Simple shell measurements do not consistently predict habitat in turtles: a reply to Lichtig and Lucas (2017)
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (Peer Community in Paleontology)
Abstract
Inferring palaeoecology for fossils is a key interest of palaeobiology. For groups with extant representatives, correlations of aspects of body shape with ecology can provide important insights to understanding extinct members of lineages. The origin and ancestral ecology of turtles is debated and various shell or limb proportions have been reported to correlate with habitat ecology among extant turtles, such that they may be informative for inferring the ecology of fossil turtles, including early shelled stem turtles. One recently described method proposes that simple shell measurements that effectively quantify shell doming and plastron width can differentiate habitat classes among extant turtles in linear discriminant analysis, whereby aquatic turtles have low domed shells with narrow plastra. The respective study proposes unorthodox habitat predictions for key fossil turtles, including aquatic lifestyles for the early turtle Proganochelys quenstedtii and the meiolaniform Meiolania platyceps , and terrestrial habits for the early turtle Proterochersis robusta . Here, we show that these published results are the consequence of questionable methodological choices such as omission of species data which do not conform to a preconceived shell shape-ecology association. When these choices are reversed, species measurements for fossils are corrected, and phylogenetic flexible discriminant analysis applied, habitat cannot be correctly predicted for extant turtles based on these simple shell measurements. This invalidates the method as well as the proposed palaeohabitats for fossils.
Article activity feed
-
-
I am a non-avian dinosaur palaeontologist by trade with a particular interest in their palaeoecology. This can be an endless source of both fascination and frustration. Fascination, because non-avian dinosaurs are quite unlike anything alive today, warranting some use of creative license when imagining them as living animals. Frustration, because the lack of good, extant ecological analogues frequently makes reconstruction of their ancient ecologies an almost insurmountable challenge.
The Canadian Museum of Nature where I work has a good collection of Late Cretaceous turtles. I took an interest in these some years ago because it struck me that, despite the quality of our collection, relatively few people come to study them. I thought, "Someone should work on these. Why not me?" I figured studying a new fossil group would present a fun …
I am a non-avian dinosaur palaeontologist by trade with a particular interest in their palaeoecology. This can be an endless source of both fascination and frustration. Fascination, because non-avian dinosaurs are quite unlike anything alive today, warranting some use of creative license when imagining them as living animals. Frustration, because the lack of good, extant ecological analogues frequently makes reconstruction of their ancient ecologies an almost insurmountable challenge.
The Canadian Museum of Nature where I work has a good collection of Late Cretaceous turtles. I took an interest in these some years ago because it struck me that, despite the quality of our collection, relatively few people come to study them. I thought, "Someone should work on these. Why not me?" I figured studying a new fossil group would present a fun change of pace and perhaps a more straightforward object of palaeoecological reconstruction. After all, fossil turtles are a lot like living turtles, so how hard can it be? Right?
In 2018, I took a special interest in one recently prepared fossil turtle, which I determined to be a new species of Basilemys (Mallon and Brinkman, 2018). Basilemys held my interest because, although it is a relatively common form, there has been some debate concerning the palaeohabitat of this animal and its closest relatives, the nanhsiungchelyids. Some have argued for an aquatic habitat for these animals; others, for a terrestrial one. It seems that where one comes down on the issue depends on which aspect of ecomorphology is emphasized. If it is on the flat carapace, nanhsiungchelyids must have been aquatic; if it is on the stout feet, terrestrial. This is how I came to appreciate the numerous ecomorphological proxies (e.g., skull shape, shell shape, limb proportions) that are used in turtle palaeoecology and how incongruent they can sometimes be. So much for easy answers!
The present study by Evers et al. is a response to an original piece of research by Lichtig and Lucas (2017), who claimed to be able to use simple shell measurements (carapacial doming and relative plastral width) to accurately deduce/infer the habitats of living turtles and, by extension, fossil ones. In short, they found that terrestrial turtles tend to have more domed carapaces and wider plastra, yielding some unconventional palaeoecological reconstructions of particular stem turtles. Evers et al. take issue with several aspects of this study, including issues of faulty data entry, inappropriate removal of extant taxa from the model, and insufficient accounting for phylogenetic non-independence. By correcting for these overights, they find that the model of Lichtig and Lucas (2017) performs more poorly than advertised and that the palaeoecological classification it produces should be questioned. "The map is not the territory", as Alfred Korzybski put it, and this latest study by Evers et al. serves as an important reminder of that lesson.
Still, even if Lichtig and Lucas's model is overly simplistic, it is true that aquatic turtles, on average, have lower carapaces and narrower plastra, and that they have relatively lower skulls and longer toes. Surely, there is merit in each of these anatomical proxies, even if no single one predicts ecology with total accuracy. I would love to see a model that combines them all. Until then, Evers et al. have inched us closer to knowing what turtle morphology can (and cannot) tell us about habitat.Thanks to D. Brinkman and H. Smith for their helpful reviews of the manuscript.
References
Evers, S. W., Foth, C., Joyce, W. G., and Hermanson, G. (2024). Simple shell measurements do not consistently predict habitat in turtles: A reply to Lichtig and Lucas (2017). bioRxiv, 586561, ver. 3 peer-reviewed by PCI Paleo. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.25.586561
Lichtig, A. J., and Lucas, S. G. (2017). A simple method for inferring habitats of extinct turtles. Palaeoworld, 26(3), 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palwor.2017.02.001
Mallon, J. C., and Brinkman, D. B. (2018). Basilemys morrinensis, a new species of nanhsiungchelyid turtle from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Alberta, Canada. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 38(2), e1431922. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2018.1431922
-
