On the Origin of Animals and Placental Mammals: A Critique of Literalist Readings of the Fossil Record

Abstract

The fossil record is incomplete, as evidenced by the pervasive presence of ghost lineages throughout the Tree of Life. For example, across placental mammals, at least 720 Myr of basal lineages are ghost lineages, that is, lineages that have left no fossil evidence of their past history. In contrast, some studies have suggested that the fossil record is a faithful temporal archive of evolutionary history and thus the times of diversification of clades must be close to the ages of their oldest fossils. Such literalist interpretations have been contradicted by analysis of molecular data sets which, in many cases, indicate that groups including placental mammals and animals may have originated at times substantially older than their fossil records. Some of those studies have further argued that, in the case of animals and placental mammals, molecular clocks are uninformative, suffer from characteristic pathologies, and thus cannot distinguish between recent and ancient hypotheses of diversification. Here, we re-examine these two cases and show, using Bayesian model selection theory, that the explosive diversification models previously proposed for animals and placental mammals have a posterior probability of ∼0. We show the characteristic pathologies purportedly discovered do not exist, highlight errors in previous analyses, and provide advice on best practice for molecular-clock dating analysis.