12. Correlations
Correlation Raw (rho) G.D. (rho)
Genus richness vs. Formations 0.66 0.48
Genus richness vs. Localities 0.67 0.59
Genus richness vs. Grids 0.75 0.66
p > 0.05 p < 0.05
28. Le conclusions
• First sampling corrected curves of fish
richness:
• Devonian diversity is far lower than expected…
29. Le conclusions
• First sampling corrected curves of fish
richness:
• Devonian diversity is far lower than expected…
• …yet Paleogene rise survives…
30. Le conclusions
• First sampling corrected curves of fish
richness:
• Devonian diversity is far lower than expected…
• …yet Paleogene rise survives…
• …Cenozoic true “age of fishes”?
31. Le conclusions
• First sampling corrected curves of fish
richness:
• Devonian diversity is far lower than expected…
• …yet Paleogene rise survives…
• …Cenozoic true “age of fishes”?
• Chondricthyans are more correlated with
sampling than osteichthyans
32. Le conclusions
• First sampling corrected curves of fish
richness:
• Devonian diversity is far lower than expected…
• …yet Paleogene rise survives…
• …Cenozoic true “age of fishes”?
• Chondricthyans are more correlated with
sampling than osteichthyans
• UK record accounts for one half to two-thirds of
global signal
33. Le conclusions
• First sampling corrected curves of fish
richness:
• Devonian diversity is far lower than expected…
• …yet Paleogene rise survives…
• …Cenozoic true “age of fishes”?
• Chondricthyans are more correlated with
sampling than osteichthyans
• UK record accounts for one half to two-thirds of
global signal
• Estimates of global fish richness have changed
substantially in last 170 years