Back

Fossil-based analyses of clades' diversification patterns require taxonomic expertise and appropriate methodology

GUINOT, G.; Adnet, S.; Cuny, G.; Feichtinger, I.; Shimada, K.; Siversson, M.; Underwood, C. J.; Vullo, R.; Ward, D. J.; Condamine, F. L.

2026-03-03 paleontology
10.64898/2026.02.27.708174 bioRxiv
Show abstract

SummaryEstimating deep-time diversification patterns and the establishment of extant biodiversity represent major challenges in macroevolution. Fossil record data provide essential information to address these topics, but their heterogeneous temporal and geographical distributions require using analytical approaches to process these data. Gardiner et al.1 (hereafter GEA) used a deep-learning model2 and a fossil-occurrences dataset3 to estimate neoselachian richness over the last 145 myr. Results and DiscussionGEA1 found that neoselachian diversity increased throughout the Cretaceous, was little impacted by the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K/Pg) mass extinction ([~]10% species loss), and peaked in the mid-Eocene but declined until the Present. While the Cretaceous increase in neoselachian richness is well known4, the other findings of GEA1 are at odds with current knowledge. With the exception of lamniform sharks, the perceived decrease in species richness in the recent past is most likely due to a drop in available fossil record data combined with difficulties in identifying extant species in the fossil record5. Similarly, all previous analyses of the impact of the K/Pg mass extinction on elasmobranch diversification have reported high extinction rates, a marked diversity drop, and delayed recovery6-7, despite heterogeneity across clades, ecology, and geographical distribution7. Taking the K/Pg as an example, we demonstrate that the discrepancies between GEA1s results and current consensus is most likely due to a combination of incomplete, unverified, and incorrect fossil-occurrence data with inappropriate methodology.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.0%
2
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.3%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.6%
4
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.4%
5
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.0%
7
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
9
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
10
National Science Review
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
11
Journal of Proteome Research
215 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
12
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.8%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
14
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.7%
16
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
17
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
18
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Interface Focus
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
20
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
21
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
23
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
26
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 47%
0.7%
27
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
28
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%