Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:21:15.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symbiotic embedment structures in Silurian Caryocrinites (Echinodermata, Rhombifera, Hemicosmitida)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2020

James R. Thomka Open the ORCID record for James R. Thomka [Opens in a new window] ,
Carlton E. Brett  and
Donald L. Bissett
James R. Thomka
Affiliation:
Center for Earth and Environmental Science, State University of New York at Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, New York12901, USA
Carlton E. Brett
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio45221, USA
Donald L. Bissett
Affiliation:
Dry Dredgers, P.O. Box 210013, Cincinnati, Ohio45221, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A variety of pits representing symbiotic embedments, sometimes associated with pathological deformation in the host, are known from the skeletons of Paleozoic stalked echinoderms. These structures are well known from multiple genera of crinoids and a limited number of blastozoans but have not previously been described in detail from the skeletons of rhombiferans. This is surprising given the abundance of rhombiferans in certain deposits, the co-occurrence of rhombiferans with frequently infested taxa, including diploporitans, in multiple assemblages, and the morphological similarity between certain rhombiferan taxa and coeval infested crinoids. The common hemicosmitid rhombiferan Caryocrinites Say, 1825 is widespread throughout the middle Silurian of eastern North America and is herein reported to contain symbiotic (potentially parasitic) embedment structures. Specimens were collected from the lower portion of the mudstone lithofacies of the Massie Formation (Wenlock, Sheinwoodian) at the Napoleon quarry of southeastern Indiana, USA. Strong host specificity is indicated by the absence of pits in C. ornatus Say, 1825 and exclusive infestation of a smaller co-occurring species of Caryocrinites. Thecae with embedment structures are consistently smaller than thecae without such structures, with pitted specimens being restricted to a narrow range of thecal heights (20–24 mm). All embedment structures are present only on the proximal portion of thecae, with individual specimens containing between one and 30 pits. No elevated rims or significant swelling were observed on any specimens, and all pits are relatively small (~1 mm in diameter). The presence of symbiotic embedment structures represents an additional example of a crinoid-like aspect to the ecology of Caryocrinites.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , March 2021 , pp. 320 - 326
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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

Baumiller, T.K., 2003, Evaluating the interaction between platyceratid gastropods and crinoids: a cost-benefit approach: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 201, p. 199–209.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T.K., and Gahn, F.J., 2002, Fossil record of parasitism on marine invertebrates with special emphasis on the platyceratid–crinoid interaction, in Kowalewski, M., and Kelley, P.H., eds., Fossil Record of Predation: Paleontological Society Special Papers 8, p. 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T.K., and Gahn, F.J., 2018, The nature of the platyceratid–crinoid association as revealed by cross-sectional data from the Carboniferous of Alabama (USA): Swiss Journal of Palaeontology, v. 137, p. 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1978a, Systematics and paleoecology of late Silurian (Wenlockian) pelmatozoan echinoderms from western New York and Ontario [Ph.D. dissertation]: Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 603 p.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1978b, Host-specific pit-forming epizoans on Silurian crinoids: Lethaia, v. 11, p. 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1978c, Attachment structures in the rhombiferan cystoid Caryocrinites and their paleobiological implications: Journal of Paleontology, v. 52, p. 717–726.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1981, Terminology and functional morphology of attachment structures in pelmatozoan echinoderms: Lethaia, v. 14, p. 343–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1984, Autecology of Silurian pelmatozoan echinoderms, in Bassett, M.G., and Lawson, J.D., eds., Autecology of Silurian Organisms: Special Papers in Palaeontology 32, p. 87–120.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1985, Tremichnus: a new ichnogenus of circular-parabolic pits in fossil echinoderms: Journal of Paleontology, v. 59, p. 625–635.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E., Cramer, B.D., McLaughlin, P.I., Kleffner, M.A., Showers, W.J., and Thomka, J.R., 2012, Revised Telychian-Sheinwoodian (Silurian) stratigraphy of the Laurentian mid-continent: building uniform nomenclature along the Cincinnati Arch: Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 87, p. 733–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C.E., Thomka, J.R., and Bissett, D.L., 2018, Improving echinoderm biodiversity calculations and interpretations of paleoecology through analysis of disarticulated stem material: a Silurian example: Abstracts of the 5th International Palaeontological Congress, p. 527.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1981, Concepts in ichnology illustrated by small round holes in shells: Acta Geológica Hispánica, v. 16, p. 55–64.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 2004, A stratigraphy of marine bioerosion, in McIlroy, D., ed., The Application of Ichnology to Palaeoenvironmental and Stratigraphic Analysis: Geological Society of London Special Publication 228, p. 455–479.Google Scholar
Donovan, S.K., 1991, Site selectivity of a lower Carboniferous boring organism infesting a crinoid: Geological Journal, v. 26, p. 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., 2015, A prejudiced review of ancient parasites and their host echinoderms: CSI fossil record or just an excuse for speculation?: Advances in Parasitology, v. 90, p. 291–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donovan, S.K., 2017, A plea not to ignore ichnotaxonomy: recognizing and recording Oichnus Bromley: Swiss Journal of Palaeontology, v. 136, p. 369–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., and Pickerill, R.K., 2002, Pattern versus process or informative versus uninformative ichnotaxonomy: reply to Todd and Palmer: Ichnos, v. 9, p. 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., and Pickerill, R.K., 2017, The invalidity of the trace fossil Tremichnus Brett: Geological Journal, v. 52, p. 828–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., Lewis, D.N., and Kabrna, P., 2006, A dense epizoobiontic infestation of a lower Carboniferous crinoid (Amphoracrinus gilbertsoni (Phillips)) by Oichnus paraboloides Bromley: Ichnos, v. 13, p. 43–45.Google Scholar
Eckert, J.D., 1988, The ichnogenus Tremichnus in the lower Silurian of western New York: Lethaia, v. 21, p. 281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, J.D., and Brett, C.E., 2001, Early Silurian (Llandovery) crinoids from the lower Clinton Group, western New York state: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 360, 88 p.Google Scholar
Foerste, A.F., 1897, A report on the middle and upper Silurian rocks of Clark, Jefferson, Ripley, Jennings, and southern Decatur counties, Indiana: Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources Annual Report, v. 21, p. 213–288.Google Scholar
Franzén, C., 1974, Epizoans on Silurian–Devonian crinoids: Lethaia, v. 7, p. 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frest, T.J., Mikulic, D.G., and Paul, C.R.C., 1977, New information on the Holocystites fauna (Diploporita) of the middle Silurian of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana: Fieldiana: Geology, v. 35, p. 83–108.Google Scholar
Frest, T.J., Brett, C.E., and Witzke, B.J., 1999, Caradocian to Gedinnian echinoderm associations of central and eastern North America, in Boucot, A.J., and Lawson, J.D., eds., Paleocommunities: A Case Study from the Silurian and Lower Devonian: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 638–783.Google Scholar
Frest, T.J., Strimple, H.L., and Paul, C.R.C., 2011, The North American Holocystites fauna (Echinodermata, Blastozoa: Diploporita): paleobiology and systematics: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 380, 141 p.Google Scholar
Kluessendorf, J., 1983, Observations on the commensalism of Silurian platyceratid gastropods and stalked echinoderms: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, v. 71, p. 48–55.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, P.I., Cramer, B.D., Brett, C.E., and Kleffner, M.A., 2008, Silurian high-resolution stratigraphy on the Cincinnati Arch: progress on recalibrating the layer-cake, in Maria, A.H., and Counts, R.C., eds., From the Cincinnati Arch to the Illinois Basin: Geological Field Excursions along the Ohio River Valley: Geological Society of America Field Guide 12, p. 119–180.Google Scholar
Moodie, R.L., 1918, On the parasitism of Carboniferous crinoids: Journal of Parasitology, v. 4, p. 174–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, A.H., 1977, Zur Ichnologie der subherzynen Oberkreide (Campan): Zeitschrift für Geologische Wissenschafter, Berlin, v. 5, p. 881–897.Google Scholar
Paul, C.R.C., 1971, Revision of the Holocystites fauna (Diploporita) of North America: Fieldiana: Geology, v. 24, 166 p.Google Scholar
Pickerill, R.K., and Donovan, S.K., 1998, Ichnology of the Pliocene Bowden shell bed, southeast Jamaica: Contributions to Tertiary and Quaternary Geology, v. 35, p. 161–175.Google Scholar
Rollins, H.B., and Brezinski, D.K., 1988, Reinterpretation of crinoid–platyceratid interaction: Lethaia, v. 21, p. 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozhnov, S.V., 1989, New data on rhipidocystids (Eocrinoidea), in Semenova, V., ed., Fossil and Recent Echinoderm Researches: Tallinn, Akademiya Nauk, Estonskoi SSR, Institut Geologii, p. 38–57.Google Scholar
Say, T., 1825, On two genera and several species of Crinoidea: Journal of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, v. 4, p. 289–296.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., 1973, Morphology and Evolution of Blastozoan Echinoderms: Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology Special Publication, 283 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprinkle, J., 1975, The “arms” of Caryocrinites, a rhombiferan cystoid convergent on camerate crinoids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 49, p. 1062–1073.Google Scholar
Thomka, J.R., and Brett, C.E., 2014a, Diploporite (Echinodermata, Blastozoa) thecal attachment structures from the Silurian of southeastern Indiana: Journal of Paleontology, v. 88, p. 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomka, J.R., and Brett, C.E., 2014b, Taphonomy of diploporite (Echinodermata) holdfasts from a Silurian hardground, southeastern Indiana, United States: Palaeoecologic and stratigraphic significance: Geological Magazine, v. 151, p. 649–665.Google Scholar
Thomka, J.R., and Brett, C.E., 2015a, Paleoecology of pelmatozoan attachment structures from a hardground surface in the middle Silurian Massie Formation, southeastern Indiana: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 420, p. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomka, J.R., and Brett, C.E., 2015b, Palaeontological and sedimentological effects of micro-bioherms in the middle Silurian Massie Formation of southeastern Indiana, USA: Lethaia, v. 48, p. 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomka, J.R., Brett, C.E., Bantel, T.E., Young, A.L., and Bissett, D.L., 2016, Taphonomy of ‘cystoids’ (Echinodermata: Diploporita) from the Napoleon quarry of southeastern Indiana, USA: the lower Silurian Massie Formation as an atypical Lagerstätte: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 443, p. 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinn, O., Wilson, M.A., Ausich, W.I., and Toom, U., 2015, Tremichnus in crinoid pluricolumnals from the Silurian of western Estonia: Carnets de Geologie, v. 15, p. 239–243.Google Scholar
von Buch, L., 1840, Über Sphaeroniten und einige andere Geschlechter, aus welchen Crinoideen enstehen: Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Verhandlungen 1840, p. 56–60.Google Scholar
Widdison, R.E., 2001, Symbiosis in crinoids from the Wenlock of Britain, in Barker, M., ed., Echinoderms 2000: Rotterdam, A. A. Balkema, p. 139–143.Google Scholar
Wisshak, M., Kroh, A., Bertling, M., Knaust, D., Nielsen, J.K., Jagt, J.W.M., Neumann, C., and Nielsen, K.S.S., 2015, In defence of an iconic ichnogenus—Oichnus Bromley, 1981: Annales Societatis Geologorum Poloniae, v. 85, p. 445–451.Google Scholar
Zapalski, M.K., 2011, Is absence of proof a proof of absence? Comments on commensalism: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 302, p. 484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, J.-P., and Gingras, M.K., 2014, Sedilichnus, Oichnus, and Tremichnus: ‘small round holes in shells’ revisited: Journal of Paleontology, v. 88, p. 895–905.Google Scholar