Palaeontologia Electronica palaeo-electronica.org Phylogenetically vetted and stratigraphically constrained fossil calibrations within Aves Daniel Ksepka and Julia Clarke ABSTRACT Understanding the timing of the crown radiation of birds is a major goal of avian molecular systematists and paleontologists. Despite the availability of ever-larger molecular datasets and increasingly sophisticated methods for phylogeny reconstruc- tion and divergence time estimation, relatively little attention has been paid to outlining and applying fossil calibrations. As the avian fossil record has become better sampled, and more extinct taxa have been incorporated into a phylogenetic framework, the potential for this record to serve as a powerful source of temporal data for divergence dating analyses has increased. Nonetheless, the desire for abundant calibrations must be balanced by careful vetting of candidate fossils, especially given the prevalence of inaccurate fossil calibrations in the recent past. In this contribution, we provide seven phylogenetically vetted fossil calibrations for major divergences within crown Aves rep- resenting the splits between (1) Anatoidea, (2) Sphenisciformes, (3) Coracioidea, (4) Apodidae, (5) Coliiformes, (6) Psittaciformes, and (7) Upupiformes, and the respective extant sister taxon for each of these clades. Each calibration is based an individual specimen, which maintains the clearest possible chain of inference for converting the relevant stratigraphic horizon to a numerical date. Minimum ages for each fossil are tightly constrained and incorporate associated dating errors, and the distributions of younger fossils from the clades of interest are summarized to provide a starting point for workers interested in estimating confidence intervals or outlining prior age distribu- tion curves. Daniel Ksepka. National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, Durham, North Carolina, 27706, USA. [email protected] Current address: Bruce Museum, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830, USA Julia Clarke. Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78713, USA. [email protected] Keywords: divergence dating; molecular clock; birds PE Article Number: 18.1.3FC Copyright: Society for Vertebrate Paleontology February 2015 Submission: 14 January 2013. Acceptance: 14 October 2014 Ksepka, Daniel and Clarke, Julia. 2015. Phylogenetically vetted and stratigraphically constrained fossil calibrations within Aves. Palaeontologia Electronica 18.1.3FC; 1-25; palaeo-electronica.org/content/fc-3 Calibrations published in the Fossil Calibration Series are accessioned into the Fossil Calibration Database (www.fossilcalibra- tions.org). The Database is a dynamic tool for finding up-to-date calibrations, and calibration data will be updated and annotated as interpretations change. In contrast, the Fossil Calibration papers are a permanent published record of the information on which the cal- ibrations were originally based. Please refer to the Database for the latest data. KSEPKA & CLARKE: AVIAN CALIBRATIONS INTRODUCTION allow implementation of prior age distributions (e.g., Thorne et al., 1998; Yang and Rannala, Divergence dating analyses can provide 2006; Yang, 2007; Drummond et al., 2006; Drum- insight into the timing of evolutionary radiations, mond and Rambaut, 2007). Depending on the placing them in the context of plate tectonic events, analysis, prior distribution curves may be narrow climate shifts, and mass extinctions. Fossils pro- and multiple calibrations may strongly impact one vide a crucial source of temporal information that another (e.g., Ho and Phillips, 2009; Inoue et al., allows nodes in molecular trees to be tied to the 2010; Clarke et al., 2011; Warnock et al., 2012). geological time scale. As methods for divergence For this reason, precision in fossil dating is recog- dating and their computer implementation have nized to be of crucial importance. Beyond this, become more sophisticated, the importance of fos- stratigraphic revisions that occur subsequent to the sil calibrations has grown. The need for precise initial description of a fossil are often overlooked, phylogenetic placement and stratigraphic con- resulting in obsolete age estimates being retained straint of these fossil calibrations is evident. in the systematic literature. One need only com- Birds have been frequent targets of diver- pare recent Cenozoic time scales (e.g., Gradstein gence dating analyses (e.g., Hedges et al., 1996; et al., 2004, figure 1.7) to understand the magni- Cooper and Penny, 1997; van Tuinen and Hedges, tude of change in global geochronology over the 2001; van Tuinen and Dyke, 2004; Shapiro et al., past few decades, to say nothing of local revisions 2002; Ericson et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2007; within individual formations. Pereira et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2008; Pratt et al, In this paper, we lay out the justification for a 2009; Phillips et al., 2010; Pacheco et al., 2011; set of fossil calibrations within the crown radiation White et al., 2011). A common thread in these of birds. We propose seven phylogenetically and analyses has been testing whether the avian crown stratigraphically constrained fossils from clades radiation was well underway during the Creta- distributed widely across Aves. Our calibrations fol- ceous, implying a wave of mass survivorship low the best practice guidelines outlined by Par- across the K-Pg boundary, or took place primarily ham et al. (2012) in (1) basing each calibration on in the Paleogene, implying an explosive radiation an individual specimen, (2) referencing an apomor- following the K-Pg mass extinction (reviewed by phy-based diagnosis or phylogenetic analysis Penny and Phillips, 2004). Despite strong interest including this specimen, (3) resolving any conflict in avian divergence dating, there has been rela- between morphological and molecular data sets tively little effort expended on explicitly justifying that affect the reliability of the fossil calibration,(4) the phylogenetic placement of fossil calibrations for providing the explicit stratigraphic context of the key nodes. The majority of avian fossils that have fossil, and (5) translating stratigraphic placement to been applied as fossil calibrations have never been a numerical date via connection to radiometric included in a phylogenetic analysis (Ksepka et al., dates and/or the geological time scale. We further 2011), and a substantial number have been applied apply slightly stricter criteria in this contribution, to nodes that contradict the most recent placement recommending fossils as calibrations only if (1) the of fossil taxa (e.g., Mayr, 2005a; Ksepka, 2009; specimen comprises at least a partial skeleton, (2) Wijnker and Olson, 2009; Smith, in press). We sus- the species has been included in a phylogenetic pect that many inaccurate calibrations can be analysis, and (3) the gap between the age of the attributed to the unwarranted assumption that fossil calibrating fossil and the next oldest representative bird taxonomy reflects phylogeny, e.g., the misat- of its clade spans less than 10 Ma. We do not take tribution of stem lineage fossils to extant families. the position that fossils failing to meet these addi- Until recently, phylogenetic work on fossil members tional criteria should not be used as calibrations. of the crown radiation of birds has been sparse, However, given the history of single elements and the list of fossils that were formerly shoe- being erroneously assigned to extant clades and horned into extant higher taxa is long (e.g., Olson, active disputes over the affinities of fossils in avian 1985; Mayr, 2009). paleontology, increasing the threshold for the fossil Inaccurate or imprecise ages have been tied calibrations presented here should ensure they are to avian fossil calibrations as well. This is in part of maximum stability and reliability. Choosing rela- due to the complex chain of inference that must be tively complete fossils has the added appeal of applied to translate stratigraphic occurrences into facilitating the application of methods that directly numerical dates. Although early analyses often incorporate fossils as terminal taxa in divergence treated calibrations as point constraints or hard minima, many current divergence dating methods 2 PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG dating analysis (e.g., Ware et al., 2010; Pyron, ranges such as biozones are continually improving 2011; Ronquist et al., 2012). the accuracy and precision of age estimates. In Several of the fossils discussed here have translating global stratigraphic boundaries into previously been used as calibrations. However, in numerical dates, we relied on the Geological Time each of these cases the calibration has been Scale 2012 (Gradstein et al., 2012). However, in applied either to a different node or with a different many cases we were able to access local strati- minimum age (in some cases varying by several graphic data such as radiometrically dated ash lay- million years). Such discrepancies illustrate the ers to provide a more precise age constraint. By strength of tying calibrations to an individual fossil presenting not only the most recent age estimate specimen, and the importance of explicitly stating for each fossil but also an explicit justification for the justification for the placement and the age of this age, we hope to provide those interested in uti- each calibration point. lizing these fossil calibrations with a means of veri- In outlining the justification