|Jan. 10, 1997||
Press Contact: Steve Koppes|
Who says the big always get bigger? Chicago paleontologist debunks long-standing evolutionary law"
Paleontologists have believed for a century that organisms naturally evolved to larger and larger sizes. But in a new study, University of Chicago paleontologist David Jablonski shows that this is not true. In fact, there is no more tendency for things to become bigger as they evolve than there is for things to become smaller. Jablonskis surprising findings are published in the Thursday, Jan. 16, issue of the journal Nature.
This so-called Copes Rule, that evolutionary lineages have a tendency to evolve toward larger body size, is one of the most long-standing evolutionary laws. E.D. Cope first formulated his now-famous rule in a book published in 1896, and it is widely cited in textbooks from elementary to graduate school.
Although Copes Rule has been questioned for some time on a theoretical basis, this is the first time anyone has taken a quantitative look at a large enough data base to really draw a general conclusion, said Jablonski. This is the empirical nail in the coffin. Jablonski said that Cope, as have many others since him, tended to focus only on the largest animals in a given evolutionary lineage, and to home in on only those lineages that did increase in size. This is a sampling bias that skews the data.
Dinosaurs are a great example, said Jablonski. People forget that there were plenty of tiny dinosaurs running around, even at the end of the groups history. And the evolution of the horse, from tiny Eohippus to the modern horse, is often cited as the classic example of Copes Rule. But in fact, horses show a broad range of sizes through most of their evolutionary historyuntil the very end, when all became extinct except for one of the largest lineages. The last survivor just happened to be a large one. If you connect the small starting point with the big final survivor, you seem to get a straight line of size increase, but the real pattern is much more complicated.
Jablonski said that paleontologists have to think about the whole range of body sizes when examining evolutionary trends, not just the extremes.
Jablonski said there are two reasons why Copes Rule has so thoroughly permeated paleontological thinking, and both of them are psychological. Size determines who you can eat and who eats you, how widely you can range and your mating success. Believing that larger body size bestowed long-term evolutionary advantages fit our preconceptions that body size is important in the short term. Secondly, there is a human tendency to focus on the largest animals: the biggest horse in a given time slice, for example.
But my data show that although body size may be tremendously important in an ecological sense, there is no simple extrapolation to size being important in a long-term, large-scale evolutionary sense. Size really matters ecologically, but it plays such a complex role on the larger evolutionary scale that there is no long-term overarching pattern.
Children will probably never lose their fascination with the biggest dinosaurs, but there are evolutionary advantages to being small, as well. You can survive when there are limited resources, you can reproduce rapidly, and you may be able to evade predators by being too small to catchrather than too big to take down, said Jablonski. There is an infinity of possible ecological pressures on body size.
In examining Copes Rule, Jablonski tracked the body-size range of 190 evolutionary lineages of mollusks over a large geographic area and time spanfrom New Jersey to Texas and through 16 million yearsnear the end of the Cretaceous period. For 10 years, he pored over museum collections and performed over 6,000 measurements of 1,000 different species.
Jablonskis data show that there is no evolutionary preference for large body size over small, or small over large, for that matter. As many evolutionary lineages27 percentshow an overall body size decrease as show an overall body size increase. Twenty-eight percent show an increase at both ends of the size scale (both bigger and smaller). The smallest number of lineages, 9 percent, show a decrease in the total range of body sizes. This is exactly consistent with theoretical expectationsif you believe that body size confers no singular advantage, said Jablonski, but very much in opposition to the classical Copes Rule.
Last modified at 03:50 PM CST on Wednesday, June 14, 2000.
5801 South Ellis Avenue - Room 200
Chicago, Illinois 60637-1473
Fax: (773) 702-8324