at Washington State University; Hugo Alamillo, a graduate student of biology at Washington State University; Alex Dornburg, a former undergraduate in Alfaro's laboratory, now a graduate student at Yale University; Daniel Rabosky, a graduate student of biology at Cornell University; and Giorgio Carnevale, a postdoctoral scholar at Italy's University of Pisa.

The research is federally funded by the National Science Foundation.

Alfaro's laboratory also studies why some groups of animals have great diversity in their shapes and others do not, even if there are many . He and his colleagues use DNA sequencing to tease apart evolutionary relationships, analyze the fossil record and conduct sophisticated statistical analysis.

"We are interested in understanding the causes of biodiversity," Alfaro said. "We are trying to understand what explains the staggering diversity of reef fishes and other vertebrates."

"Our analysis can highlight how much higher extinction rates are in the present, compared with the historical rates," he said.

Source: University of California - Los Angeles

Explore further: 'Killer sperm' prevents mating between worm species

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Forest birds evolved early, DNA shows

Jul 10, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Evolution seems to have happened in fits and starts -- at least that's what the fossil record shows. From trilobites to pterodactyls, ammonites to Archaeopteryx, scientists find the same pattern: ...

Predicting the distribution of creatures great and small

Jul 17, 2008

In studying how animals change size as they evolve, biologists have unearthed several interesting patterns. For instance, most species are small, but the largest members of a taxonomic group -- such as the great white shark, ...

Why are some groups of animals so diverse?

Sep 19, 2007

A new study of finger-sized Australian lizards sheds light on one of the most striking yet largely unexplained patterns in nature: why is it that some groups of animals have evolved into hundreds, even thousands of species, ...

Recommended for you

'Killer sperm' prevents mating between worm species

1 hour ago

The classic definition of a biological species is the ability to breed within its group, and the inability to breed outside it. For instance, breeding a horse and a donkey may result in a live mule offspring, ...

Rare Sri Lankan leopards born in French zoo

4 hours ago

Two rare Sri Lankan leopard cubs have been born in a zoo in northern France, a boost for a sub-species that numbers only about 700 in the wild, the head of the facility said Tuesday.

Japan wraps up Pacific whale hunt

5 hours ago

Japan announced Tuesday that it had wrapped up a whale hunt in the Pacific, the second campaign since the UN's top court ordered Tokyo to halt a separate slaughter in the Antarctic.

Researchers uncover secrets of internal cell fine-tuning

5 hours ago

New research from scientists at the University of Kent has shown for the first time how the structures inside cells are regulated – a breakthrough that could have a major impact on cancer therapy development.

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Velanarris
5 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2009
Wouldn't smaller diversity imply that you were better suited for ALL environemnts? Wouldn't that also imply that you're a "winner" in the game of evolution?

Such a silly title to speak to observations in speciation among animal groups.
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2009
Such a silly title to speak to observations in speciation among animal groups.


Word.

To me, the fact that crocs and gators are virtually unchanged from their prehistoric ancestors says to me their biology and life-history is an exemplary success in species evolution, which is more "the point" it seems... How is it "winning" to have more non-interbreeding competitors in your niche?
LuckyBrandon
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
not to mention we're also talking large meat eating reptiles in this case...why the hell do you need to change when you can eat most anything coming your way....
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 30, 2009
not to mention we're also talking large meat eating reptiles in this case...why the hell do you need to change when you can eat most anything coming your way....

Disease, cancers due to genetic deformities, etc.
DeistUntilTheDayIDie
not rated yet Aug 02, 2009
evolution doesn't account for cancer and many genetic disorders, some things just don't kill animals fast enough.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2009
evolution doesn't account for cancer and many genetic disorders, some things just don't kill animals fast enough.

Which would be why the shark and ray families have developed anti-cancer systems. They live for far longer than we do and have no "biological clock" on reproduction.
aschreiber
not rated yet Aug 03, 2009
How extremely unfortunate that some scientists and science journalists still insist on equating "new" species with winners and "old" species with losers. Didn't they learn ANYTHING from Stephen J. Gould?
LuckyBrandon
not rated yet Aug 07, 2009
velannaris...good point

deist-
evolution has to at least play a part in the genetic deformities that cause cancer and other diseases...our own bodies are, after all, something like 85-90% of virally mutated "jumpstrings" that are useless for now....i appreciate the standing up though....and i can see where you were heading with it :)