The long fuse of mammalian diversity

Study Re-evaluates Evolution of Mammals:

Until now, however, most paleontologists had favored a "short-fuse" model in which mammals came into their own almost immediately after the dominant reptiles vacated their habitats. Before the extinctions, most mammals were small nocturnal creatures.

The new study confirmed and elaborated on earlier research by molecular biologists indicating that many of today's mammalian orders originated from 100 million to 85 million years ago. The reasons for this evolutionary burst are not clear.

Drawing on both molecular and fossil data, the researchers said they found that the "pivotal macroevolutionary events for those lineages with extant mammalian descendants" occurred well before the mass extinction and long after. They emphasized that the molecular and fossil evidence provide "different parts of this picture, attesting to the value of using both approaches together."

I don't know much about this, but this seems cool. I hadn't known that the molecular biologists and paleontologists were arguing about the deep lineages inferred from the genetic data, and it seems like the outcome was similar to the 1970s where the molecular side was validated by new finds.

Tags

More like this

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…
Are There Disagreements Between the Fossil Record and Molecular Data? Molecular biologists have a tradition of reworking a lot of the evolutionary relationships and timescales that morphologists and paleontologists worked so hard to figure out. This can really piss off the non-molecular folks, but…
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…

I just finished Dawkins' "Ancestors' Tale". In writing that a couple of years ago he already stressed, from molecular evidence, that the major divisions in mammals were genetically established in the range discussed in the paper. He did suggest that most of the lineages probably were rather shrew-like.

By Mike McKeown (not verified) on 29 Mar 2007 #permalink

As I understand it, the sequence appears to be monotreme-marsupial-placental. This be the case, then monotremes would have to go back a lot further than we think; insofar as we've found placental fossils older than the oldest monotreme fossils. Indeed, the monotremes may actually be advanced triconodonts, making them the oldest mammalian line currently exant.