Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:44:19.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dimensions of the graptolite zooid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Margaret Sudbury
Margaret Sudbury
Affiliation:
Thorpe Cottage, Chestnut Avenue, Thornton Dale, Pickering, North Yorkshire YO18 7RW, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Measurements of fuselli and cortical bandages on thecae which show both of these enable a hypothesis about the dimensions of graptolite zooids to be put forward. This leads to a method for estimating zooid size when fusellus height alone can be measured. Results are shown for some species and the implications for theca formation and reproduction are discussed.

Type
Rapid Communication
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 128 , Issue 4 , July 1991 , pp. 381 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Bulman, O. M. B. 1970 Graptolithina. In Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology, Part V (ed. Teichert, C.), i–xxxii, 1–163 (2nd ed.) New York: Geological Society of America and Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Crowther, P. 1981. The fine structure of graptolite periderm. Special Papers in Palaeontology 26, 1–119.Google Scholar
Crowther, P. & Rickards, R. B. 1977. Cortical bandages and the graptolite zooid. Geologica et Palaeontologica 11, 9–46.Google Scholar
Dilly, P. N. 1985 The habitat and behaviour of Cephalo-discus gracilis (Pterobranchia, Hemichordata) from Bermuda. Journal of the Zoological Society of London (A) 207, 223–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilly, P. N. 1986. Modern pterobranchs: observations on their behaviour and tube building. In Palaeoecology and Biostratigraphy of Graptolites (eds Hughes, C. P. and Rickards, R. B.), pp. 251–69. Geological Society of London Special Publication no. 20.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, R. 1971. Early development stages and the mode of life of Graptolites. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 16, 313–38.Google Scholar
Kraft, P. 1926. Ontogenetische Entwicklung und Biologie von Diplograptus und Monograptus. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 7, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, A. 1896. Textbook of Comparative Anatomy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lester, S. M. 1985. Cephalodiscus sp. (Hemichordata: Pterobranchia): observations of functional morphology, behavior and occurrence in shallow water around Bermuda. Marine Biology 85, 263–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, R. B. & Stait, B. 1984. Psigraptus, its classification, evolution and zooid. Alcheringa 8, 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D. 1970. Aspects of the reproduction and life cycle of Rhabdopleura compacta (Hemichordata). Marine Biology 5, 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M. 1953 a. The development of a Diplograptid from the Platteville Limestone. Geological Magazine 90, 1–16.Google Scholar
Walker, M. 1953 b. The development of Monograptus dubius and Monograptus chimaera. Geological Magazine 90, 362–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar