Systematic paleontology

Journal of Paleontology, Nov 2001 by Adrian, Jonathan M

WITH THIS issue we mark publication of the 75th volume of the Journal of Paleontology, and celebrate the occasion with a series of review articles on the systematics of major groups of fossils. Instructions to authors were very broad: we suggested consideration of the history of study, current problems, and future directions, but otherwise left authors to focus their reviews as they saw fit. We hoped in this way, with a mix of traditions and approaches, to fashion a general overview of the systematics of fossil organisms as practiced today. With the enthusiastic efforts of the contributors, I think we've been successful. The papers in this issue comprise authoritative reviews of the state of the art in various branches of paleontology. But even if one is not concerned with the details of particular groups, the contributions provide a fascinating sense of where the discipline is, and where it might be going. Although concerned mainly with systematic history, they nevertheless provide a flavor of the kinds of concerns we have as a community for the future development of our science.

It seems appropriate to preface such an issue with a brief consideration of the current and future role of the Journal, and of systematic paleontology in general. I can make no special claim to insight or experience, but as a working, field-based, systematist many of the concerns and predictions contained in these articles resonated with me. So, as a thoroughly unsolicited preamble to our diamond anniversary issue, I'd like to offer the following thoughts on the status and future of descriptive paleontology, along with some suggestions of areas, both empirical and conceptual, that we might perhaps pay more attention to. My comments pertain mostly to invertebrate paleontology. Obviously, the Journal is an important forum for many other fields as well, including but not limited to vertebrate paleontology, paleobotany, and ichnology. However, I'll stick to a subject I'm at least minimally qualified to address.

THREE KINDS OF PALEONTOLOGY: A CASE FOR INTEGRATION

It's not always fair to attempt gross generalizations, but it seems to me that there are three main groups of publishing invertebrate paleontologists with a significant connection to systematics. First, there are workers whose primary concern is description. These people tend to be field-based, and their work tends to emphasize "traditional" approaches to taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and paleobiogeography. This has been the natural constituency of the Journal, including in the past both academic and industrial workers emphasizing applied paleontology. Applied or not, my sense is that this group remains numerically dominant-people who document new species of fossil organisms and their geological context. The Journal still publishes more papers of this kind than any other. One aim of the current editors is to encourage authors to broaden the applicability of these descriptions so that they are of interest to a larger readership.

A second group, which has emerged in invertebrate paleontology largely in the past decade, comprises workers whose approaches are more analytical. Their primary concern is phylogenetic patterns, and their application to our understanding of evolution. Quantitative analyses are now routine in systematic biology in general, and are becoming so in paleontology. Scarcely an issue of the Journal passes these days which does not contain some kind of computer-based phylogenetic or morphometric analysis, and most issues contain several. Increasingly, formal analyses (both phylogenetic and morphometric) are becoming a core activity and a substantial component of the Journal.

A third group of paleontologists includes workers whose main activities are syntheses and analyses of existing taxonomic information. Prime among these are the taxic paleobiologists, who use massive compilations of taxa and ranges to examine large-scale patterns in the history of life (e.g., Sepkoski, 1981, 1984). Although there is occasional overlap, these kinds of studies are a stock in trade of our sister journal, Paleobiology.

This tripartite division is a simplification, and there are lots of workers who do none of the above, or all of the above. Other emerging fields, especially cross-disciplinary ones like geobiology, are certain to have a major impact in the future. There is still a considerable amount of paleoautecology produced. Taphonomy has a substantial following, and so on. Still, I believe the above three concerns cover a fair amount of the material published by the Journal of Paleontology and Paleobiology.

Each of these three approaches is of immense value, and all are necessary components of our science. Description (both morphologic and of occurrence in time and space) is the lifeblood of paleontology, and the source of enduring data. Good descriptive work has a utility long outlasting that of most ideas based upon it, and its influence may span decades. Phylogenetic analysis is critical: there is simply nothing more fundamental to all biological pursuits than understanding the shape of the hierarchy of life and interpreting its cause. Moreover, phylogenies are key to understanding the origination of taxa and morphologic innovation. Finally, if we want to appreciate what happened on our planet and why, we need to weld together these factors-phylogenetic structure and geologic context-into a general description of history, and to invent macroevolutionary theories to account for it.