Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's rule

Abstract

Cope's rule, the tendency for lineages to evolve to larger body size, is widely seen as a pervasive evolutionary pattern1–4. However, only a few studies5–8 have gone beyond enumerating isolated examples to assess its overall frequency relative to body-size decrease or stasis. Thus, although size is clearly an important parameter for microevolution and ecology9–14, including conservation biology10, its impact on large-scale patterns remains poorly understood. The prevalence of Cope's rule is even more uncertain, as some reported cases of evolutionary size increase may actually represent an expansion of a clade's size range (a pattern generally termed an 'Increase in variance', although not necessarily in the formal statistical sense) rather than a phyletic, directional trend15–18. I have performed a comprehensive census of body-size changes in a large fauna of Cretaceous bivalve and gastropod genera. A directional net increase in body size (including the loss of small-sized species and thus representing Cope's rule in the strict sense) is no more frequent than an increase in size range among species or a net evolutionary size decrease. Thus the undisputed ecological importance of body size does not translate into a preferred macroevolutionary pattern.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonner, J. T. The Evolution of Complexity (Princeton Univ. Press, 1988).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Benton, M. J. in Palaeobiology: A Synthesis (eds Briggs, D. E. G. & Crowther, P. R.) 147–152 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hallam, A. in Causes of Evolution (eds Ross, R. M. & Allmon, W. D.) 249–269 (Univ. Chicago Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bush, G. L. in Evolutionary Patterns and Processes (eds Lees, D. R. & Edwards, D.) 230–249 (Academic, London, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  5. MacFadden, B. J. Fossil Horses (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Norris, R. D. Paleobiology 17, 388–399 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Arnold, A. J., Kelly, D. C. & Parker, W. C. J. Paleontol. 69, 203–210 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gingerich, P. D. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8, 407–424 (1980).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. McLain, D. K. Oikos 68, 490–500 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pimm, S. L. The Balance of Nature? (Univ. Chicago Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maurer, B. A., Brown, J. H. & Rusler, R. Evolution 46, 939–953 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown, J. H. Macroecology (Univ. Chicago Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  13. LaBarbera, M. in Patterns and Processes in the History of Life (eds Raup, D. M. & Jablonski, D.) 69–98 (Springer, Berlin, 1986).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters, R. H. The Ecological Implications of Body Size (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Stanley, S. M. Evolution 27, 1–26 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McKinney, M. L. in Evolutionary Trends (ed. McNamara, K. J.) 75–118 (Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gould, S. J. J. Paleontol 62, 319–329 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McShea, D. W. Evolution 48, 1747–1763 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jablonski, D. & Raup, D. M. Science 268, 389–391 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jablonski, D. Bull. Mar. Sci. 39, 565–587 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Newell, N. D. Evolution 3, 103–124 (1949).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stanley, S. M. Paleobiology 12, 89–110 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vermeij, G. J. & Signor, P. W. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 47, 233–247 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jablonski, D. in Evolutionary Paleobiology (eds Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H. & Lipps, J. H.) (Univ. Chicago Press, in the press).

  25. Gaston, K. J. & Blackburn, T. M. Phil Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 347, 205–212 (1995).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown, J. H. & Maurer, B. A. Nature 324, 248–250 (1986).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Raup, D. M. in Analytical Paleontology (eds Gilinsky, N. L. & Signor, P. W.) 207–216 (Paleontological Society, Knoxville, TN, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jablonski, D. Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's rule. Nature 385, 250–252 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/385250a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/385250a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing