Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:40:38.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Substrate preferences of Late Eocene (Priabonian/Jacksonian) echinoids of the eastern Gulf Coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

B. D. Carter ,
T. H. Beisel ,
W. B. Branch  and
C. M. Mashburn
B. D. Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Physics, Georgia Southwestern College, Americus 31709
T. H. Beisel
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Physics, Georgia Southwestern College, Americus 31709
W. B. Branch
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Physics, Georgia Southwestern College, Americus 31709
C. M. Mashburn
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Physics, Georgia Southwestern College, Americus 31709
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thin sections and acetate peels of the sediment within, and adhering to the outsides of, tests of Late Eocene echinoids from the southeastern United States have proven to be useful checks on inferences from test morphology concerning substrate preference. Previous characterizations of species' sediment preferences have concentrated primarily on the functional morphology of spatangoids, and relied particularly heavily upon Recent relatives of nonspatangoids. Reassessment of the preferences of spatangoids has led to a few discrepancies between interpretations herein and those of previous workers. In addition, this study attempts a more thorough assessment of functional morphology of nonspatangoid irregular echinoids than has previously been tried.

Carbonate sand-dwelling species from the Ocala Limestone (thin sections are clean grainstones) include Oligopygus, Echinolampas, Rhyncholampas, fibulariids, Durhamella, Neolaganum, Agassizia, Macropneustes, some species of Plagiobrissus and Periarchus, and most species of Eupatagus. All these have been interpreted previously as preferring clean sand. Species that preferred, or at least tolerated, significant carbonate mud in the substrate (thin sections are poorly washed grainstones and packstones) include all the regular echinoids and the irregular echinoids Schizaster, Ditremaster, Brissopsis, Brissopatagus, Amblypygus, Eurhodia, Weisbordella, Wythella, Paraster, some species of Periarchus and Plagiobrissus, and perhaps some species of Eupatagus. The last seven of these have previously been interpreted as sand-dwellers.

In general, species preferring mud-rich sands are found in the upper Ocala of peninsular Florida and in the middle to upper Ocala equivalents in the rest of the Gulf Coast. Sand-dwellers are most often found in the lower Ocala strata of both regions and up into the middle Ocala in Florida. These generalizations are consistent with existing paleoenvironmental models for the region.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , July 1989 , pp. 495 - 503
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

Agassiz, L. 1873. Revision of the echini. Part III. Description of the species of Recent echini. Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology Illustrated Catalogue VII, 623 p.Google Scholar
Brattström, H. 1946. Observations on Brissopsis lyrifera (Forbes) in the Gullmar Fjord. Arkiv for Zoologi, 37A:1–27.Google Scholar
Cahuzac, B., and Roman, J. 1984. Une faune d'Echinodermes mal connue: celle de l'Eocene superieur tardif du Sud-Aquitain. Bulletin de la Societe de Borda, 396:705–727.Google Scholar
Carter, B. D., and Beisel, T. H. 1987. “Cassidulus“ trojanus belongs in the genus Eurhodia (Echinoidea) based upon new criteria. Journal of Paleontology, 62:1080–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, B. D., and Hammack, R. E. 1989. Stratigraphic distribution of Jacksonian (Priabonian) echinoids in Georgia: comparison and suggested correlations with Florida and the Carolinas. Palaios, 3, 4:86–91.Google Scholar
Chesher, R. H. 1966. Redescription of the echinoid species Paraster floridiensis (Spatangoida: Schizasteridae). Bulletin of Marine Science, 16:1–19.Google Scholar
Chesher, R. H. 1972. The status of knowledge of Panamanian echinoids, 1971, with comments on other echinoderms. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington, 2:139–158.Google Scholar
Cooke, C. W. 1959. Cenozoic echinoids of eastern United States. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 321, 106 p.Google Scholar
Croft, M. 1980. Ecology and stratigraphy of the echinoids of the Ocala Limestone (Late Eocene). Unpubl. M.S. thesis, Florida State University, Talahassee, 128 p.Google Scholar
Croft, M., and Shaak, G. D. 1985. Ecology and stratigraphy of the echinoids of the Ocala Limestone (Late Eocene). Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, 18:127–143.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1955. Classification of clypeasteroid echinoids. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 31:73–198.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1966. Ecology and paleoecology, p. U257–U265. 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
Fenk, E. M. 1979. Sedimentology and stratigraphy of middle and upper Eocene carbonate rocks, Lake, Hernando, and Levy Counties, Florida. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 133 p.Google Scholar
Gladfelter, W. B. 1978. General ecology of the cassiduloid urchin Cassidulus caribbearum. Marine Biology, 47:149–160.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Vrba, E. S. 1982. Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8:4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1962. Revision of the cassiduloid echinoids. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 144:3:1–262.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1966. The echinoids of Dominica. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 121:1–10.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1975. The echinoids of Carrie Bow Cay, Belize. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 206, 45 p.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1977. The poor fossil record of the regular echinoid. Paleobiology, 3:168–174.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1984. Fossil spatangoid echinoids of Cuba. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 55, 336 p.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M., and Grant, R. A. 1965. Echinoid distribution and habits, Key Largo Coral Reef Preserve, Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 149:6:1–68.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1984. Allometry and heterochrony in an Eocene echinoid lineage: morphological change as a by-product of size selection. Paleobiology, 10:407–419.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1985. Heterochrony and its environmental correlates in Cenozoic echinoids of the Coastal Plain and Caribbean areas. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 279 p.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1988. Roles of allometry and ecology in echinoid evolution, p. 165–173. In Paul, C. R. C. and Smith, A. B. (eds.), Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L., and Zachos, L. G. 1986. Echinoids in biostratigraphy and paleoenvironmental reconstruction: a cluster analysis from the Eocene Gulf Coast (Ocala Limestone). Palaios, 1:420–423.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J., and Philip, G. M. 1980a. Australian Tertiary schizasterid echinoids. Alcheringa, 4:47–65.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J., and Philip, G. M. 1980b. Tertiary species of Echinolampas (Echinoidea) from southern Australia. Memoirs of the National Museum, Victoria, 41:1–14.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T. 1928–1951. A monograph of the Echinoidea. C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen, 5 vols.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 1959. Changes in the Chalk heart-urchin Micraster interpreted in relation to living forms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 242B:347–437.Google Scholar
Randazzo, A. F. and Saroop, H. C. 1976. Sedimentology and paleoecology of middle and upper Eocene carbonate shoreline sequences, Crystal River, Florida, U.S.A. Sedimentary Geology, 15:259–291.Google Scholar
Reyment, R. A. 1986. Necroplanktonic dispersal of echinoid tests. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 52:347–349.Google Scholar
Rose, E. P. F. 1976. Some observations on the Recent holectypoid echinoid Echinoneus cyclostomatus and their paleoecological significance. Thalassia Jugoslavica, 12:299–306.Google Scholar
Sharpe, C. L. 1980. Sedimentological interpretation of Tertiary carbonate rocks from west central Florida. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 170 p.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1984. Echinoid Paleobiology. Allen and Unwin, London, 190 p.Google Scholar
Toulmin, L. D. 1977. Stratigraphic distribution of Paleocene and Eocene fossils in the eastern Gulf Coast region. Alabama Geological Survey Monograph 13, 602 p.Google Scholar
Vail, P. R., Mitchum, R. M., and Thompson, S. 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 4: Global cycles of relative changes of sea level, p. 83–93. In Payton, C. E. (ed.), Seismic Stratigraphy—Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 26, Tulsa, Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Zachos, L. G. 1978. Stratigraphy and petrology of two shallow wells, Citrus and Levy Counties, Florida. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 105 p.Google Scholar