Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:29:11.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hybocrinid and disparid 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

Four hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician Dunleith Formation (Galena Group) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota are described: Hybocrinus conicus Billings, Ohiocrinus levorsoni n. sp., Caleidocrinus (Huxleyocrinus) gerki n. sp., and Ectenocrinus simplex (Hall). The first three taxa are rare. Ectenocrinus simplex is an abundant and protean form ranging from the Shermanian to the Maysville and from the Appalachians to the Midcontinent. One Middle Ordovician specimen from the Dunleith is a complete small adult with stem and a lichenocrinid holdfast. The column was largely upright with the crown located about 25 cm above the seafloor. The Middle Ordovician crinoids differ somewhat from the later Cincinnatian material where only young E. simplex exhibit lichenocrinid holdfasts. Older crinoids became detached and were eleutherozoic well before the column was 25 cm long. Thus, the Cincinnatian individuals lost the attachment device earlier during ontogeny than their ancestors in the Middle Ordovician. Unlike most associated crinoids, E. simplex formed a roughly conical filtration net. The arms of E. simplex are extensively branched. Ten main arms bear unbranched ramules on alternate brachials, and the arm structure converges on the pinnulate pattern. Narrow food grooves and short covering plates are present. Analogies with living crinoids indicate that small food particles were caught by small and close-spaced tube-feet. The formation of new plates and ramules at the arm tips increases the size of the food-gathering system throughout ontogeny. The food-gathering capacity comprises the number of food-catching tube-feet times the width of the food grooves, and it measures the number and size of food particles that can be caught. Both size and capacity of the food-gathering system are positively allometric compared to crown volume and the amount of tissue that must be nourished. This is mainly caused by the addition of new ramules at the arm tips, which generates an exponentially increasing plate supply rate. Examination of numerous specimens from various geographic and stratigraphic horizons with multivariate statistics shows that the species was homogeneous throughout its range aside from the differences in living habits mentioned above.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 66 , Issue 6 , November 1992 , pp. 973 - 993
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. 1900. Chapter XI. The Crinoidea, p. 94–204. In Lankester, E. R. (ed.), A Treatise on Zoology. Part III. The Echinoderma. Adam & Charles Black, London.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, Part T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas Press, 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.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.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. 1974. Middle Ordovician crinoids from southwestern Virginia and eastern Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 66(283):1–125.Google Scholar
Butts, C. 1941. Geology of the Appalachian Valley in Virginia. Part II–Fossil plates and explanations. Virginia Geological Survey, Bulletin 52, 271 p.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 646 p.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1985. The Ordovician crinoid genus Caleidocrinus Waagen and Jahn, 1899. Geological Journal, 20:109–121.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1986. Pelmatozoan columnals from the Ordovician of the British Isles, Part I. Palaeontographical Society Monograph, 138(568):1–68.Google Scholar
Frest, T. J., and Strimple, H. L. 1978. Manicrinus (nov.), a cladid evolutionary homeomorph of the bottom-dwelling Hybocrinus, Brownsport (Silurian: Ludlow) of Tennessee. Southeastern Geology, 19:157–175.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1984. Echinodermata of the Middle Ordovician Lebanon Limestone, central Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 86(319), 100 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New-York. Volume I. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower Division of the New-York System. New York Natural History Survey, Albany, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1872 (preprint dated 1871). Description of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils from strata of the age of the Hudson-River Group and Trenton Limestone. New York State Museum of Natural History, Annual Report 24:205–224 (1–28, preprint).Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen. Palaeontologischen Zeitschrift, 3:1–128.Google Scholar
Jillson, W. R. 1963. Geology of the Winchester Disturbance. Perry Publishing Company, Frankfort, Kentucky, 24 p.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 59:551–560.Google Scholar
Kirk, E. 1914. Notes on the fossil crinoid genus Homocrinus Hall. United States National Museum Proceedings, 46:473–483.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7, 74 p.Google 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., 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
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
Macurda, D. B. Jr., and Meyer, D. L. 1974. Feeding posture of modern stalked crinoids. Nature, 247:394–396.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. 1873. Fossils of the Cincinnati Group. Geological Survey of Ohio, Vol. 1, Pt. 2 (Palaeontology), 175 p.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G., Neumann, A. C., and Lang, J. C. 1990. Biozonation of deep-water lithoherms and associated hardgrounds in the northeastern Straits of Florida. Palaios, 5:15–33.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. 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. 1883. The American Palaeozoic Fossils, 2nd edition, Echinodermata. Cincinnati, p. 247–334.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, Ohio, 664 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., Lane, N. G., Strimple, H. L., and Sprinkle, J. 1978. Disparida, p. T520–T564. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.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., and Laudon, L. R. 1944. Class Crinoidea, p. 137–209. In Shimer, H. W. and Shrock, R. R. (eds.), Index Fossils of North America. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, New York.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, W. H. C. 1961. A monograph on British Ordovician Crinoidea. Palaeontographical Society, Monograph 114:1–37.Google Scholar
Rozhnov, S. V. 1985. Morphology, symmetry, and systematic position of the Hybocrinida (Crinoidea). Paleontological Journal, 19:1–13. [Translation of “Individual ‘naya izmenchivost’ diskretnykh priznakov chashechki inadunatnykh krinoidey, Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal, no. 4, p. 105–109, 1983.”] 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
Slocom, A. W. 1924. New echinoderms from the Maquoketa Beds of Fayette County, Iowa. Part one. Iowa Geological Survey, Vol. 29 (Annual Reports for 1919 and 1920):320–344.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 573 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton echinoderm fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario. Canada Geological Survey Memoir 15-P:1–50.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1982. Hybocrinus . University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1:119–128.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., and Moore, R. C. 1978. Hybocrinida, p. T564–T574. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.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
Titus, R. 1989. Clinal variation in the evolution of Ectenocrinus simplex . Journal of Paleontology, 63:81–91.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1953. Classe des Crinoïdes, p. 658–773. In Piveteau, J. (ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, Tome III. Masson et Cie, Paris.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, Part T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1925. New classification of the “Heterocrinidae.” Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 138:82–101.Google Scholar
Waagen, W., and Jahn, J. 1899. Volume VII. Classe des Échinodermes. Second section: Famille des Crinoïdes. In Barrande, J., Systeme Silurien du centre de la Boheme, 7(2). Gerhard, Leipzig and Rivnac, Prague, 215 p.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1879. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Part 1, The families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Proceedings for 1879:226–378 (1–153).Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Part 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
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1886. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Part 3, Section 2. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Proceedings for 1886:64–226 (140–302, index 303–334).Google Scholar
Warn, J. M. 1975. Monocyclism vs. dicyclism: a primary schism in crinoid phylogeny. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 67:423–441.Google Scholar
Warn, J. M. 1982. Long-armed disparid inadunates. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1:77–89.Google Scholar
Warn, J. M., and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate superfamilies Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician–Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72:1–138.Google Scholar
Weaver, T. R. 1976. Adaptive strategies of disparid inadunate crinoids of the type Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician). Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 8(4):516–517.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1973. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids 1942–1968. Geological Society of America Memoir 137, 341 p.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
Zittel, K., von, A. 1879. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Band 1, Palaeozoologie, Abt. 1. R. Oldenbourg, Munich and Leipzig, 765 p.Google Scholar