Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:25:59.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognition of the asteroid (Echinodermata) crown group: Implications of the ventral skeleton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Daniel B. Blake  and
Frederick H. C. Hotchkiss
Daniel B. Blake
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801,
Frederick H. C. Hotchkiss
Affiliation:
26 Sherry Road, Harvard, Massachusetts 01451,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All known post-Paleozoic asteroids belong to the crown group, and no crown-group asteroid is known from the Paleozoic. A scanty fossil record provides limited data on morphology of both Paleozoic stem-group sister lineages and on the Triassic crown group diversification. Timing of events is weakly constrained. Interpretations based on this meager record are tentative.

Within limitations of the record, recent work suggests that skeletal arrangement of the ventral surface offers apomorphies of crown-group diversification. Enlarged disk size is common in the crown group. Large disks are constructed in part by addition of many ventral and ventral-lateral so-called “actinal” ossicles. Actinals in the crown group are comparatively uniform in size, shape, and arrangement within each species. Actinal alignment is of one of two patterns, parallel to adambulacrals or parallel to marginals. Actinals in the crown group are tentatively considered to be an apomorphy of the crown group, although the incomplete fossil record leads to uncertainty.

Enlarged disks are found in some Paleozoic (stem-group) asteroids. Axillary ossicles, marginal series extending onto ventral interbrachia, and enlarged disk adambulacrals are modes of disk size increase known only from Paleozoic asteroids. Actinal ossicles are found in a few stem-group species but arrangements are unlike those of the crown group.

Certain Carboniferous and Permian genera share aspects of ambulacral column construction with the crown group, but lack actinal apomorphies. Actinal arrangement is available for two of the three known Triassic genera. In certain ways, patterns are intermediate between stem-group and Jurassic and younger crown-group asteroids.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , March 2004 , pp. 359 - 370
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

Baily, W. H. 1878. In Kinahan, G. H., Manual of the Geology of Ireland. C. Kegan Paul, London, 426 p.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1921. Echinoderm larvae and their bearing on classification. Nature, 108:459–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, E. 1857. Order Asteriadae. Geological Survey of Canada. Report of Progress for the Years 1853-54-55-56, p. 290–295.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1858. On the Asteriadae (sic) of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada. Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains. Decade, 3:75–85.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B. 1978. The taxonomic position of the modern sea star Cistina Gray, 1840. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 91:234–241.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B. 1987. A classification and phylogeny of post-Palaeozoic sea stars (Asteroidea: Echinodermata). Journal of Natural History, 21:481–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, D. B. 1988. Paxillosidans are not primitive asteroids: A hypothesis based on functional considerations, p. 309–314. In Burke, R. D., Mladenov, P. V., Lambert, P., and Parsley, R. L. (eds.), Echinoderm Biology. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B. 1989. Asteroidea: functional morphology, classification and phylogeny, p. 179–233. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Studies 3. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B. 1990. Adaptive zones of the Class Asteroidea (Echinodermata). Bulletin of Marine Science, 46:701–718.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B. 2000. The class Asteroidea (Echinodermata): fossils and the base of the crown group. American Zoologist, 40(3):316–325.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B., and Elliott, D. R. 2003. Ossicular homologies, systematics, and phylogenetic implications of certain North American Carboniferous asteroids. Journal of Paleontology, 77:476–489.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, D. B., and Hagdorn, H. 2003. The Asteroidea of the Muschelkalk (Triassic): taxonomy, phylogeny and ecology. Palaeontologische Zeitshrift, 77(1):1–37.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B., and Peterson, D. O. 1993. An unusual new asteriid (Echinodermata: Asteroidea) from the Cretaceous of California. Journal of Paleontology, 67:586–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, D. B., and Reid, R. III. 1998. Some Albian (Cretaceous) asteroids (Echinodermata) from Texas and their Paleobiological implications. Journal of Paleontology, 72:512–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, D. B., Janies, D. A., and Mooi, R. 2000. Evolution of Starfishes: Morphology, Molecules, Development, and Paleobiology. American Zoologist, 40:311–315.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B., Tintori, A., and Hagdorn, H. 2000. A new asteroid (Echinodermata) from the Norian (Triassic) Calcare di Zorzino of northern Italy: its stratigraphic occurrence and phylogenetic significance. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 106:141–156.Google Scholar
Branstrator, J. W. 1982. Asteroids, p. 316–321. In Sprinkle, J. (ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Eck, H. 1879. Bemerkungen zu den Mittheilungen des Herrn H. Pohlig über ”Aspidura, ein mesozoisches Ophiuridengenus” und über die Lagerstätte der Ophiuren im Muschelkalk. Zeitschrift der Deutschen geologischen Gessellschaft, 31:35–53.Google Scholar
Fell, H. B. 1963. The phylogeny of sea-stars. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B, 246:386–435.Google Scholar
Fisher, W. K. 1911. Asteroidea of the North Pacific and adjacent waters. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 76, 420 p.Google Scholar
Fisher, W. K. 1919. Starfishes of the Philippine Seas and adjacent waters. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 100(3), 712 p.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. 1839. On the Asteriadae of the Irish Sea. Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, Edinburgh, 8:114–129.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. 1841. A History of British Starfish and Other Animals of the Class Echinodermata. John Van Voorst, London, 267 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, A. S. 1987. Phylogeny and classification of the Asteroidea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 89:107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. E. 1840. A synopsis of the genera and species of the class Hypostoma (Asterias Linnaeus). The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6(36):175–184;275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, J. W. 1899. On Lindstromaster and the classification of the palaeasterids. Geological Magazine, 36:341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, H. 1974. Neue Funde des Seesterns Terminaster cancriformis (Quenstedt) aus Callovien und Oxford von England, Frankreich und der Schweiz. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 67:647–659.Google Scholar
Hotchkiss, F. H. C., and Clark, A. M. 1976. Restriction of the family Poraniidae, sensu Spencer and Wright, 1966 (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History (Zoology), 30:263–268.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. H. 1912. A fossil starfish with ambulacral covering plates. The Ottawa Naturalist, 26:21–26, 45–52. (The paper exists in reprint pages numbered 1–13)Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1962. Notes on Protopalaeaster narrawayi Hudson. Journal of Paleontology, 36:933–942.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1967. Neopalaeaster enigmaticus, new starfish from Upper Mississippian Paint Creek Formation in Illinois. Contributions from the The Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan, 21:73–85.Google Scholar
Knott, K. E., and Wray, G. A. 2000. Controversy and consensus in asteroid systematics: new insights to original and familial relationships. American Zoologist, 40:382–392.Google Scholar
Lafay, B., Smith, A. B., and Christen, R. 1995. A combined morphological and molecular approach to the phylogeny of asteroids (Asteroidea: Echinodermata). Systematic Biology, 44:190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacBride, E. W. 1921. Echinoderm larvae and their bearing on evolution. Nature, 108:529–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, F. 1854. In Sedgwick, A., A Synopsis of the Classification of the British Palaeozoic Rocks… with a Systematic Description of the British Paleozoic Fossils in the Geological Museum of the University of Cambridge…. xcviii + 661 p, Pl. 1A-L, 2A-D, 3A-K. The University Press, Cambridge. (Date of publication is variously cited in the literature, but a copy was checked at the University of Illinois. Cites McCoy, but does not describe Palasterina as a part of a discussion on the of work of E. Forbes)Google Scholar
McKnight, D. G. 1975. Classification of somasteroids and asteroids (Asterozoa: Echinodermata). Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 5:13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mah, C. 2000. Preliminary phylogeny of the forcipulatacean Asteroidea. American Zoologist, 40:375–381.Google Scholar
Martens, E. von. 1865. Ueber östasiastische Echinodermen. 1. Japanische Seesterne. 2. Chinesische Seesterne. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 31:345–360.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1880. Description of two new species from the Niagara Group, and five from the Keokuk Group. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 2:254–259.Google Scholar
Möbius, K. 1859. Neue seesterne des Hamburger und Kieler Museums. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebeit der Naturwissenschafter, Hamburg, 4(2):1–14.Google Scholar
Mooi, R., and David, B. 2000. What a new model of skeletal homologies tells us about asteroid evolution. American Zoologist, 40:326–339.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T. 1921. Studies on the Development and Larval Forms of Echinoderms. G.E.C. Gad, Copenhagen, 261 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, O. F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indigenarum, etc. Havniae, 282 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münster, G. von. 1843. Asterias weissmanni. Beiträge zur Petrefactenkunde, 6:78. Bayreuth.Google Scholar
Nardo, J. D. 1834. De Asteriis, p. 716–717. In Isis von Oken, Encyclopaedische Zeitung. Expedition der Isis, Jena.Google Scholar
Perrier, E. 1884. Mémoire sur les étoiles de mer recueillis dans la Mer des Antilles et le Golfe de Mexique. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 6:127–276.Google Scholar
Perrier, E. 1893. Traité de Zoologie, 1(2), Masson, Paris, 864 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrier, E. 1894. Expéditions Scientifiques du Travailleur et du Talisman: Échinodermes. G. Masson, Paris, 431 p.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, H. W. 1952. A new Silurian asteroid from Gotland, Sweden. Geologiska Föreningens Stockholm Förhandlingar, 74(1):17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardeson, F. W. 1928. Star-fish beginnings and Protopalaeaster. Pan-American Geologist, 49:99–110.Google Scholar
Schöndorf, F. 1909. Palaozoische Seesterne Deutschlands. I. Die echten Asteriden der Rheinischen Grauwacke. Palaeontographica, 56:37–112.Google Scholar
Schöndorf, F. 1910. Die Asteriden der deutschen Trias. Jahresbericht des Niedersächsischen Geologischen Vereins, 1910:90–115.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C. 1914. Stelleroidea Palaeozoica. Fossilium Catalogus, I: Animalia 3, 53 p.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C. 1915. Revision of Paleozoic Stelleroidea with Special Reference to North American Asteroidea. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 88, 312 p.Google Scholar
Simonovitsch, S. 1871. Ueber einige Asterioiden der rheinischen Grauwacke. Sitzungsberichte der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlautern Akademic der Wissenschaften in Wien, 64(1):77–122.Google Scholar
Sladen, W. P. 1883. The Asteroidea of HMS ‘Challenger’ Expedition. 2. Astropectinidae. Journal of the Linnaean Society of London, Zoology, 17:214–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sladen, W. P. 1889. Report on the Asteroidea collected by the Challenger. Scientific Reports of the Results of the Voyage of the Challenger, Zoology, 30, 894 p.Google Scholar
Spencer, W. K. 1914. British Palaeozoic Asterozoa, Part 1. Palaeontographical Society of London Memoir, 1–56.Google Scholar
Spencer, W. K. 1916. British Palaeozoic Asterozoa, Part 2. Palaeontographical Society of London Memoir, 57–108.Google Scholar
Spencer, W. K. 1918. British Palaeozoic Asterozoa, Part 3. Palaeontographical Society of London Memoir, 109–168.Google Scholar
Spencer, W. K., and Wright, C. W. 1966. Asterozoans, p. U4–U107. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. U, Echinodermata 3. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Stürtz, B. 1900. Ein weiterer Beitrag zur Kenntniss paläozoischer Asteroiden. Verhandlungen Naturhistorischer Verein der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens, 56:166–240.Google Scholar
Thomson, C. W. 1873. The Depths of the Sea. Macmillan, London, 527 p.Google Scholar