Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:20:21.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphometric investigation of the Pentremites fauna from the Glen Dean Formation, Kentucky

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

James W. Atwood  and
Colin D. Sumrall
James W. Atwood
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA,
Colin D. Sumrall
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New techniques involving three-dimensional (3D) data collection and landmark analysis provide an opportunity to make considerable advances in understanding blastoid morphology. This pilot study examines four species (Pentremites pyriformis, P. tulipaformis, P. fredericki n. sp. and P. meganae n. sp.) using 3D morphological variation and geometric morphometrics to discriminate between species. All specimens were collected from a single shale unit within the Upper Mississippian Glen Dean Formation near Hopkinsville, Kentucky. A 3D laser scanner was used to acquire 3D images for all specimens. Conservative blastoid thecal plating allowed the collection of 3D coordinates for a series of homologous landmarks from these laser images that fully describe specimen morphology. Data were analyzed using the R (language and environment for statistical computing and graphics) packages SHAPES and MCLUST. Mixture modeling identified and separated all four species based on shape alone. In addition, three new species were discovered during this study, including: Pentremites fredericki, P. meganae and Diploblastus fadigai.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , September 2012 , pp. 813 - 828
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

Adrain, J. M. and Westrop, S. R. 2006. New earliest Ordovician trilobite genus Millardicurus: the oldest known hystricurid. Journal of Paleontology, 80:650–671.Google Scholar
Anderson, F. E., Pilsits, A., Clutts, S., Laptikhovsky, V., Bello, G., Balguerias, E., Lipinski, M., Nigmatulin, C., Pereira, J. M. F., Piatkowski, U., Robin, J. P., Salman, A., and Tasende, M. G. 2008. Systematics of Alloteuthis (cephalopoda:loliginidae) based on molecular and morphometric data. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 364:99–109.Google Scholar
Beaver, H. H., Fay, R. O., Macurda, D. B. Jr., Moore, R. C., Ubaghs, G., and Wanner, J. 1967. Blastoids, p. S298–S445. InMoore, R. C.(ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part S, Echinodermata 1 (Vol. 2). The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, New York and Lawrence.Google Scholar
Beaver, H. H. and Fabian, A. J. 1998. Color patterns in Mississippian (Chesterian) blastoids. Journal of Paleontology, 72:332–338.Google Scholar
Beaver, H. H., Fabian, A. J., and Palatas, M. 2000. Summit structures in Mississippian blastoids. Journal of Paleontology, 74:247–253.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–435.Google Scholar
Butts, C. 1917. Descriptions and correlations of the Mississippian formations of western Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey, Frankfort, 7–119.Google Scholar
Cignoni, P., Corsini, M., and Ranzuglia, G. 2008. MeshLab: an open-source 3D mesh processing system. ERCIM News, 73:47–48.Google Scholar
Dexter, T. A., Sumrall, C. D., and Mckinney, M. L. 2009. Allometric strategies for increasing respiratory surface area in the Mississippian blastoid Pentremites. Lethaia, 42:127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, I. L. 2007. Shapes: Statistical Shape Analysis. R Package Version 1.1-1., http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/∼ild/shapes.Google Scholar
Fay, R. 1961. The type of Pentremites Say. Journal of Paleontology, 35:868–873.Google Scholar
Fay, R. O. 1964. An outline classification of the blastoidea. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 24:81–90.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: The blastoid record and stochastic simulations. University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology, Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, 28:101–140.Google Scholar
Fraley, C. and Raftery, A. E. 2002. Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97:611–631.Google Scholar
Frost, S. R., Marcus, L. F., Bookstein, F. L., Reddy, D. P., and Delson, E. 2003. Cranial allometry, phylogeography, and systematics of large-bodied papionins (primates: Cercopithecinae) inferred from geometric morphometric analysis of landmark data. The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, 275A:1048–1072.Google Scholar
Galloway, J. J. and Kaska, H. V. 1957. Genus Pentremites and its species. The Geological Society of America Memoir, 69:1–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambach, G. 1903. A revision of the blastoidea, with a proposed new classification and description of new species. St. Louis Academy of Science, Transactions, 13:1–67.Google Scholar
Hollander, J., Adams, D. C., and Johannesson, K. 2006. Evolution of adaptation through allometric shifts in a marine snail. Evolution, 60:2490–2497.Google Scholar
Katz, S. G. and Sprinkle, J. 1976. Fossilized eggs in a Pennsylvanian blastoid. Science, 192:1137–1139.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr., 1980. Abnormalities of the carboniferous blastoid Pentremites. Journal of Paleontology, 54:1155–1162.Google Scholar
Mitteroecker, P. and Gunz, P. 2009. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evolutionary Biology, 36:235–247.Google Scholar
Nelson, W. J., Smith, L. B. S and Treworgy, J. D. 2002. Sequence stratigraphy of the lower Chesterian (Mississippian) strata of the Illinois basin. Illinois State Geological Survey circular, 107:1–70.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. d. 1852. Cours elémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphiques. Mason, Paris, 1–841.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1820. Observations on some species of zoöphytes, shells principally fossil. American Journal of Science, 2:34–45.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1825. On two genera and several species of crinoidea. Journal of the Academy of Natural Science Philadelphia, 1st Series, 4:289–296.Google Scholar
Slice, D. E. 2007. Geometric morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36:261–281.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., Horowitz, A. S., and Macurda, D. B. 1985. Ontogeny and phylogeny of the Carboniferous blastoid Pentremites. Journal of Paleontology, 59:701–712.Google Scholar
Webber, A. J. and Hunda, B. R. 2007. Quantitatively comparing morphological trends to environment in the fossil record (Cincinnatian Series; Upper Ordovician). Evolution, 61:1455–1465.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L. and Carmichael, A. C. 1989. Ontogenetic variation in patterns of developmental and functional-integration in skulls of Sigmodon fulviventer. Evolution, 43:814–824.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, D. H., and Fink, W. L. 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists. Elsevier Academic Press U.S.A., San Diego.Google Scholar