[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

*To*: dinosaur@usc.edu*Subject*: RE: Extinction*From*: Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM>*Date*: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:02:11 -0500 (EST)*Reply-to*: swf@ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM*Sender*: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

From: Nathan Myhrvold <nathanm@MICROSOFT.com> > Given the example discussed in this thread > > N = 72 X (number of dinos) = 12 > > M = 54 (75% extinction rate) then the probability of killing all the > dinos is 2.2%. This allows one to reject the null hypothesis (no selectivity and 75% extinction) at the 5% level. In other words, if this model is a reasonable one, then either the effective extinction rate was higher or there were more non-dinosaur species or there was some selective factor against the dinosaurs. > M = 61 (84.7% extinction rate) the probability of killing all dinos is > 11% > M = 65 (90.3% extinction rate) it rises to 26.2% These two, however, would fail to reject the null hypothesis. In short they are consistant with the dinosaur extinction being essentially accidental. [With correlated extinctions]: > 75% extinction M = 54, probability of 11 or more species going > extinct = 13.5% > 84.7% extinction M = 61, probability of 11 or more species going extinct > = 41.2% > 90.3% extinction M = 65, probability of 11 or more species going extinct > = 67% Now, none of them reject the null hypothesis. I suppose this is about a good a place as any to put in my data from Archibald on the Lancian fauna. (Though keep in mind, the smaller terrestrial species will be undersampled relative to the larger species, and the aquatic species will be more completely sampled than any terrestrial group). The groups with the highest extinction rates were: Sharks & Rays (5 spp) 100% extinction (Archibald suggests that this is a sampling artifavt). Marsupials (11 species) 91% extinction Lizards (10 species) 70% extinction Ornithischians (10) 100% extinction Saurischians (9) 100% extinction Totalled this gives 45 species and an 91% extinction rate, or, excluding the sharks and rays, 40 species and a 90% extinction rate. This would be 40-45 marbles in three to five colors. Applying the hypergeometric with N = 40, M = 36, X = 19 what do we we get? (I do not have a calculator with either factorial or hypergeometric available here). The remaining groups with extinction above the background rate are: Bony fish: (15 species) 40% extinction Multituberculates (10) 50% extinction Combined with the above high rate groups (and still excluding the sharks and rays) we get 65 species, and 74% extinction. [N = 65, M = 47, X = 19]. This is close enough to example #1 that we can reject the basic null hypothesis here. Thus, at this level either there is a systematic difference between the high and intermediate rate groups, or the multi's are *way* undersampled, or there is some correlation in extinctions. The low (background) extinction groups are: Amphibians (8 species) 0% extinction Placentals (6 species) 0% extinction Turtles (17 species) 12% extinction Crocodiles (5 species) 20% extinction (this last is included because the 20% is only one species, which is the minimum possible non-zero value) Among these the extinction rate is 8% out of 36 species. For the whole Lancian fauna the numbers are: 101 species (excluding sharks), 50% extinction or 106 species (with sharks), and 52% extinction In the hypergemoteric, this would be N=101, M=50, X=19. My guess is that this, also, will reject the null hypothesis, but I need to get the numbers to be sure. (I will try to do this at home tonight, as I think my calculator there has factorial). swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com sarima@ix.netcom.com The peace of God be with you.

- Prev by Date:
**Dinosaur top 10** - Next by Date:
**Re: Yet Another Extinction Theory Put Forth [joke]** - Previous by thread:
**RE: Extinction** - Next by thread:
**RE: Extinction** - Indexes: