Advertisement

Clocks Versus Rocks

A new analysis suggests that placental mammals originated while dinosaurs were dominant, contradicting a recent high-profile study.

By | January 14, 2014

A treeshrew, one of many species of placental mammals. WIKIPEDIA, W.DJATMIKOPlacental mammals all originated from a small, scurrying, insect-eating, shrew-like creature. But when did this ancestor live?

Genetic studies that compare the DNA of living placentals suggest that our last common ancestor lived between 88 million and 117 million years ago, when the dinosaurs still ruled.

But last year, a team of scientists led by Maureen O’Leary from Stony Brook University challenged this timeline. Through an extraordinarily detailed analysis of the bones of 86 mammals, both living and extinct, O’Leary and her colleagues concluded that placentals arose shortly after the point when the non-bird dinosaurs went extinct—the so-called K/T boundary.

Now, a trio of British researchers have hit back at O’Leary’s study, accusing it of “serious shortcomings.” In a strongly worded paper published today  (January 14) in Biology Letters, the authors write that the team has reignited a controversy that “has otherwise been settled.”

The researchers’ main criticism is that O’Leary’s team took the age of the oldest fossil from various placental groups to be the age of the group itself. This is unlikely to be true: even older fossils probably exist but have not been found yet.

“Imagine you have a mother with a 10-year-old child,” explained Mario dos Reis from University College London, the lead author on the new paper. “You know the mother can’t be younger than ten, but to say that the mother is ten would be a mistake.”

Dos Reis’ team did its own “molecular clock” study, comparing the genomes of 36 mammals to determine when they diverged from each other, and calibrating these splits using the ages of known fossils. The team also accounted for how often fossils of different groups were found, to estimate the gap in time between a group’s oldest fossils and its true ancestors.

The researchers concluded that the placental mammals arose between 72 million and 108 million years ago. “Most of these early placentals were probably similar and likely didn’t resemble modern groups, like primates or bats or carnivores,” said dos Reis. “After the dinosaurs died out, they diversified explosively.”

Mark Springer from the University of California, Riverside, supports the new critique; last year, he and his colleagues published a response to O’Leary’s paper that made similar points.

But O’Leary said that the new study provides no new data and changes very little. “It’s another clock paper and tells us pretty much what clock analyses have been telling us,” she said.  

She acknowledged that gaps must exist between a group’s oldest fossils and its last common ancestor, but her team did not want to make assumptions about the size of that gap. Dos Reis’s technique for estimating that gap is “just a prediction, like a weather prediction,” she said. “It’s another way of tweaking the model on a computer. They put a lot of stock in statistical assumptions about the fossil record.”

“I’d say the real test belongs in the field,” O’Leary added. That is, someone has to go and find a placental fossil that clearly originated from before the K/T boundary.

“The debate is getting a little tiresome, in my opinion,” Olaf Bininda-Emonds from the University of Oldenburg told The Scientist in an e-mail. “Dos Reis et al. are perfectly correct: fossils underestimate the true divergence time of a clade,” he said. “But this doesn't mean that clock-based [models] can't overestimate that time.” Such models have become increasingly sophisticated, but they still rely on large sets of assumptions.

“There’s nothing really wrong with either set of analyses,” Bininda-Emonds continued. “Both are robust. The real problem is that the methods are fundamentally different and make fundamentally different assumptions, so that there's little point in comparing the apples with the oranges.”

M. dos Reis et al., “Neither phylogenomic nor palaeontological data support a Palaeogene origin of placental mammals,” Biology Letters, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.1003, 2014.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Curculio

Curculio

Posts: 48

January 15, 2014

The point is not to let the other perspective become dogma before its time.

Avatar of: Salticidologist

Salticidologist

Posts: 20

January 15, 2014

In their work, scientists need to be careful to describe their hypotheses as such, and this may have been done by all concerned in this case.  Many interpreters of scientific papers tend to miss the distinction between 'findings' and 'hypotheses'.  Good science is an iterative process of creating and challenging hypotheses, and benefits greatly from presentation of evidence on all sides of an issue.  The fossil record for many groups is woefully inadequate, and some of our best evidence in the absence of fossils comes from the combination of improved geology related to plate tectonics, and molecular phylogeny.  A good point is made here that the truth may lie somewhere between the extremes.  Also, the idea that a significant amount of evolution of a group probably preceded the date of our earliest fossils representing that group is quite reasonable.  There are many arthropod examples where groups with a so-called Eocene origin turned up much earlier, even in the Triassic.

Avatar of: kienhoa68

kienhoa68

Posts: 33

January 21, 2014

Glad to see the issue is 'settled' for now. 

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist