Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-7l9ct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T12:39:47.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxonomy and taphonomy of late Eocene decapod crustaceans from the Tomášovce Member, Borové Formation (Slovakia, Western Carpathians)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2025

Matúš Hyžný Open the ORCID record for Matúš Hyžný [Opens in a new window]  and
Adam Heteš
Matúš Hyžný*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Paleontology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia
Adam Heteš
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Paleontology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Corresponding author: Matúš Hyžný Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A late Eocene (Priabonian) decapod crustacean (Arthropoda: Malacostraca: Decapoda) faunule from the sandstones and siltstones of the Tomášovce Member (Borové Formation) of northern Slovakia (Western Carpathians) is presented. Several decades of collecting at the Ďurkovec quarry in the Spišská Nová Ves district, the stratotype locality of the Tomášovce Member, yielded four decapod species, including an axiidean shrimp Ctenocheles sp. indet. (Ctenochelidae), and three brachyuran crabs Amphoranina hazslinszkyi (Reuss, 1859) new combination (Raninidae), Calappilia tridentata (Beurlen, 1939) (Calappidae), and Coeloma vigil A. Milne-Edwards, 1865 (Polybiidae). The faunule is dominated by A. hazslinszkyi and Coeloma vigil. The specimens often represent more-or-less intact individuals with preserved claws and walking legs, suggesting rapid burial and minimal to no postmortem transport. Additionally, specimens of A. hazslinszkyi are in some cases preserved perpendicularly to the bedding planes and interpreted as being covered by large amount of sediment while being buried in the substrate, causing death of the animals. The presence of trace fossils assigned to Thalassinoides Ehrenberg, 1944 are indirectly linked with the burrowing shrimp Ctenocheles sp. indet. The decapod faunule inhabited a shallow marine environment with the depth likely not exceeding 100 m.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , First View , pp. 1 - 10
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Guest Editor: Adiel Klompmaker

References

Beurlen, K., 1939, Neue Decapoden-Krebse aus dem ungarischen Tertiär: Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 21, p. 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, G.A., 1986, Taphonomy of the North American decapods: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 6, p. 326–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G., and Frey, R.W., 1974, Redescription of the trace fossil Gyrolithes and taxonomic evaluation of Thalassinoides, Ophiomorpha and Spongeliomorpha: Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, v. 23, p. 311–335.Google Scholar
Busulini, A., Beschin, C., and Tessier, G., 2014, A re-evaluation of extinct European crabs referred to the genus Calappilia A. Milne Edwards in Bouillé, 1873 (Brachyura, Calappidae), in Fraaije, R.H.B., Hyžný, M., Jagt, J.W.M., Krobicki, M., and Van Bakel, B.W.M., eds., Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Mesozoic and Cenozoic Decapod Crustaceans, Krakow, Poland, 2013, A tribute to Pál Mihály Müller: Scripta Geologica, v. 147, p. 193–219.Google Scholar
De Angeli, A., and Garassino, A., 2006, Catalog and bibliography of the fossil Stomatopoda and Decapoda from Italy: Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, v. 35, no. 1, p. 3–95.Google Scholar
De Haan, W., 1833–1850, Crustacea, in Siebold, P.F. von, ed., Fauna Japonica sive Descriptio Animalium, Quae in Itinere per Japoniam, Jussu et Auspiciis Superiorum, qui Summum in India Batava Imperium Tenent, Suscepto, Annis 1823–1830 Collegit, Noitis, Observationibus et Adumbrationibus Illustravit: Leiden, Lugduni-Batavorum, p. i–xvii, i–xxxi, ix–xvi, 1–243, pls. A–J, L–Q, 1–55, circ. table 2.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, K., 1944, Ergänzende Bemerkungen zu den seinerzeit aus dem Miozän von Burgschleinitz beschriebenen Gangkernen und Bauten dekapoder Krebse: Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 23, p. 354–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldmann, R.M., and Schweitzer, C.E., 2007, Sexual dimorphism in extinct and extant Raninidae (Decapoda: Brachyura): Carnegie Museum of Natural History, v. 76, p. 39–52, https://doi.org/10.2992/0097-4463(2007)76[39:SDIEAE]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
Filo, I., and Siráňová, Z., 1996, Tomášovské vrstvy—nová litostratigrafická jednotka podtatranskej skupiny [A new lithostratigraphic unit of the Subtatric Group]: Geologické Práce, Správy, v. 102, p. 41–49. (in Slovak with English summary)Google Scholar
Gingras, M.K., Dashtgard, S.E., MacEachern, J.A., and Pemberton, S.G., 2008, Biology of shallow marine ichnology: a modern perspective: Aquatic Biology, v. 2, p. 255–268, https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1929, Crustacea Decapoda, in Pompeckj, F.J., ed., Fossilium Catalogus, 1, Animalia, v. 41: Berlin, W. Junk, 464 p.Google Scholar
Gross, P., 2008, Litostratigrafia Západných Karpát: Paleogén—Podtatranská Skupina [Lithostratigraphy of Western Carpathians: Paleogene—Podtatranská Group]: Štátny Geologický Ústav Dionýza Štúra, Bratislava, p. 63. (in Slovak with English abstract)Google Scholar
Gross, P., Köhler, E., and Samuel, O., 1984, Nové litostratigrafické členenie vnútrokarpatského paleogénu [A new lithostratigraphical division of the Inner-Carpathian Paleogene]: Geologické Práce, Správy, v. 81, p. 103–117. (in Slovak with English summary)Google Scholar
Gross, P., Buček, S., Ďurkovič, T., Filo, I., Maglay, J., et al., 1999, Vysvetlivky ku geologickej mape Popradskej kotliny, Hornádskej kotliny, levočských vrchov, Spišsko-Šarišského medzihoria, Bachurne a Šarišskej vrchoviny, 1:50,000: Geologická Služba Slovenskej Republiky, Vydavateľstvo Dionýza Štúra, Bratislava, 240 p.Google Scholar
Hazslinszky, F., 1859, Beitrag zur Kenntniss des Karpathen-Sandsteines: Verhandlungen des Vereins für Naturkunde zu Presburg, v. 4, p. 111–116.Google Scholar
Holec, P., Krempaská, Z., and Pomorský, F., 2005, Zub žraloka druhu Xiphodolamia eocaena (Woodward, 1889) v lome Ďurkovec pri Spišských Tomášovciach (Slovensko) [Shark tooth of species Xiphodolamia eocaena (Woodward, 1889) from Ďurkovec stone quarry near Spišské Tomášovce (Slovakia)]: Mineralia Slovaca, v. 37, p. 83–86. (in Slovak with English abstract)Google Scholar
Hyžný, M., 2007, Paleogene crab fauna of Borové Formation (localities Ďurkovec and Hlinisko), Western Carpathians, Slovakia, in Garassino, A., Feldmann, R.M., and Teruzzi, G., eds., Third Symposium on Mesozoic and Cenozoic Decapod Crustaceans, Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano: Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, v. 35, no. 2, p. 59–61.Google Scholar
Hyžný, M., 2011, Synopsis of fossil decapod crustaceans from Slovakia (Western Carpathians): Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, v. 260, p. 165–171, https://doi.org/10.1127/0077-7749/2011/0164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyžný, M., and Dulai, A., 2014, Deep-water fossorial shrimps from the Oligocen Kiscell Clay of Hungary: taxonomy and palaeoecology: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 59, p. 947–965, https://doi.org/10.4202/app.2012.0078.Google ScholarPubMed
Hyžný, M., and Zágoršek, K., 2012, The Priabonian bryozoan-decapod association from the Borové Formation (the Ďurkovec quarry, NE Slovakia) and its palaeoecological implications: Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, ser. B, Historia Naturalis, v. 68, p. 15–22.Google Scholar
Hyžný, M., and Zorn, I., 2020, A catalogue of the fossil decapod crustaceans in the collections of the Geological Survey of Austria in Vienna: Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, v. 74, p. 1–111.Google Scholar
Hyžný, M., Krempaská, Z., and Heteš, A., 2018, Ďurkovské kraby: fosílne desaťnožce (Malacostraca: Decapoda) tomášovských vrstiev borovského súvrstvia (priabón) v zbierkovom fonde Múzea Spiša [Crabs of Ďurkovec: fossil decapod crustaceans (Malacostraca: Decapoda) of the Tomášovce Member, Borové Formation (Priabonian), deposited in the Museum of Spiš]: Vlastivedný Zborník Spiš, v. 9, p. 336–347.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., van Bakel, B.W.M., and Fraaije, R.H.B., 2010, Coeloma rupeliense (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura) from the Bilzen Formation (Rupel Group, lower Oligocene) in northeast Belgium: Bulletin de l'Institut Rroyal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre, v. 80, p. 245–252.Google Scholar
Kishinouye, K., 1926, Two rare and remarkable forms of macrurous Crustacea from Japan: Annotationes Zoologicae Japonenses, v. 11, p. 63–70.Google Scholar
Klompmaker, A.A., Portell, R.W., and Frick, M.G., 2017, Comparative experimental taphonomy of eight marine arthropods indicates distinct differences in preservation potential: Palaeontology, v. 60, p. 773–794, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klompmaker, A.A., Hyžný, M., Portell, R.W., Jauvion, C., Charbonnier, S., Fussell, S.S., Klier, A.T., Tejera, R., and Jakobsen, S., 2019, Muscles and muscle scars in fossil malacostracan crustaceans: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 194, p. 306–326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krempaská, Z., 1998, Niektoré výsledky geologického a paleontologického výskumu v lome Ďurkovec v Slovenskom raji: Natura Carpatica, v. 39, p. 27–32. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
Lamarck, J.B.P.A., 1801, Système des Animaux sans Vertébrés, ou Tableau General des Classes, des Orders et des Genres de ces Animaux; Présentant leurs Caractères Essentiels et leurs Distribution, d'Après la Consideration de leurs Rapports Naturels et de leur Organization, et Suivant l'Arrangement Établi dans les Galleries du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, parmi leurs Dépouilles Conserves; Précédé du Discours d'Ouverture du Cours de Zoologie, donné dans le Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle l'an 8 de la Republique: Paris, Déterville, 432 p.Google Scholar
Latreille, P.A., 1802, Histoire Naturelle, Générale et Particulière des Crustacés et des Insectes; Ouvrage Faisant Suite à l'Histoire Naturelle Générale et Particulière, Composée par Leclerc de Buffon, et Rédigée par C.S. Sonnini, Membre de Plusieurs Sociétés Savantes: Familles Naturelles des Genres, Volume 3: Paris, F. DuFart, 467 p.Google Scholar
Lőrenthey, E., and Beurlen, K., 1929, Die fossilen Dekapoden der Länder der Ungarischen Krone: Geologica Hungarica, Series Palaeontologica, v. 3, p. 1–421.Google Scholar
Manning, R.B., and Felder, D.L., 1991, Revision of the American Callianassidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Thalassinidea): Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, v. 104, p. 764–792.Google Scholar
Milne-Edwards, A., 1865, Monographie des Crustacés Fossiles de la Famille des Canceriens: Annales des Sciences Naturelles, sér. 5, v. 3, p. 297–351.Google Scholar
Milne-Edwards, A., 1873, in Bouillé, R. de, Compte de Paléontologie de Biarritz et de Quelques Autres Localités des Basses-Pyrénées: Compte Rendu des Travaux du Congrès Scientifique de France, 39th session a Pau: Imprimerie et Lithographie V. Vignancour, Pau, France, p. 35.Google Scholar
Münster, G. von, 1840, Ueber ein neues Brachyurengenus in der teriären Formationen des nordwestlichen Deutschlands: Beiträge zur Petrefactenkunde, v. 3, p. 1–24.Google Scholar
Mutel, M.H.E., Waugh, D.A., Feldmann, R.M., and Parsons-Hubbard, K.M., 2008, Experimental taphonomy of Callinectes sapidus and cuticular controls on preservation: Palaios, v. 23, p. 615–623, https://doi.org/10.2110/palo.2008.p08-024r.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, H.A., 1873, Contributions to the study of the errant annelids of the older Palaeozoic rocks: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, v. 21, p. 288–290.Google Scholar
Nyborg, T., Pasini, G., Garassino, A., van Bakel, B.W.M., Vega, F.J., and Nyborg, B., 2020, A new fossil frog crab (Brachyura, Raninoidea) from the Paleogene of northeastern Pacific: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, v. 298, p. 87–101, https://doi.org/10.1127/njgpa/2020/0936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A., 1893, Die Decapoden-Krebse des Strassburger Museums, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der von Herrn Dr. Döderlein bei Japan und bei den Liu-Kiu-Inseln gesammelten und zur Zeit im Strassburger Museum aufbewahrten Formen, 6 Theil, Abtheilung: Brachyura (Brachyura genuina Boas), 1, Unterabtheilung: Majoidea und Cancroidea, 1, Section Portuninea: Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abtheilung für Systematik, Geographie, und Biologie der Thiere, v. 7, no. 1, p. 23–88, pl. 3.Google Scholar
Pasini, G., and Garassino, A., 2017, A preliminary review of the fossil species of Ranina Lamarck, 1801 (Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninidae), with systematic remarks: Natural History Sciences, Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, v. 4, p. 87–96, https://doi.org/10.4081/nhs.2017.310.Google Scholar
Plotnick, R.E., 1986, Taphonomy of a modern shrimp: implications for the arthropod fossil record: Palaios, v. 1, p. 286–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnick, R., Baumiller, T., and Wetmore, K.L., 1988, Fossilization potential of the mud crab, Panopeus (Brachyura: Xanthidae) and temporal variability in crustacean taphonomy: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 63, p. 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, A.W.B., 1949, New species of Crustacea from New Zealand of the genera Scyllarus and Ctenocheles with notes on Lyreidus tridentatus: Record of the Auckland Institute and Museum, v. 3, p. 368–371.Google Scholar
Quatrefages, A. de, 1849, Note sur la Scolicia prisca (A. de Q.) annélide fossile de la Craie: Annales des Sciences Naturelles, ser. 3, Zoologie, v. 12, p. 265–266.Google Scholar
Rafinesque, C.S., 1815, Analyse de la Nature ou Tableau de l'Univers et des Corps Organisés: Palermo, published by the author, 224 p.Google Scholar
Reuss, A.E., 1859, Zur Kenntnis fossiler Krabben: Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, v. 17, p. 1–89.Google Scholar
Saint Laurent, M. de, 1979, Vers une nouvelle classification des Crustacés Décapodes Reptantia: Bulletin de l'Office Nationale de Pêche de Tunisie, v. 3, p. 15–31.Google Scholar
Schäfer, W., 1951, Fossilisations-Bedingungen brachyurer Krebse: Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesselschaft, v. 485, p. 221–238.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C.E., Feldmann, R.M., Garassino, A., Karasawa, H., and Schweigert, G., 2010, Systematic list of fossil decapod crustacean species: Crustaceana Monographs, v. 10, p. 1–222, https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004178915.i-222.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C.E., Feldmann, R.M., and Karasawa, H., 2021, Systematic descriptions: Superfamily Portunoidea, in Treatise [on Invertebrate Paleontology] Online, Part R (Revised), Volume 1, Chapter 8T15: Lawrence, Kansas, The Paleontological Institute, v. 151, 40 p., https://doi.org/10.17161/to.vi.15392.Google Scholar
Skinner, D.G., and Hill, B.J., 1986, Catch rate and emergence of male and female spanner crabs (Ranina ranina) in Australia: Marine Biology, v. 91, p. 461–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar