Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-24T18:39:25.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amberground pholadid bivalve borings and inclusions in Burmese amber: implications for proximity of resin-producing forests to brackish waters, and the age of the amber

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2018

Ru D. A. Smith  and
Andrew J. Ross
Ru D. A. Smith
Affiliation:
Menara Shell, 211, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Brickfields, 50470 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Email: [email protected]
Andrew J. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clavate (club-shaped) structures rimming mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber from Myanmar, previously misdiagnosed as fungal sporocarps, are shown to be domichnia (crypts) of martesiine bivalves (Pholadidae: Martesiinae). They are similar in form to Teredolites clavatus Leymerie, 1842 and Gastrochaenolites lapidicus Kelly & Bromley, 1984; however, the former identification is preferable, given that they are martesiine crypts in amber as opposed to a lithic substrate. Cross-cutting relationships between the clavate features and inclusions in the amber demonstrate that the features post-date hardening of the resin. The fills of the crypts are variable, including sand grade sediment of very fine to coarse sand grainsize, and sparry calcite cements. In some cases, the articulated valves of the pholadid bivalve responsible are visible inside the borings. However, one remarkable specimen contains two pairs of articulated shells ‘floating’ in amber, not associated with crypts; an observation that suggests that the resin was still liquid or soft when the bivalves were trapped in the resin. One individual is associated with an irregular sediment-filled feature and shows shell breakage. Formation of a solid rim around a liquid central volume has been documented in subaqueous bodies of resin in modern swamp forests, and argues for a close proximity between the amber-producing trees and a brackish water habitat for the bivalves. The presence of pyrite as thin films and crystal groups within Burmese amber is further consistent with such a depositional environment. Comparison of the size of pholadid body fossils with growth rates of modern equivalents allows the duration of boring activities to be estimated and suggests that small fossil pholadids in Burmese amber became trapped and died within 1–2 weeks of having settled on the resin. Larger examples present within well-formed domichnia formed in hardened resin. Since ‘hardground’ describes early lithified sediment as a substrate and ‘woodground’ describes wood as a substrate, the term ‘amberground’ is used here to described borings in an amber substrate.

Keywords

BurmiteCretaceousGastrochaenolitesMartesiinaePalaeoclavariaPholadidaeTeredolites
Type
Articles
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 107 , Issue 2-3: Fossil Insects, Arthropods and Amber , June 2016 , pp. 239 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Society of Edinburgh 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

10. References

Ansell, A. D. & Nair, N. B. 1969. The mechanisms of boring in Martesia striata Linné (Bivalvia: Pholadidae) and Xylophaga dorsalis Turton (Bivalvia: Xylophaginidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B 174, 123–33.Google Scholar
Bandel, K., Shinaq, R. & Wetschat, W. 1997. First insect inclusions from the amber of Jordan (Mid Cretaceous). Mitteilungen aus dem Geologisch-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität Hamburg 80, 213–23.Google Scholar
Bertling, M. 2007. What's in a name? Nomenclature, systematics, Ichnotaxonomy. In Miller, W. III (ed.) Trace Fossils, Concepts, Problems, Prospects, 81–91. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 632 pp.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1992. Bioerosion: Eating rocks for fun and profit. In Maples, C. G. & West, R. R. (eds) Trace Fossils. Short Courses in Paleontology 5, 121–29. Knoxville, Tennessee: Paleontological Society. 238 pp.Google Scholar
Çevik, C., Ozcan, T. & Gündoğdu, S. 2015. First record of the striate piddock Martesia striata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pholadidae) in the Mediterranean Sea. Bioinvasions Records 4, 277–80.Google Scholar
Cheriyan, P.V. & Cheriyan, C. J. 1980. Salinity and survival of Martesia striata (Linn) in Cochin Harbour. Fishery Technology, 17, 111–14.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S. 1990. A new species of Late Cretaceous wood-boring bivalve from New Zealand. Palaeontology 33, 981–92.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, R. D. & Ko, K. 2003. Geology of an amber locality in the Hukawng Valley, Northern Myanmar. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 21, 441–55.Google Scholar
Davies, E. H. 2001. Palynological analysis and age assignments of two Burmese amber sample sets. Unpublished report by Branta Biostratigraphy Ltd., for Leeward Capital Corp.Google Scholar
Daza, J. D., Stanley, E. L., Wagner, P., Bauer, A. M. & Grimaldi, D. A. 2016. Mid-Cretaceous amber fossils illuminate the past diversity of tropical lizards. Science Advances 2(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
Demetrion, R. A. & Squires, R. L. 1994. Middle Miocene pholadid borings at the base of the Isidro Formation, Arroyo Mezquital, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 93, 83–90.Google Scholar
Dhevendaran, K., Rajashree, R. V. & Balakrishnan Nair, N. 2001. Cellulolytic bacteria in Marine wood borers. Fishery Technology 38(1), 31–35.Google Scholar
Evans, S. 1999. Wood-boring bivalves and boring linings. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 45, 130–34.Google Scholar
Frey, R. W. & Pemberton, S. G. 1984. Trace Fossil Facies Models. In Walker, R. G. (ed.) Facies Models (2nd Edition), 189–207. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D. A., Engel, M. S. & Nascimbene, C. 2002. Fossiliferous Cretaceous amber from Myanmar (Burma): Its rediscovery, biotic diversity, and paleontological significance. American Museum Novitates 3361. 71 pp.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D. A. & Ross, A. J. 2017. Extraordinary Lagerstätten in Amber, with particular reference to the Cretaceous of Burma. In Fraser, N. C. & Sues, H.-D. (eds) Terrestrial Conservation Lagerstätten: Windows into the Evolution of Life on Land, 287–342. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press Ltd. 450 pp.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. R. A. & Bromley, R. G. 1984. Ichonological nomenclature of clavate borings. Palaeontology 27(4),793–807.Google Scholar
Langenheim, J. H. 1995. Biology of amber-producing trees: focus on case studies of Hymenaea and Agathis. In Anderson, K. B. & Crelling, J. C. (eds) Amber, Resinite and Fossil Resins. ACS Symposium Series 617, 1–31. Washington DC: American Chemical Society. x+297 pp.Google Scholar
Leymerie, A. 1842. Suite de mémoire sur le terrain Crétacé du département de l'Albe. Geological Society of France, Memoir 4, 1–34.Google Scholar
Mann, R. & Gallager, S. M. 1984. Physiology of the wood boring mollusc Martesia cuneiformis Say. The Biological Bulletin 166, 167–77.Google Scholar
Morton, B. 1971. A note on Martesia striata (Pholadidae) tunneling into plastic piping in Hong-Kong. Malacological Review 4, 207–08.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. O. Jr. 2001. Fossil puffballs (Gasteromycetes: Lycoperdales) in Mexican amber. Historical Biology 15(3), 219–21.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. O. Jr., Jacobson, R. L. & Eisenberger, C. L. 2006. Early Cretaceous phlebotomine sand fly larvae (Diptera: Psychodidae). Proceedings of the Enomological Society of Washington 108(4), 785–92.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. O. Jr. & Brown, A. E. 2003. A non-gilled hymenomycete in Cretaceous amber. Mycological Research 107, 763–68.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. O. & Milki, R. 2001. Lebanese Amber: The Oldest Insect Ecosystem in Fossilized Resin. Oregon State University Press. 96 pp.Google Scholar
Rice, S. A., Johnson, B. R. & Estevez, E. D. 1990. Wood-boring marine and estuarine animals in Florida. University of Maryland Extension Bulletin 15(SGEB-15). 57 pp.Google Scholar
Ross, A. 2015. Insects in Burmese amber. Entomologentagung 02.-05.03.2015 Frankfurt am Main, Programm und Abstracts, 72. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Gesellschaft für allgemeine und angewandte Entomologie.Google Scholar
Ross, A., Mellish, C., York, P. & Crighton, B. 2010. Burmese Amber. In Penney, D. (ed.) Biodiversity of fossils in amber from the major world deposits, 208–35. Manchester: Siri Scientific Press. 304 pp.Google Scholar
Rudy, P. & Rudy, L. H. 1979. Oregon estuarine invertebrates: An Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals. Washington, DC: National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior. 225 pp.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. R. & Dilcher, D. L. 2007. Aquatic organisms as amber inclusions and examples from a modern swamp forest. PNAS 104, 16581–85.Google Scholar
Scott, P. J. B. 1991. Rapid destruction of PVC piping by boring bivalves. International Biodeterioration 27, 87–92.Google Scholar
Shi, G., Grimaldi, D. A., Harlow, G. E., Wang, J, Wang, J., Yang, M., Lei, W., Li, Q. & Li, X. 2012. Age constraint on Burmese amber based on U–Pb dating of zircons. Cretaceous Research 37, 155–63.Google Scholar
Singh, H. R. & Sasekumar, A. 1994. Distribution and abundance of marine wood borers on the west coast of peninsular Malaysia. Hydrobiologia 285, 111–21.Google Scholar
Sivakumar, A. & Kathiresan, K. 1996. Mangrove wood bored by molluscs, southeastern coast of India. Phuket Marine Biological Centre Special Publication 16, 211–14.Google Scholar
Solórzano Kraemer, M. M. 2010. Mexican amber. In Penney, D. (ed.) Biodiversity of fossils in amber from the major world deposits, 42–56. Manchester: Siri Scientific Press. 304 pp.Google Scholar
Tapanila, L., Roberts, E. M., Bouaré, M., Sissoko, F. & O'Leary, M. 2004. Bivalve borings in phosphatic coprolites and bone, Cretaceous–Paleogene, Northeastern Mali. Palaios 19, 565–73.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D. & Wilson, M. A. 2003. Palaeoecology and evolution of marine hard substrate communities. Earth-Science Reviews 62, 1–103.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D. 1954. The family Pholadidae in the western Atlantic and the eastern Pacific. Part I – Pholadinae. Johnsonia 3, 1–63.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D. 1955. The family Pholadidae in the western Atlantic and the eastern Pacific. Part II – Martesiinae, Jouannetiinae and Xylophaginae. Johnsonia 3(34), 65–160.Google Scholar
Turner, R. D. & Johnson, A. C. 1971. Biology of marine wood-boring molluscs. In Jones, E. B. G. & Eltringham, S. K. (eds) Marine Borers, Fungi and Fouling Organisms, 18–64. Proceedings of the OECD Workshop Organised by the Committee Investigating the Preservation of Wood in the Marine Environment, 27th March–3rd April, 1968.Google Scholar
Vinn, O. & Wilson, M. A. 2010. Early large borings from a hardground of Florian–Dapingian age (Early and Middle Ordovician) in northeastern Estonia (Baltica). Carnets de Géologie 2010, CG2010_L04. doi:10.4267/2042/35594Google Scholar
Voight, J. R. 2015. Xylotrophic bivalves: aspects of their biology and the impact of humans. Journal of Molluscan Studies 81, 175–86.Google Scholar
Yennewar, P. L., Thakur, N. L., Anil, A. C., Venkat, K. & Wagh, A. B. 1999. Ecology of the wood-boring bivalve Martesia striata (Pholadidae) in Indian waters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49, 123–30.Google Scholar
Zherikhin, V. V. & Ross, A. J. 2000. A review of the history, geology and age of Burmese amber (Burmite). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, Geology Series 56(1), 3–10.Google Scholar