Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:02:44.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenotypic variation in the bryozoan Leioclema punctatum (Hall, 1858) from Mississippian ephemeral host microcommunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Steven J. Hageman  and
Jennifer A. Sawyer
Steven J. Hageman
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28608,
Jennifer A. Sawyer
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28608,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The morphologic expression of microenvironmental variation is difficult to document in fossil ecosystems and therefore is poorly understood. However, documentation of environmental sources of variation in the phenotype is essential for meaningful studies of microevolution and speciation. A fossil assemblage from the Mississippian (Valmeyeran) Warsaw Formation near St. Louis, Missouri, provides necessary conditions to evaluate microenvironmentally induced phenotypic variation in the Paleozoic trepostome bryozoan Leioclema punctatum (Hall, 1858). Specimens of L. punctatum, found as fragments in 22 discrete piles, were collected in their entirety from a weathered surface. Each pile contained 20—200+ branch fragments of L. punctatum, which were all originally attached to large, soft-bodied hosts (sponges?). Multiple attachment bases were found in most piles, indicating that 1) multiple L. punctatum colonies (genotypes) are represented in each pile, and 2) each pile represents a near contemporaneous, relatively short-lived microcommunity. Morphological characters were measured (four per section) from two branches for each of two specimens from five separate piles. Results from completely random, nested, one-way ANOVA indicate that no highly significant differences exist among microcommunities or between colonies for any measured characters, but that significant variation exists within colonies and among colonies in the same microcommunity (pile). That is, submicroenvironmental variation, within and among colonies, can play a greater role in morphogenesis than environmental heterogeneity within a given environmental setting (undifferentiated facies). Microenvironmental factors affect the size and shape of mesopores (space-filling structures) more than other morphological characters.

Results are encouraging for the general application of the preserved fossil phenotypes as proxies for biological species. This conclusion is based on the absence of systematic variation at microenvironmental levels, measurable here, but not normally distinguishable in paleontological and sedimentological studies. Correct attribution of fossil species assumes, however, that the source and the relative importance of the low-level (submicroenvironmental) variation on development/ontogeny is recognized and attributed appropriately. Results call for a reevaluation of the application of within versus among colony variation used as a proxy for environmental stability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 80 , Issue 6 , November 2006 , pp. 1047 - 1057
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Abbott, M. 1973. Intra- and intercolony variation in populations of Hippoporina neviani (Bryozoa–Cheilostomata), p. 223–245. In Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Oliver, W. A. Jr. (eds.), Animal Colonies: Development and Function Through Time. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
Astrova, G. G. 1965. Morfologiya, istroriya razvitiya i sistema Ordovikskikh i Silurijskik mshanok. Akademi Nauk SSSR Paleontologicheski Institut, 106, 52 p.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1953. Stenoporidae, p. G101–G105. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. G. Bryozoa. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S., and Cheetham, A. H. 1973. Degrees of colony dominance in stenolaemate and gymnolaemate Bryozoa, p. 121–220. In Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Oliver, W. A. Jr. (eds.), Animal Colonies: Development and Function Through Time. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L. A. C. 1993. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution. I. Rate tests for random change versus selection in differentiation of living species. Evolution, 47:1526–1538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L. A. C. 1994. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution. II. Analysis of selection and random change in fossil species using reconstructed genetic parameters. Evolution, 48:360–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L. A. C. 1995. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution. III. Phenotypic plasticity and the maintenance of genetic variation. Evolution, 49:290–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmer, J. D., and Rowell, A. J. 1973. Variation in the bryozoan Fistulipora decora (Moore and Dudley) from the Beil Limestone of Kansas, p. 377–394. In Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Oliver, W. A. Jr. (eds.), Animal Colonies: Development and Function Through Time. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
Hageman, S. J. 1994. Microevolutionary implications of clinal variation in the Paleozoic bryozoan Streblotrypa . Lethaia, 27:209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hageman, S. J. 1995. Observed phenotypic variation in a Paleozoic bryozoan. Paleobiology, 21:314–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hageman, S. J., Bayer, M., and Todd, C. D. 2001. Partitioning phenotypic variation: Implications for morphometric analyses (Bryozoa), p. 131–140. In Wyse Jackson, P. N., Buttler, C., and Spencer Jones, M. (eds.), Bryozoan Studies 2001. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.Google Scholar
Hageman, S. J., James, N. P., and Bone, Y. 2000. Cool-water carbonate production from epizoic bryozoans on ephemeral substrates. Palaios, 15:33–48.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J., 1858. Report on the Geological Survey of the State of Iowa: Embracing the Results of Investigations Made During Portions of the Years 1855, 56 & 57, Pt. 2, Paleontology. Iowa Geological Survey, Des Moines, 251 p.Google Scholar
Holdener, E. J., and Hageman, S. J. 1998. Implications of intracolonial variation in a Paleozoic bryozoan. Journal of Paleontology, 72:809–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, M. M. Jr., 1987. Partitioning of morphological variation across stability gradients in Upper Ordovician trepostomes, p. 145–152. In Ross, J. R. P. (ed.), Bryozoa: Present and Past. Western Washington University, Bellingham.Google Scholar
Levinton, J. S. 2001. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 617 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 797 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Jackson, J. B. C. 1991. Bryozoan Evolution. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 238 p.Google Scholar
Nye, O. B., Dean, D. A., and Hinds, R. S. 1972. Improved thin section techniques for fossil and recent organisms. Journal of Paleontology, 46:271–275.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F. 1982. Morphologic variation within and among genotypes in two Devonian bryozoan species: An independent indicator of paleostability? Journal of Paleontology, 56:703–716.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F., and Anstey, R. L. 1979. A developmental explanation of stability-diversity-variation hypotheses: Morphogenetic regulation in Ordovician bryozoan colonies. Paleobiology, 5:168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1976. Environmental versus genetic causes of morphologic variability in bryozoan colonies from the deep sea. Paleobiology, 2:156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M., and Dutton, A. R. 1976. Parallel clines in morphologic and genetic differentiation in a coastal zone marine invertebrate. Paleobiology, 2:255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York, 434 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, E. M. 1987. Bryozoan succession in the Warsaw Formation (Valmeyeran, Mississippian) of the Mississippi Valley, USA, p. 245–252. In Ross, J. R. P. (ed.), Bryozoa: Present and Past. Western Washington University, Bellingham.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. M. 1991. Revised taxonomic procedures and paleoecological applications for some North American Mississippian Fenestellidae and Polyporidae (Bryozoa). Palaeontographica Americana, Number 57, 275 p.Google Scholar
Uitenbroek, D. 2004. SISA online statistical analysis: Research and Statistical Consultancy. The Netherlands <http://home.clara.net/sisa>..>Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1882. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. Journal of Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 5:121–175.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1890. Paleozoic Bryozoa. Illinois Geological Survey, 1:283–688.Google Scholar
Wyse Jackson, P. N. 1996. Bryozoa from the Lower Carboniferous (Visean) of County Fermanagh, Ireland. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, 52:119–171.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis (fourth edition). Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 929 p.Google Scholar