Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:39:40.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Color banding in the Triassic terebratulid brachiopod Coenothyris from the Muschelkalk of Central Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Hans Hagdorn  and
Michael R. Sandy
Hans Hagdorn
Affiliation:
Muschelkalkmuseum, Schloßstraße 11, 74653 Ingelfingen, Germany,
Michael R. Sandy
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio 45469-2364, U.S.A.,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Triassic terebratulid brachiopod Coenothyris frequently displays preserved color patterns; such patterns have commonly been recorded from Paleozoic terebratulid brachiopods. Despite the frequency with which color patterns are preserved in Coenothyris, there has been no recent investigation of the cause and significance of this phenomenon. Shell material is well-preserved; energy-dispersive spectroscopy and microprobe analysis has been unable to detect compositional differences between colored and noncolored shell. This supports the organic origin of the color patterns as suggested for Devonian terebratulids by Richter (1919); color patterns originate from organic pigment in the primary shell layer.

Three subtypes of radial color banding are identified: subtype A with a relatively large number (up to 80) of delicate color bands on each valve; subtype B with fewer and generally wider color bands (less than 20) on each valve of adult specimens; subtype C with faint to fairly wide but very short color bands along the anterior margin (ranging from a few to more than 50 in number). Serial sections prepared from subtypes A and B confirm their congeneric status.

As shell form (length/width/thickness ratio) and maximum size varies, color pattern types differ in various stratigraphic horizons and also in isochronous populations from different geographic localities, indicating different facies. However, the variation in color patterns is not due to systematic differences at the species or subspecies level but rather reflects a tendency among Coenothyris vulgaris to respond to different environmental parameters. This variation in color patterns is ecophenotypic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 11 - 28
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

Aigner, T. 1985. Storm depositional systems. Dynamic stratigraphy in modern and ancient shallow-marine sequences. Lecture Notes in Earth Science, 3, 174 p. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Aigner, T., Hagdorn, H., and Mundlos, R. 1979. Biohermal, biostromal and storm-generated coquinas in the Upper Muschelkalk. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, 157:42–52.Google Scholar
Von Alberti, F. 1845. Mitteilungen an Professor Bronn gerichtet. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie etc., 1845:672–673.Google Scholar
Von Alberti, F. 1864. Ueberblick über die Trias mit Berücksichtigung ihres Vorkommens in den Alpen. 353 p. Cotta, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Biernat, G. 1984. Color pattern in the Middle Devonian rhynchonellid brachiopods from the Holy Cross Mountains. Acta geologica polonica, 31:63–72.Google Scholar
Blodgett, R. B., Boucot, A. J., and Ferrill, B. A. 1983. A colorbanded Beachia (Brachiopoda; Terebratulida) from the Oriskany equivalent (mid-Early Devonian) of central Alabama. Journal of Paleontology, 57:865–869.Google Scholar
Blodgett, R. B., Boucot, A. J., and Koch, W. F. II. 1988. New occurrences of color patterns in Devonian articulate brachiopods. Journal of Paleontology, 62:46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodzioch, A. 1985. Palaeoecology and sedimentary environment of the Terebratula Beds (Lower Muschelkalk) from Upper Silesia (South Poland). Annales de la Société Géologique de Pologne, 55:127–138.Google Scholar
Brocard, C. 1991. La plate-forme provencale au Trias Moyen. Un modele de rampe carbonatee en milieu restreint—Dynamique de paléoenvironnements—Evolution diagénètique. Unpublished , , 282 p.Google Scholar
Cloud, P. E. Jr. 1942. Terebratuloid Brachiopoda of the Silurian and Devonian. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 38, 182 p.Google Scholar
Collot, M. L. 1911. Coloration des coquilles fossiles cas nouveaux. Association française pour l'advancement des Science (Paris), 1911:321–325.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A., and Doherty, P. J. 1993. Calloria variegata, a new Recent species of brachiopod (Articulata: Terebratulida) from northern New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 23:271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, G. B. 1991. Fossils in colour. New Scientist, 132(1795):32–34.Google Scholar
Curry, G. B., Cusack, M., Walton, D., Endo, K., Clegg, H., Abbott, G., and Armstong, H. 1991. Biogeochemistry of brachiopod intracrystalline molecules. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 333:359–366.Google Scholar
Cusack, M., Curry, G., Clegg, H., and Abbott, G. 1992. An intracrystalline chromoprotein from red brachiopod shells: implications for the process of biomineralization. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 102B:93–95.Google Scholar
Davidson, T. 1854. British Cretaceous Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, 1(2):1–117.Google Scholar
Davidson, T. 1878. British fossil Brachiopoda. Supplement to the Jurassic and Triassic species. Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, 4(2):145–241.Google Scholar
Deecke, W. 1917. Über Färbungsspuren an fossilen Molluskenschalen. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Biologische Wissenschaften, 6:1–14.Google Scholar
Detre, C., Lorberer-szentes, I., and Szente, E. 1983. Magyarországi Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim) paleontológiai cönózisok biometriai és mennyiségi taxonómiai értékelése. Magyar Allami Földtani Intézet evi Jelentése, 1983:220–233.Google Scholar
Detre, C., Lorberer-szentes, I., and Szente, E., Szente, E., and Lorberer-Szentes, I. 1984. Morphometria kaj statistika-taksonomia studo pri Hungarlandaj kunajoj de la Mez-Triasa Brachiopodo-specio Coenothyris vulgaris (Schloth.). Geologio Internacia, 5:85–100.Google Scholar
Lorberer-Szentes, I., Lantos, M., and Kovacks, L. O. 1992. Biofaciológiai. biokronológiai, biometriai tanulmányok a Középso-Triász Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim) Magyarországi Példányain. Magyar Allami Földtani Intézet ev. Jelentése, 1990:395–461.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K., and Gale, A. S. 1990. Predatory asteroids and the decline of the articulate brachiopods. Lethaia 22:77–86.Google Scholar
Fischer, P. H. 1925. La persistance des couleurs parmi les fossiles du Trias Moyen. Journal de Conchyliologie 69:5–12.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1930. The color patterns of fossil cephalopods and brachiopods, with notes on gastropods and pelecypods. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, 3:109–150.Google Scholar
Greger, D. K. 1908. A new Devonian brachiopod retaining the original color markings. American Journal of Science, Series 4, 25:313–314.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H. 1982a. Epökie von Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck auf Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim). Veröffentlichungen des Naturkundemuseums Bielefeld, 4:35–38.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H. 1982b. The “Bank der Kleinen Terebrateln” (Upper Muschelkalk, Triassic) near Schwäbisch Hall (SW-Germany)—a tempestite condensation horizon, p. 263–285. In Einsele, G. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Cyclic and Event Stratification. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H. 1991. Muschelkalk. A Field Guide. Edited by Hagdorn, H. in cooperation with Simon, T. and Szulc, J. Goldschneck, Korb. 80 p.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H. 1995. Farbmuster und Pseudoskulptur bei Muschelkalkfossilien. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, 195(Festschrift A. Seilacher):85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagdorn, H., and Mundlos, R. 1982. Autochthonschille im Oberen Muschelkalk (Mitteltrias) Südwestdeutschlands. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, 162:332–351.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H., and Ockert, W. 1993. Encrinus liliiformis im Trochitenkalk Süddeutschlands, p. 245–260. In Hagdorn, H. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Muschelkalk. Schöntaler Tagung 1991 (= Sonderbände der Gesellschaft für Naturkunde in Württemberg, 2). Goldschneck, Korb.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H., and Reif, W. E. 1988. “Die Knochenbreccie von Crailsheim” und weitere Mitteltrias-Bonebeds in Nordost-Württemberg—Alte und neue Deutungen, p. 116–143. In Hagdorn, H. (ed.), Neue Forschungen zur Erdgeschichte von Crailsheim. Zur Erinnerung an Hofrat Richard Blezinger. (=Sonderbände der Gesellschaft für Naturkunde in Württemberg, 1). Goldschneck, Korb.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H., and Simon, T. 1993. Ökostratigraphische Leitbänke im Oberen Muschelkalk, p. 193–208. In Hagdorn, H. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Muschelkalk. Schöntaler Tagung 1991(=Sonderbände der Gesellschaft für Naturkunde in Württemberg, 2). Goldschneck, Korb.Google Scholar
Hatai, K. M. 1940. The Cenozoic Brachiopoda of Japan. Tohoku Imperial University, Science Reports, Series 2 (Geology), Volume 20, 413 p., 12 pls.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Space-time on a seashell. American Scientist, 83:214–218.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. D. 1978. Annotated bibliography on preservation of color patterns on invertebrate fossils. The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 55(3):39–63.Google Scholar
Hollingworth, N. T. J., and Barker, M. J. 1991. Colour Pattern Preservation in the Fossil Record: Taphonomy and Diagenetic Significance, p. 105–119. In Donovan, S. K. (ed.), The Processes of Fossilization. Columbia Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jope, H. M. 1965. Compostion of the brachiopod shell, p. H156–H164. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H(1), Brachiopoda. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Kirchner, H. 1933. Die Fossilien der Würzburger Trias. Brachiopoda. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband B 71:88–138.Google Scholar
Kríž, J., and Lukeš, P. 1974. Color patterns on Silurian Platyceras and Devonian Merista from the Barrandian area, Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Journal of Paleontology, 48:41–48.Google Scholar
Lukas, V. 1991. Die Terebratel-Bänke (Unterer Muschelkalk, Trias) in Hessen-ein Abbild kurzzeitiger Faziesänderungen im westlichen Germanischen Becken. Geologisches Jahrbuch Hessen, 119:119–175.Google Scholar
Malkowski, K. 1975. Attachment scars of the brachiopod Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim, 1820) from the Muschelkalk of Upper Silesia. Acta geologica polonica, 25:275–283.Google Scholar
Mapes, R. H., and Hoare, R. D. 1987. Annotated bibliography for preservation of color patterns in invertebrate fossils. The Compass, the earth-science journal of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 65(1):12–17.Google Scholar
Müller, A. H. 1950. Stratonomische Untersuchungen im Oberen Muschelkalk des Thüringer Beckens. Geologica, 4, 74 p., 11 pls. Berlin-Ost.Google Scholar
Mundlos, R. 1976. Wunderwelt im Stein.—Fossilfunde—Zeugen der Urzeit. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh. 280 p.Google Scholar
Newton, R. B. 1907. Relics of colouration in fossil shells. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 7:280–292.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H., and Sadlick, W. 1968. Notable color pattern in a fossil brachiopod. Journal of Paleontology, 42:403–405.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P. 1918. Über die Erhaltung der Färbung bei fossilen Molluskenschalen. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Stuttgart. Abteilung B, Geologie und Paläontologie, 1918:344–360, 368-392.Google Scholar
Palfy, J., and Török, A. 1992. Comparison of Alpine and Germanotype Middle Triassic brachiopod faunas from Hungary, with remarks on Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim, 1820). Annales Universistis Scientiarium Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio Geologica, 29:303–323.Google Scholar
Popiel-Barczyk, E., and Senkowiczowa, H. 1989. Representatives of the genus Coenothyris Douvillé, 1879, from the Terebratula Bed (Upper Muschelkalk) of the Holy Cross Mts, Central Poland. Acta geologica polonica, 39:93–111, 5 pls.Google Scholar
Radulovic, V., Urosevic, D., and Banjac, N. 1992. Upper Triassic brachiopods from the Yugoslavian Carpatho-Balkanides (Stara Planina Mountain). Senckenbergiana Iethaea, 72:61–76.Google Scholar
Reif, W.-E. 1974. Profile aus dem Muschelkalk-Keuper-Grenzbereich im Jagsttal (Trias; Baden-Württemberg). Oberrheinische geologische Abhandlungen, 23:43–54. Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
Reif, W.-E. 1982. Muschelkalk/Keuper bone-beds (Middle Triassic, SW-Germany)-storm condensation in a regressive cycle, p. 299–325. In Einsele, G. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Cyclic and Event Stratification. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York.Google Scholar
Richter, R. 1919. Zur Färbung fossiler Brachiopoden. Senckenbergiana, 1(3):83–96.Google Scholar
Richter, R. 1924. Brachiopoden mit konzentrischen Farbbändern. Senckenbergiana, 6:168.Google Scholar
Riech, V., and Truckenbrodt, W. 1973. Feinstratigraphisch-fazielle Untersuchungen im Unteren Muschelkalk der “Zeyerner Wand” nordöstlich Kronach (Bl. Nr. 5734 Wallenfels). Geologische Blätter Nordost-Bayerns und angrenzender Gebiete, 23(2-3):101–122, 4 pls. Erlangen.Google Scholar
Sandy, M. R. 1989. Preparation of serial sections, p. 146–156. In Feldmann, R. M., Chapman, R. E., and Hannibal, J. T. (eds.), Paleotechniques, Paleontological Society Special Publication Number 4.Google Scholar
Sandy, M. R., and Campbell, K. A. 1994. New rhynchonelloid brachiopod genus from Tithonian (Upper Jurassic) cold seep deposits of California and its paleoenvironmental setting. Journal of Paleontology. 68:1243–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandy, M. R., and Hagdorn, H. 1994. Spectacular color-banding preservation in the Triassic terebratuloid Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim): sitting pretty in the Triassic. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, 26(7):298.Google Scholar
Sandy, M. R., and Stanley, G. D. Jr. 1993. Late Triassic brachiopods from the Luning Formation, Nevada, U.S.A. and their palaeobiogeographical significance. Palaeontology, 36:439–480.Google Scholar
Schlotheim, E. F. von. 1820. Die Petrefaktenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch die Beschreibung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler Überreste des Thier- und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt erläutert.—LXII, 437 p., 23 pls. Becker, Gotha.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. 1993. Mikrobohrspuren in Makrobenthonten des Oberen Muschelkalks von SW-Deutschland, p. 271–278. In Hagdorn, H. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Muschelkalk. Schöntaler Tagung 1991(=Sonderbände der Gesellschaft für Naturkunde in Württemberg, 2). Goldschneck, Korb.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1972. Divaricate patterns in pelecypod shells. Lethaia, 5:325–343.Google Scholar
Senkowiczowa, H., and Popiel-Barczyk, E. 1993. Brachiopods from Terebratula Bed from the Upper Muschelkalk in the Grotów P-11 borehole (SW Poland). Geological Quarterly, 37:579–592.Google Scholar
Siblik, M. 1988. Brachiopoda mesozoica. a.) Brachiopoda triadica.—Catalogus Fossilium Austriae. Ein systematisches Verzeichnis aller auf österreichischem Gebiet festgestellten Fossilien. Volume V c 2(a), 145 p. 6 pls. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vienna.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1971. Oysters, p. N953–N1224. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, 6(3), Mollusca. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Szulc, J. 1991. The Muschelkalk in Poland, pp. 58–74, figs. 42-52, 54-66, 71-78. In Hagdorn, H., Simon, T., and Szulc, J. (eds.), Muschelkalk. A Field Guide. Goldschneck, Korb.Google Scholar
Tichy, G. 1980. Über die Erhaltung von Farben und Farbmustern an triassischen Gastropoden-Gehäusen. Verhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, 1980(2):175–217.Google Scholar
Török, A. 1993. Brachiopod beds as indicators of storm events: An example from the Muschelkalk of southern Hungary, p. 161–172. In Palfy, J. and Vörös, A. (eds.), Mesozoic Brachiopods of Alpine Europe. Hungarian Geological Society, Budapest.Google Scholar
Usnarska-Talerzak, K. 1988. Morphology and postembryonic development of Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim) (Brachiopoda, Middle Triassic). Acta geologica polonica, 33:169–202.Google Scholar
Whidborne, G. F. 1883. Notes on some fossils, chiefly Mollusca, from the Inferior Oolite. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 39:487–540.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J. 1965. Morphology, p. H57–H155. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H(1), Brachiopoda. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. C. 1975. Light show from beyond the grave. Terra, 13(3):10–13.Google Scholar
Zenger, D. H. 1967. Coloration of the “Pink Chonetes” (brachiopod) of the Onondaga Limestone, New York. Journal of Paleontology, 41:161–166.Google Scholar
Zenker, J. 1836. Historisch-topographisches Taschenbuch von Jena und seiner Umgebung. Jena.Google Scholar