I don't have time to comment at the moment (perhaps over the weekend), but this looks interesting:
The big dinosaur extinction of 65 million years ago didn't produce a flurry of new species in the ancestry of modern mammals after all, says a huge study that challenges a long-standing theory.
Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals...
Instead, they showed an initial burst between 100 million about 85 million years ago, with another between about 55 million and 35 million year ago, researchers report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
The Nature paper is here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
As I mentioned earlier, there's a really interesting paper on mammal evolution in the latest issue of the journal Nature. The authors of the paper compiled a really fantastic sampling of molecular data that included data from about 99% of all currently known extant mammals. The data was then used…
As the proud owner of a fine cat, Tino, I'm happy to join the ritual of cat-blogging. I was inspired after reading a new study that sorts out Tino's kinship with other cats. Now I know that a cheetah is more closely related to Tino than it is to a leopard (right and left, respectively).
The…
The mammalian tree is rooted deeply and branched early!
(click for larger image)All orders are labelled and major lineages are coloured as follows: black, Monotremata; orange, Marsupialia; blue, Afrotheria; yellow, Xenarthra; green, Laurasiatheria; and red, Euarchontoglires. Families that were…
Andrewsarchus was the largest carnivorous land mammal that ever lived.
It lived about 32-60 million years ago. (Image: BBC Walking With Beasts)
Contrary to popular belief, a new study shows that the rise of mammals was not connected to the extinction of dinosaurs that occurred 65 million years…
Unfortunately, this is one for the "spin outdoes facts" file. The paper says that the *extant* lineages (extant = alive now) did not diversify immediately after the K-T boundary.
But the paper *does* say that mammalian species diversity *did* spike after the K-T event:
So all they are really saying is that the extant mammal clades at 0 mya were not the dominant lineages that were radiating wildly 65-60 mya. 60 million years is a very long time. Why should this be shocking, exactly?
(PS: This might even be one big by-product of the general process of speciation and extinction. By any account, most species and lineages die out. Therefore, as you go further back in time, the modern extant crown clades will encompass a smaller and smaller portion of fossil diversity, even on a model where speciation and extinction are completely random.)
I haven't had time to read the paper yet, so thanks for the comment.
I could be the one totally wrong, of course -- but what would be interesting would be a comparison of the speciation of extant lineages versus some null model around the KT boundary.
Whatever the exact siginificance of the paper, I think your title is a _slight_ exaggeration. What _I_ know about the KT boundary could be summarised as iridium/asteroid/dead-dinosaurs.
You're right! When I saw "KT Boundary" I assumed that it had something to do with physics or astronomy. Boy, was I wrong!