Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:56:18.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two cupulocrinids, Cupulocrinus crossmani n. sp. and Praecupulocrinus conjugans (Billings) n. gen., are known from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Various morphologic and ontogenetic features demonstrate that Praecupulocrinus is more primitive than Cupulocrinus. The two species commonly occur together. In addition, both taxa coexisted at similar levels with stem lengths ranging from about 1.5 cm in juveniles to 15 cm in adults. Relatively complete growth sequences illustrate growth and variation and show how two related crinoids subdivided feeding niches. The crown volume provides a satisfactory surrogate variable for the size of the animal. The food-gathering system of the cupulocrinids is mainly augmented by the addition of new plates at the ends of the arms. The number of plates in the arms and the arm length exhibit positive allometry relative to crown volume, largely due to development of new branches at the arm tips. The food-gathering capacity equals the number of food-catching tube-feet multiplied by the average width of the food grooves. Food-gathering capacity is also positively allometric with respect to crown volume and the amount of tissue that must be supplied with food. Consequently, the ratio of food-gathering capacity:crown volume is either constant or declines slightly with increasing size and age. The food groove width increases throughout ontogeny so adult crinoids ate larger food particles than juveniles. Praecupulocrinus conjugans (Billings) n. gen. has more narrow food grooves than Cupulocrinus crossmani n. sp. of comparable size and age, which suggests niche differentiation based on food-particle size. The arm and tube-foot geometry indicates that both cupulocrinids utilized the same type of suspension feeding.

The morphology of the anal sac and the lack of “patelloid” processes in the arms indicate that Cupulocrinus sepulchrum Ramsbottom from the Upper Ordovician of Scotland belongs to Dendrocrinus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 99 - 128
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

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1915. Bibliographic index of American Ordovician and Silurian fossils. United States National Museum Bulletin, 92:1–1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassler, R. S., and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 45:1–734.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science, Report for 1898:916–922.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1857. New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Report of Progress 1853–1856:247–345.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1859. On the Crinoideae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains, Decade IV:7–66.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1974. Ontogeny of camerate crinoids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 72:1–53.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1978. Postlarval ontogeny of fossil crinoids, camerates, p. T244–T263. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Strimple, H. L. 1983. Ordovician calceocrinids from northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 57:1261–1281.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1978. Middle Ordovician crinoids from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 74:372–506.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 646 p.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41:587–640.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1971. Geometric similarity in allometric growth: a contribution to the problem of scaling in the evolution of size. American Naturalist, 105:113–136.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 498 p.Google Scholar
Green, P. E. 1978. Analyzing Multivariate Data. Dryden Press, Hinsdale, Illinois, 519 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New-York. Vol. I. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower Division of the New-York System. New York Natual History Survey, Albany, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hayami, I., and Matsukuma, A. 1970. Variation of bivariate characters from the standpoint of allometry. Palaeontology, 13:588–605.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London, 276 p.Google Scholar
Imbrie, J. 1956. Biometrical methods in the study of invertebrate fossils. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 108:211–252.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 59:551–560.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for late Osagean crinoids. Paleobiology, 13:379–395.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7, Journal of Paleontology, 49, supplement, 74 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1976. Crinoids from the Upper Ordovician Bighorn Formation of Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology, 50:445–453.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1986. Crinoids of the Champlainian (Middle Ordovician) Guttenberg Formation–Upper Mississippi Valley Region. Journal of Paleontology, 60:711–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, D. R., Brower, J. C., and Frest, T. J. 1987. Upper Mississippi Valley Champlainian and Cincinnatian echinoderms. Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations, 35:179–181.Google Scholar
Kuhry, B., and Marcus, L. F. 1977. Bivariate linear models in biometry. Systematic Zoology, 2:201–209.Google Scholar
LaBarbera, M. 1984. Feeding currents and particle capture mechanisms in suspension feeding animals. American Zoologist, 24:71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levorson, C. O., and Gerk, A. J. 1975. Field recognition of subdivision of the Galena Group within Winneshiek County. Guidebook for Field Gathering of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Academies of Science, 1975:1–17.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. 1873. Fossils of the Cincinnati Group. Geological Survey of Ohio, Vol. 1, Pt. 2(Palaeontology), 175 p.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1875. Description of invertebrates. Illinois Geological Survey, Geology and Paleontology, 6:489–532.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Marine Biology, 51:361–369.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982a. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982b. Food composition and feeding behavior of sympatric species of comatulids from the Palau islands (western Pacific), p. 43–49. In Lawrence, J. M. (ed.), International Echinoderms Conference, Tampa Bay. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A Natural History of the Crinoidea or Lily-shaped Animals, with Observation on the Genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites. Bryan & Company, Bristol, 150 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1881. Subcarboniferous fossils from the Lake Valley mining district of New Mexico with description of new species and description of new species of fossils from the Hudson River Group, and remarks upon others. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 4:306–319.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, Ohio, 664 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 46:1–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. C., Lane, N. G., and Strimple, H. L. 1978. Order Cladida, p. T578–T759. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 1960. The histology and activities of the tube-feet of Antedon bifida. Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society, 101:105–117.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. D. d'. 1850. Prodome du paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques et rayonnés faisant suite au cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphique, 1:1–392. Victor Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Philip, G. M., and Strimple, H. L. 1971. An interpretation of the crinoid Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs. Journal of Paleontology, 45:491–493.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, W. H. C. 1961. A monograph on British Ordovician Crinoidea. Palaeontographical Society, London, Monograph, 114:1–37.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, D. I., and Koehl, M. A. R. 1977. The mechanisms of filter feeding: some theoretical considerations. American Naturalist, 111:981–994.Google Scholar
Rutman, J., and Fishelson, L. 1969. Food composition and feeding behavior of shallow-water crinoids at Eilat (Red Sea). Marine Biology, 3:46–57.Google Scholar
Sloan, R. E. (ed.). 1987. Middle and Late Ordovician lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations, 35:1–232.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. 1977. A method for testing the distinctness of clusters: a test of the disjunction of two clusters in euclidean space as measured by their overlap. Mathematical Geology, 9:123–143.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. 1979. The sampling distribution of the W-Statistic of Disjunction for the arbitrary division of a Random Rectangular Distribution. Mathematical Geology, 11:423–429.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton echinoderm fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario. Canada Geological Survey Memoir, 15-P:1–50.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Institution Publication, 2501:1–486.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1973. Morphology and evolution of blastozoan echinoderms. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Special Publication, 283 p.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1975. Introduction to a new series of studies of Ordovician echinoderms. Iowa Academy of Science, Proceedings, 82:124–125.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L., and Frest, T. J. 1979. Points of generation and partial regeneration of the column of Euonychocrinus simplex (Crinoidea: Flexibilia). Journal of Paleontology, 53:216–220.Google Scholar
Templeton, J. S., and Willman, H. B. 1963. Champlainian Series (Middle Ordovician) in Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey, Bulletin 89, 260 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1969. Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs, n. gen., n. sp., le plus ancien crinoïde dicyclique connu. University of Kansas Paleontological Contribution, Paper 38:1–25.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Pt. 3, Section 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Proceedings for 1885:223–364(1–162).Google Scholar
White, J. F., and Gould, S. J. 1965. Interpretation of the coefficient in the allometric equation. American Naturalist, 99:5–18.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. E. 1946. Echinodermata of the Ottawa Formation of the Ottawa–St. Lawrence Lowland. Canada Geological Survey, Bulletin 4:1–61.Google Scholar
Wulff, J. I., and Ausich, W. I. 1989. Growth of the xenomorphic crinoid column (Taxocrinus, Late Mississippian). Journal of Paleontology, 63:657–662.Google Scholar