Gastropod Evidence Against the Early Triassic Lilliput Effect: REPLY
Gastropod evidence against the Early Triassic Lilliput effect: REPLY REPLY: doi:10.1130/G31765Y.1 Cretaceous and whose members reach large sizes. Such gastropods were not present in the Early Mesozoic. Using Syrinx as a reference, the vast Arnaud Brayard1, Alexander Nützel2, Andrzej Kaim2, 3, Gilles majority of Phanerozoic gastropod faunas would fall into the Lilliput cat- Escarguel4, Michael Hautmann5, Daniel A. Stephen6, Kevin G. egory. Moreover, the absence of “giant” taxa in the Early Triassic fos- Bylund7, Jim Jenks8, and Hugo Bucher5 sil record may well be a preservation artifact due to the generally poorly 1UMR 5561 CNRS Biogéosciences, Université de Bourgogne, documented fossil record of that time interval. 21000 Dijon, France The reported maximum sizes of Permian (but not Late Permian) and 2Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie, Middle Triassic gastropods does exceed that of Early Triassic gastropods, 80333 Munich, Germany but this might be a purely stochastic effect due to the rather low Early 3Instytut Paleobiologii PAN, PL-00-818 Warsaw, Poland Triassic species diversity (<100 species known) and specimen abundance. 4UMR 5125 CNRS PEPS, Université Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne Usually, log-normal size distributions are highly right-skewed, making Cedex, France larger species much rarer than smaller ones (independent of species’ rela- 5Paläontologisches Institut und Museum, Universität Zürich, tive abundance, negatively correlated with body size). We ran sub-sam- 8006 Zurich, Switzerland pling Monte Carlo analyses of Bouchet et al.’s (2002) size distribution of 6Department of Earth Science, Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah 2581 extant mollusc species based on random generation of sets of 100 84058, USA species (ca.
[Show full text]