Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:04:09.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First Carboniferous Protaspid larvae (Trilobita)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2017

Rudy Lerosey-Aubril  and
Raimund Feist
Rudy Lerosey-Aubril
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Palontologie, Paléobiologie et Phylogénie, Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution de Montpellier, Université Montpellier II, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, F
Raimund Feist
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Palontologie, Paléobiologie et Phylogénie, Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution de Montpellier, Université Montpellier II, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, F
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recovery of well-preserved silicified larvae from the early Tournaisian of Montagne Noire, southern France, allows the first description of the early ontogeny of proetoid trilobites, survivors of the end-Devonian Hangenberg extinction event. The fauna comprises various taxa that can only partly and tentatively be assigned to the genera Liobolina, Diacoryphe, and Pedinocoryphe without specific attribution. The close resemblance of these larvae to previously described proetoid larvae from the Ordovician and Devonian emphasizes the ontogenetic homogeneity of this superfamily. Moreover, it supports the view that the Proetida is composed of two clades: the Aulacopleuroidea/Bathyuroidea group and the Proetoidea. The Carboniferous anaprotaspides exhibit an unusually wide size-range that may provide evidence of the acquisition of an extended planktonic period in the early ontogeny of at least some Carboniferous proetoids. This change in the ontogenetic strategy may have enabled proetoid trilobites to survive during the end-Devonian biocrises.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , July 2005 , pp. 702 - 718
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

Baldis, B. A., and Blasco, G. 1974. Trilobites ordovicicos de la Comarca de Jachal, Precordillera Argentina. I. Telephinidae. Ameghiniana, 11:71–87.Google Scholar
Barnes, C., Hallam, A., Kaljo, D., Kauffman, E. G., and Walliser, O. H. 1995. Global event stratigraphy, p. 319–333. In Walliser, O. H. (ed.), Global Events and Event Stratigraphy in the Phanerozoic. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Barrientos, Y., and Laverack, M. S. 1986. The larval crustacean dorsal organ and its relationship to the trilobite median tubercle. Lethaia, 19:309–313.Google Scholar
Beecher, C. E. 1893. A larval form of Triarthrus . American Journal of Science, 46:361–362.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E. 1971. Taxonomy and ontogeny of Siluro-Devonian trilobites from near Yass, New South Wales. Palaeontographica (A), 137:1–108.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Speyer, S. E. 1989. Larval ecology, life history strategies, and patterns of extinction and survivorship among Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology, 15:118–132.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Speyer, S. E. 1997. Ontogeny, p. 173–247. In Kaessler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita (revised). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., Edgecombe, G. D., Vaccari, N. E., and Waisfeld, B. G. 1999. Ontogenies of some Ordovician Telephinidae from Argentina, and larval patterns in the Proetida (Trilobita). Journal of Paleontology, 73:219–239.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., Siveter, D. J., Edgecombe, G. D., and Hunt, A. S. 1990. Larvae and relationships of the Calymenina (Trilobita). Journal of Paleontology, 64:255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crônier, C., Renaud, S., Feist, R., and Auffray, J.-C. 1998. Ontogeny of Trimerocephalus lelievrei (Trilobita, Phacopida), a representative of the Late Devonian phacopine paedomorphocline: a morphometric approach. Paleobiology, 20:359–370.Google Scholar
Dalingwater, J. E. 1973. Trilobite cuticle microstructure and composition. Palaeontology, 16:827–839.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D., Speyer, S. E., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1988. Protaspid larvae and phylogenetics of encrinurid trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 62:779–799.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D., Chatterton, B. D. E., Vaccari, N. E., and Waisfeld, B. G. 1997. Ontogeny of the proetoid trilobite Stenoblepharum, and relationships of a new species from the Upper Ordovician of Argentina. Journal of Paleontology, 71:419–433.Google Scholar
Feist, R. 1991. The Late Devonian Trilobite crises. Historical Biology, 5:197–214.Google Scholar
Feist, R. 1995. Effect of paedomorphosis in eyes reduction on patterns of evolution and extinction in Trilobites, p. 225–244. In McNamara, K. J. (ed.), Evolutionary Change and Heterochrony. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1990. Ontogeny, hypostome attachment and Trilobite classification. Palaeontology, 33:529–576.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Clarkson, E. N. K. 1976. The function of the glabellar “tubercule” in Nileus and other trilobites. Lethaia, 9:101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1975. Proetida—a new order of trilobites. Fossils and Strata, 4:227–239.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1999. Feeding habits in trilobites. Palaeontology, 42:429–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawlick, K. 1999. Revision und stratigraphische Bedeutung der gattung Liobolina (Trilobita; Ober-Devon/Unter-Karbon). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Marburg, 442 p.Google Scholar
Gröning, E. 1986. Revision der Gattung Liobole (Trilobita, Unter-Karbon). Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 80:1–216.Google Scholar
Hahn, G., Hahn, R., and Gawlick, K. 1995. Phylogenie und Systematik von Diacoryphe und verwandten Gattungen (Trilobita; Unter-Karbon). Geologica et Palaeontologica, 29:145–191.Google Scholar
Jones, P. J. 1996. AGSO Phanerozoic Timescale 1995. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 32 p.Google Scholar
Lethiers, F., and Feist, R. 1991. Ostracodes, stratigraphie et bathymétrie du passage Dévonien/Carbonifère au Viséen Inférieur en Montagne Noire (France). Géobios, 24:71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology, 60:4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1962. Famennian and Lower Carboniferous Cyrtosymbolinae (Trilobita) from the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 7:53–222.Google Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1968. Contributions to the Lower Carboniferous Cyrtosymbolinae (Trilobita). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 13:119–150.Google Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1973. Tournaisian trilobites from Dalnia in the Holy Cross Mts. Acta Geologica Polonica, 23:61–80.Google Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1975. Fine morphological characters of some Upper Palaeozoic trilobites. Fossils and Strata, 4:201–207.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Sepkoski, J. J. J. 1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science, 215:1501–1503.Google Scholar
Richter, R., and Richter, E. 1951. Der beginn des Karbons im Wechsel der Trilobiten. Senckenbergiana, 32:219–266.Google Scholar
Roy, K., and Fahraeus, L. E. 1989. Tremadocian (Early Ordovician) nauplius-like larvae from the Middle Arm Point Formation, Bay of Islands, western Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 26:1802–1806.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1989. Trilobite larvae and larval ecology. Historical Biology, 3:27–60.Google Scholar
Waisfeld, B. G., Vaccari, N. E., Chatterton, B. D. E., and Edgecombe, G. D. 2001. Systematics of Shumardiidae (Trilobita), with new species from the Ordovician of Argentina. Journal of Paleontology, 75:827–859.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, M., Sheets, H. D., and Hughes, N. C. 2001. Allometric patterning in trilobite ontogeny: testing for heterochrony in Nephrolenellus , p. 105–144. In Zelditch, M. L. (ed.), Beyond Heterochrony: the Evolution of Development. Wiley-Liss, San-Francisco.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B., and Wilmot, N. V. 1997. Microstructure and sculpture of the exoskeletal cuticle, p. 74–85. In Kaessler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita (revised). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wilmot, N. V. 1991. Sensory field maps of proetide trilobites. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Earth Sciences), 82:183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, J., and Xiang, L. 1998. Trilobite fauna at the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary in South China. Special publication of the National Museum of Natural Science, 8:1–281.Google Scholar