Dan Rabosky and co-authors have just published an important report on patterns of organismal diversity in PLOS Biology, with one of their main conclusions being that clade age does little to explain species richness. Luke Harmon has a commentary on this article in the same issue of PLOS Biology, and I’ll refer readers there for a general summary of the work’s implications. I wanted to give this article a shout-out here at Anole Annals because they used an anole as their icon for squamates in Fig. 3 (see above).
Inspection of their supplemental Table 2 and consultation with the authors, however, reveals that anoles were inadvertently left out of the final analyses due to a book-keeping error involving use of the timetree age for Iguanidae sensu Schulte et al. 2003 but the species richness for Iguanidae sensu Frost & Etheridge 1989. (A quick taxonomic review for the uninitiated: The family diagnosed as Iguanidae by Frost and Etheridge included only a subset of the species previously regarded as members of the much larger family Iguanidae. Frost and Etheridge assigned Anolis and many of the other genera previously included in Iguanidae to other newly defined families. They considered this taxonomic revision necessary because they did not recover a monophyletic Iguanidae sensu lato. Because molecular phylogenetic analyses do tend to recover a monophyletic Iguanidae sensu lato, some subsequent authors, including Schulte et al. 2003, have advocated retention of Iguanidae sensu lato and treatment of Frost & Etheridge’s families as subfamilies [see Daza et al. 2012 for another perspective on this taxonomic debate].)
If we imagine crudely adding a circle to represent Anolis in Rabosky et al.’s figure 3 (assuming an age of ~50 mybp and species richness of ~400 for the genus), its clear that anoles would be among the youngest, yet also most species rich, of all squamate clades, providing further support for Rabosky et al.’s main conclusion that clade age has little role in explaining clade richness.
When alerted of this issue, Rabosky and his co-authors re-ran their analyses including anoles and their relatives (i.e., Polychridae/Polychrotidae of Frost and Etheridge) as well as all of the other Frost and Etheridge families that were overlooked for the same reason (e.g., Tropiduridae, Phyrnosomatidae). Rabosky sent me a figure that illustrates the position of all these missing clades (in blue), including the clade that includes Anolis (in red) as well as the other squamate clades in the original analysis (in grey). Because many of these clades stem from series of basal branching events within Iguanidae sensu lato and are relatively similar in age, they rather nicely illustrate the reported absence of a correlation between clade age and species richness. Not surprisingly, Rabosky et al.’s overall conclusions about clade age and species richness are unchanged by inclusion of these additional datapoints.
At the end of the day, this discussion nicely illustrates how monkeying around with the names of formal Linnean ranks can cause chaos for anyone who is not intimately familiar with a particular name’s complete history.
Rabosky, D. L., G. J. Slater, and M. E. Alfaro (2012). Clade Age and Species Richness Are Decoupled Across the Eukaryotic Tree of Life PLOS Biology DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001381