Morphology and Morphological Diversity 81

disparity. Foote’s (1997, 137–38) survey of such studies finds this pattern
to be widespread7 although not ubiquitous.8 We also know that recover-
ies from extinction show a wide variety of patterns. Some morpholo-
gies get replaced by subsequent radiations. Others do not. Nonethe-
less, there is increasing evidence showing that in some groups disparity
increases after the Cambrian (Lofgren et al. 2003, 349). The jury is still
out on whether there is a general trend, either up or down. Some claim
a clear reduction in modern disparity (Gould 1989, 1993; Foote and
Gould 1992; and Lee 1992). Others claim there is no significant differ-
ence in disparity between recent and Cambrian arthropods (Briggs et
al. 1992a; 1992b).
Even if there is not much change in total arthropod disparity, there
has been a change in the regions of morphospace occupied. Crustacean
and trilobite-like forms dominate Cambrian disparity. But by the Car-
boniferous, chelicerate forms dominate, and modern disparity is corre-
spondingly dominated by the insect-dominated hexapods (Lofgren et al.
2003). This migration through morphospace is seen in many clades and
at many scales, as is evident from Lofgren’s own study of hexapod dis-
parity (see fig. 4.7).
It is time to tie together the discussion of the last two chapters about
the relationship between species richness and morphological difference

figure 4.7. Distributions of hexapods from both the Carboniferous and the
Recent. PCO 1 and 2 are the principal coordinates, statistically derived, of varia-
tion within the sample. While there is considerable disparity in both ancient and
modern hexapods, there is relatively little intersection between the regions of
morphospace they occupy. So the morphology of most ancient species was very
different from that of their modern descendants. From Lofgren et al. (2003, 360).
Reproduced by permission from Paleobiology.