School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights , Reading, Berkshire, UK.
The Milner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath , Bath, UK.
Biol Lett. 2024 Aug;20(8):20240265. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2024.0265. Epub 2024 Aug 28.
Last year, we published research using phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs) to reveal no phylogenetic evidence for elevated lineage-level extinction rates in angiosperms across K-Pg (Thompson JB, Ramírez-Barahona S. 2023 No phylogenetic evidence for angiosperm mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Palaeogene (K-Pg) boundary. , 20230314. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2023.0314)), results that are in step with the global angiosperm fossil record. In a critique of our paper (Hagen ER. 2024 A critique of Thompson and Ramírez-Barahona (2023) or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the fossil record. EcoEvoRxiv. (doi:10.32942/X2631W)), simulation work is presented to argue we erred in our methodological choices and interpretations, and that we should have deferred to fossil evidence. In our opinion, underlying this critique are poor methodological choices on simulations and philosophical problems surrounding the definition of a mass extinction event, which leads to incorrect interpretations of both the fossil record and PCMs. We further argue that deferring to one source of evidence in favour of the other shuts the door to important evolutionary and philosophical questions.
去年，我们发表了一项使用系统发育比较方法（PCMs）的研究，结果表明被子植物在 K-Pg 界线处不存在谱系灭绝率升高的系统发育证据（Thompson JB，Ramírez-Barahona S. 2023 没有被子植物在白垩纪-古近纪（K-Pg）边界大规模灭绝的系统发育证据。 ，20230314. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2023.0314)），这一结果与全球被子植物化石记录一致。在对我们论文的批评中（Hagen ER. 2024 对 Thompson 和 Ramírez-Barahona（2023）的批评，或者：我如何学会停止担心并爱上化石记录。EcoEvoRxiv. (doi:10.32942/X2631W)），提出了模拟工作，认为我们在方法选择和解释上犯了错误，我们应该服从化石证据。在我们看来，这种批评的根源在于模拟中较差的方法选择以及围绕大规模灭绝事件定义的哲学问题，这导致对化石记录和 PCMs 的解释都不正确。我们进一步认为，服从一种证据而否定另一种证据，会使重要的进化和哲学问题的研究大门关闭。
