Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:34:57.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Permian conodont assemblages from the Wolfcamp Shale, Midland Basin, West Texas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Scott M. Ritter  and
John F. Baesemann
Scott M. Ritter
Affiliation:
School of Geology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078
John F. Baesemann
Affiliation:
AMOCO Research Center, Box 3385, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nine assemblages of conodont elements have been found on bedding surfaces of the “Wolfcamp Shale’ from the Midland Basin, Texas. Four of these assemblages have Pa elements assigned to Sweetognathus cf. S. inornatus. The assemblages are classified taphonomically as apparatus (remains or partial remains of a single individual) or coprolitic associations. The two apparatus assemblages indicate that Sweetognathus cf. S. inornatus possessed a seximembrate apparatus comprised of Pa, Pb, M, Sa, Sb, and Sc elements. Five of the seven coprolitic associations contain numerous elements (50–100) and/or multiple pairs of Pa elements representing the presumably ingested remains of two or more conodonts.

The “Wolfcamp Shale’ assemblages are significant because 1) they confirm the polygnathacean affinity of the family Sweetognathidae, 2) they represent the youngest polygnathacean assemblages currently known, and 3) they permit comparison of multielement Sweetognathus with homologous elements of coeval genera such as Hindeodus, Adetognathus, Streptognathodus, and Neostreptognathodus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , July 1991 , pp. 670 - 677
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

Aldridge, R. J., Smith, M. P., Norby, R. D., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1987. The architecture and function of Carboniferous polygnathacean conodont apparatuses, p. 63–75. In Aldridge, R. J. (ed.), Palaeobiology of Conodonts. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
Clark, D. L. 1972. Early Permian crisis and its bearing on Permo-Triassic conodont taxonomy, p. 147–158. In Lindstrom, M. and Ziegler, W. (eds.), Symoposium on conodont taxonomy. Geologica et Palaeontologica, Sonderband 1.Google Scholar
Collinson, C., Acvin, M. J., Norby, R. D., and Merrill, G. K. 1972. Pennsylvanian conodont assemblages from La Salle County, northern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook Series 10, 37, p.Google Scholar
Du Bois, E. P. 1943. Evidence on the nature of conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 17:155–159.Google Scholar
Huddle, J. W. 1972. Historical introduction to the problem of conodont taxonomy, p. 3–16. In Lindstrom, M. and Ziegler, W. (eds.), Symposium on conodont taxonomy. Geologica et Palaeontologica, Sonderband 1.Google Scholar
Merrill, G. K., and von Bitter, P. H. 1977. Apparatus of the Pennsylvanian conodont genus Neognathodus. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Contribution 112, 22 p.Google Scholar
Merrill, G. K., and von Bitter, P. H. 1985. Hindeodus, Diplognathodus and Ellisonia revisited—an identity crisis in Permian conodonts. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 19:81–96.Google Scholar
Movshovich, E. V., Kozur, H., Pavlov, A. M., Pnev, V. P., Polozova, A. N., Chuvashov, B. I., and Bogoslovaskaya, M. F. 1979. Complexes of conodonts of the Lower Permian of the Urals region and problems of correlations of Lower Permian deposits. Trudy Institute of Geology, USSR Academy of Science, Uralian Research Center, 145:94–131.Google Scholar
Nestell, M. K, and Wardlaw, B. R. 1987. Upper Permian conodonts from Hydra, Greece. Journal of Paleontology, 61:758–772.Google Scholar
Norby, R. D. 1976. Conodont apparatuses from Chesterian (Mississippian) strata of Montana and Illinois. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 303 p.Google Scholar
Pander, C. H. 1856. Monographie der fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems der Rurrisch-Baltischen Governements. Akademie der Wissenschaften, St. Petersburg, 91 p.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, B. 1975. Conodonts from the uppermost Wabaunsee Group (Pennsylvanian) and the Admire and Council Grove Groups (Permian) in Kansas. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 9:95–115.Google Scholar
Rhodes, F. H. T. 1952. A classification of Pennsylvanian conodont assemblages. Journal of Paleontology, 26:886–901.Google Scholar
Rhodes, F. H. T. 1963. Conodonts from the topmost Tensleep Sandstone of the eastern Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology, 37:401–408.Google Scholar
Ritter, S. M. 1986. Taxonomic revision and phylogeny of post-Early Permian crisis bisselli–whitei Zone conodonts with comments on late Paleozoic diversity. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 20:139–165.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. 1934. Conodonten-Funde in ursprunglichen Zusammenhang. Palaontologische Zeitschrift, 16:76–85.Google Scholar
Scott, H. W. 1934. The zoological relationships of the conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 8:448–455.Google Scholar
Scott, H. W. 1942. Condont assemblages from the Heath Formation, Montana. Journal of Paleontology, 16:293–300.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1988. The Conodonta: morphology, taxonomy, paleoecology and evolutionary history of a long-extinct animal phylum. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics Number 10, 212 p.Google Scholar
Von Bitter, P. H., and Merrill, G. K. 1988. Diplognathodus—its taxonomy, biology and phylogeny, p. 230–231. In Ziegler, W. (ed.), First international Senckenberg Conference and Fifth European conodont Symposium (ECOS V), Contribution 1. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 102.Google Scholar
Wind, F. H. 1973. Stratigraphic zonation and paleoecology of conodonts of the Chase Group, Lower Permian, Kansas. Umpubl. M.S. thesis, Florida State University, 224 p.Google Scholar