Search for: All records

Abstract The fossilized birth–death (FBD) model is a naturally appealing way of directly incorporating fossil information when estimating diversification rates. However, an important yet often overlooked property of the original FBD derivation is that it distinguishes between two types of sampled lineages. Here, we first discuss and demonstrate the impact of severely undersampling, and even not including fossils that represent samples of lineages that also had sampled descendants. We then explore the benefits of including fossils, generally, by implementing and then testing two types of FBD models, including one that converts a fossil set into stratigraphic ranges, in more complex likelihood-based models that assume multiple rate classes across the tree. Under various simulation scenarios, including a scenario that exists far outside the set of models we evaluated, including fossils rarely outperform analyses that exclude them altogether. At best, the inclusion of fossils improves precision but does not influence bias. Similarly, we found that converting the fossil set to stratigraphic ranges, which is one way to remedy the effects of undercounting the number of k-type fossils, results in turnover rates and extinction fraction estimates that are generally underestimated. Although fossils remain essential for understanding diversification through time, in the specific case of understanding diversification given an existing, largely modern tree, they are not especially beneficial. [Fossilized birth–death; fossils; MiSSE; state speciation extinction; stratigraphic ranges; turnover rate.] 

Across a variety of biological datasets, from genomes to conservation to the fossil record, evolutionary rates appear to increase toward the present or over short time scales. This has long been seen as an indication of processes operating differently at different time scales, even potentially as an indicator of a need for new theory connecting macroevolution and microevolution. Here we introduce a set of models that assess the relationship between rate and time and demonstrate that these patterns are statistical artifacts of time-independent errors present across ecological and evolutionary datasets, which produce hyperbolic patterns of rates through time. We show that plotting a noisy numerator divided by time versus time leads to the observed hyperbolic pattern; in fact, randomizing the amount of change over time generates patterns functionally identical to observed patterns. Ignoring errors can not only obscure true patterns but create novel patterns that have long misled scientists.