Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:15:16.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phylogenetic implications of the oldest crinoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Thomas E. Guensburg
Thomas E. Guensburg*
Affiliation:
Physical Science Division, Rock Valley College, 3301 N. Mulford Road, Rockford, Illinois 61114, USA,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For many years the earliest record of the class Crinoidea was a single late Tremadocian genus. In the past decade, five crinoid genera were described from the early and middle Tremadocian, near the base of the Ordovician. Together these six genera represent a diverse assemblage with all but one expressing existing subclass apomorphies. Two of the recently described genera were initially assigned to their own order (plesion) Protocrinoida but not to a subclass. Here they are placed in the camerates based on apomorphies of the tegmen complex. Protocrinoids exhibit plesiomorphies unlike typical camerates. Two genera group with cladids, one expressing dendrocrinine apomorphies and the other cyathocrinine. One genus is placed within disparids, with iocrinid apomorphies.

Based on its ancient age and trait mosaic, the protocrinoid Titanocrinus is designated as outgroup in a phylogenetic analysis using all other Early Ordovician and select Middle Ordovician taxa as an ingroup. Character compilation and phylogenetic analysis posit early class-level plesiomorphies inherited from an unknown ancestry but lost during subsequent crinoid evolution. Class-level apomorphies also emerge, some of which were subsequently lost and others retained. Results are generally robust and consistent with earlier subdivisions of the class, but supporting lower rank reorganizations. Strong support for the camerate branch low in the crinoid tree mirrors findings of earlier workers. Cladids branch from a series of intermediate nodes and disparids nest highest. Branching of disparids from cladids could be homoplastic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , May 2012 , pp. 455 - 461
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. 1986. The crinoids of the Al Rose Formation (Early Ordovician, lnyo County, California, U.S.A). Alcheringa, 10:217–224.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1996. Crinoid plate circlet homologies. Journal of Paleontology, 70:955–964.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1998a. Origin of the Crinoidea, p. 127–132. InMooi, R. and Telford, M.(eds.), Echinoderms. San Francisco, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1998b. Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata) and suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, New Series, 9, 36 p.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1900. The echinoderms, p. 1–216. InLankester, E.R.(ed.), A Treatise on Zoology, Pt. 3. Adams and Charles Black, London.Google Scholar
Bergström, S. M., Chen, X., Guttierrez-Marco, J. C., and Dronov, A. 2009. Chronostratigraphic classification of the Ordovician System and its relations to major regional series and stages and to 13C chemostratigraphy. Lethaia, 42:97–107.Google Scholar
Carpenter, P. H. 1879. Oral and apical systems of echinoderms. Quarterly Journal of Microscopic Science, 8:351–383.Google Scholar
Clausen, S. and Smith, A. B. 2008. Stem structure and evolution in the earliest pelmatozoans. Journal of Paleontology, 82:737–748.Google Scholar
Clausen, S., Jell, P. A., Legrain, X., and Smith, A. B. 2009. Pelmatozoan arms from the middle Cambrian of Australia: Bridging the gap between brachioles and brachials? Lethaia, 42:283–296.Google Scholar
Deline, B. and Ausich, W. I. 2011. Testing the plateau: A reexamination of disparity and morphological constraints in Early Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology, 37:214–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1988. The early evolution of the Crinoidea, p. 235–244. InPaul, C.R.C. and Smith, A.B.(eds.), Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology. Liverpool Geological Society, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Forty, R. A. and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1988. Classification of the trilobite suborder Asaphina. Palaeontology, 33:529–576.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 2010. Alphacrinus new genus and the origin of the disparid clade. Journal of Paleontology, 84:1209–1216.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. and Sprinkle, J. 2003. The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician, Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system. Bulletins of American Paleontology, number 364, 43 p.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. and Sprinkle, J. 2007. Phylogenentic implications of the Protocrinoidea: Blastozoans are not ancestral to crinoids. Annales de Paleontologie, 93:277–290.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. and Sprinkle, J. 2009. Solving the mystery of crinoid ancestry: New fossil evidence of arm origin and development. Journal of Paleontology, 83:350–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., Mooi, R., Sprinkle, J., David, B., and Lefebvre, B. 2010. Pelmatozoan arms from the mid-Cambrian of Australia: Bridging the gap between brachioles and brachials? Comment: There is no bridge. Lethaia, 43:432–440.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoan. Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 3:1–128.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. M. 1986. Classification and evolution of class Crinoidea. Abstracts of the 4th North American Paleontological Convention, A4.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. M. and Ausich, W. I. 1979. A new name for the Lower Ordovician crinoid Pogocrinus Kelly and Ausich. Journal of Paleontology, 53:1433.Google Scholar
Kirk, E. 1911. The structure and relationships of certain eleutherozoan Pelmatozoa. United States National Museum, Proclamations, 41:473–483.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 46, 153 p.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. and Smith, A. B. 1984. The early radiation and phylogeny of the Echinodermata. Biology Review, 59:443–481.Google Scholar
Philip, G. M. and Strimple, H. L. 1971. An interpretation of the crinoid Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs. Journal of Paleontology, 45:491–493.Google Scholar
Rozhnov, S. V. 2002. Morphogenesis and evolution of crinoids and other pelmaozoan echinoderms in the Early Paleozoic. Journal of General Paleontology and Theoretical Aspects of Biostratigraphy, 36. Supplementary Issue 6, S525–S626.Google Scholar
Sato, A., Hibino, T., Hara, Y., Nakano, H., Amamiya, S., and Nishino, A. 2003. Stalk formation and gene expression patterns of brachyury and FoxA2 in the feather star Oxycomanthus japonicus (Echinodermata: Cinoidea). The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society of Evolutionary Studies, Japan, Fukuoka, Japan. Abstracts with programs.Google Scholar
Seeliger, O. 1892. Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Crinoiden. Zoologische Jarbuch, 6:161–444.Google Scholar
Simms, M. A. 1993. Reinterpretation of thecal plate homology and phylogeny in the Class Crinoidea. Lethaia, 26:303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B. and Zamora, S. 2009. Rooting phylogenies of problematic fossil taxa; a case study using cinctans (stem-group echinoderms). Palaeontology, 52:803–821.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1982. Hybocrinus, p. 119–128. InSprinkle, J.(ed.), Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP∗. Phylogenentic analysis using parsimony (and other methods∗). Version 4.0b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1953. Classe de Crinoïdes, Vol. 3, p. 658–773. InPiveteau, Jean(ed.), Traité de Paléontologie. Masson et Cie, Paris.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1969. Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs, n. gen., n. sp., le plus ancient crinoide dicyclique connu. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 38, 25 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Origin of crinoids, p. T275–T277. InMoore, R.C. and Teichert, C.(eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2(1). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. and Springer, F. 1879. Transition forms in crinoids, and descriptions of five new Species. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, Proclamations for 1878, p. 224–266.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Paleocrinoidae, Pt. 3, Section 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusions of the generic descriptions. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, proceedings, p. 223–364.Google Scholar
Webby, B. D., Cooper, R. A., Bergström, S. M., and Parks, F. 2004. Stratigraphic framework and time slices, p. 41–47. InWebby, B.D., Paris, F., Droser, M.I., and Pecival, I.G.(eds.), The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Yakovlev, N. N. 1918. New data on the genus Cryptocrinus and the connection between the Crinoidea and Cystoidea. Russian Paleontological Society, Annals, 2:7–26.Google Scholar
Zamora, S. and Smith, A. B. 2012. Cambrian echinoderms show unexpected plasticity of arm construction. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences B, Vol. 279, 1727:293–298.Google Scholar