Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T01:22:50.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of the xenomorphic crinoid column (Taxocrinus, Late Mississippian)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

Julie I. Wulff  and
William I. Ausich
Julie I. Wulff
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Mineralogy, 125 South Oval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Mineralogy, 125 South Oval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two alternative hypotheses for proximal column growth are tested in Taxocrinus cf. T. whitfieldi, a late Mississippian flexible crinoid. The first hypothesis states that new columnals are added at the base of the proximal column (immediately above the generating columnal), whereas the second hypothesis has columnals of the proximal column inserted beneath the aboral cup. In both hypotheses, middle column columnals are inserted beneath the generating columnal and are independent from the proximal column.

External features used to determine points of columnal insertion include wedge-shaped columnals and sharp changes in columnar morphology. Sagittal sections reveal the presence of small columnals, some of which can be interpreted as the last columnals inserted prior to death. Data collected on Taxocrinus cf. T. whitfieldi confirm the first hypothesis. This hypothesis may be applicable to other crinoids with xenomorphic columns.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 63 , Issue 5 , September 1989 , pp. 657 - 662
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. 1977. The functional morphology and evolution of Pisocrinus (Crinoidea: Silurian). Journal of Paleontology, 51:672–686.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1984. Calceocrinids from the Early Silurian (Llandoverian) Brassfield Formation of southwestern Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 58:1167–1185.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1898–1899. Wachsmuth and Springer's monograph on crinoids. Geological Magazine, N.S., Dec. 4, Vol. 5 (1898), 1st notice, p. 318–329; 3rd notice, p. 419–428; 4th notice, p. 522–527; Vol. 6 (1899), 5th notice, p. 32–44; 6th notice, p. 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1900. The Echinoderms. In Lankester, E. R. (ed.), A Treatise on Zoology, Vol. 3. Adam and Charles Black, London, 344 p.Google Scholar
Goldring, W. 1923. The Devonian crinoids of the state of New York. New York State Museum Memoir, 16:1–670.Google Scholar
Horowitz, A. S., and Kelly, S. M. 1987. The Chesterian section near Sulphur, Indiana. Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide—North-Central Section, p. 387–390.Google Scholar
Jeffords, R. M., and Miller, T. H. 1968. Ontogenetic development in late Pennsylvanian crinoid columnals and pluricolumnals. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 10, 14 p.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. M. 1984. Paleoecology and paleontology of the Indian Springs Shale Member, Big Clifty Formation (Middle Chesterian) in south-central Indiana. Unpubl. , Indiana University, Bloomington, 348 p.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1978. Flexibles, p. T266–T268. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., Jeffords, R. M., and Miller, T. H. 1968. Morphological features of crinoid columnals. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 8, 30 p.Google Scholar
Philip, G. M. 1980. The carpoid stele and the crinoid stem. Journal of Paleontology, 54:634–635.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Institution, Publication 2501, 486 p.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
Ubaghs, G. 1978. General morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1897. The North American Crinoidea Camerata. Harvard College, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Memoir, 20(20–21), 837 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., and Lane, N. G. 1967. Additional Permian crinoids from southern Nevada. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 27 p.Google Scholar
Welch, J. R. 1978. Pterotocrinus rugosus Lyon & Casseday from the middle Chesterian of the Illinois Basin. Journal of Paleontology, 52:904–915.Google Scholar