- publication
- 23-05-2022
Darwin pointed out that “species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate” (Darwin, 1859, chapter X). Besides, he coined the expression “living fossils” for lineages whose “new forms will have been more slowly formed, and old forms more slowly exterminated” (chapter IV), among other characteristics. This expression has become popular, but has sometimes been misunderstood as meaning that some organisms do not evolve. It has also been commonly used by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists to describe a general pattern of relative stasis in morphological evolution in some lineages. Darwin's definition of the concept was imprecise and he considered that “species and groups of species, which are called aberrant, and which may fancifully be called living fossils, will aid us in forming a picture of the ancient forms of life” (Darwin, 1859, Chapter XIV). For more than 200 years, nevertheless, debates have raged on the definition of the concept (e.g., Bennett et al., 2017, 2018; Lidgard and Love, 2018; Turner, 2019), and more generally on the merits of its use in the life sciences (e.g., Casane and Laurenti, 2013; Naville et al., 2015). Although Darwin (1859) cited several taxa of fish as examples of “living fossils,” he did not mention the coelacanths, or actinistians, which were only known as fossils at his time. Huxley, however, soon after (1866) noticed the low anatomical disparity of coelacanths throughout their history. Since that time, and especially after the discovery of the living Latimeria in 1938 (Smith, 1939), the coelacanth has become an iconic symbol of the “living fossil” due to the slow morphological evolution illustrated by the fossil record of the clade, and its supposed affinities with tetrapods. Only the question of evolutionary rate is addressed here, not the question of ancestral status or other “living fossil” characteristics attributed to coelacanths. The low rate of evolution based on a lasting generalist morphological Bauplan has been confirmed by most subsequent authors who have worked on the group (Schaeffer, 1952; Cloutier, 1991; Forey, 1998; Schultze, 2004; Zhu et al., 2012; Cavin and Guinot, 2014), knowing that there are also exceptions to this general Bauplan (e.g., Friedman and Coates, 2006; Wendruff and Wilson, 2012; Cavin et al., 2017). However, part of the community of researchers working on fossil and living coelacanths avoids using this expression.
see on external website