Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:18:12.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Terquemia (Dentiterquemia) eudesdeslongchampsi new subgenus and species, an interesting cementing bivalve from the Lower Jurassic of the western Carpathians (Slovakia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

M. Hautmann  and
M. Golej
M. Hautmann
Affiliation:
1Institut für Paläontologie, Pleicherwall 1, D-97070 Würzburg, Germany,
M. Golej
Affiliation:
2Prírodovedecká fakulta, Katedra geológie a paleontológie, Univerzita Komenského, Mlynská dolina, Bratislava 842 15, Slovakia,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on well-preserved material from the Sinemurian of the western Carpathians, the new subgenus Terquemia (Dentiterquemia) is proposed, which is presently represented only by its type species T. (Dentiterquemia) eudesdeslongchampsi n. sp. Dentiterquemia is separated from Terquemia sensu stricto by a series of denticles along the hinge margin and corresponding, chevronlike ridges on the ligament area. The combination of hinge teeth with a cementing habit is interpreted as a defense strategy inhibiting torsion of the valves as well as manipulation of the animal as a whole. Whereas different kinds of articulating hinge structures evolved independently in several clades of early Mesozoic cementing bivalves, Paleozoic cementing bivalves generally lack such structures. It is proposed that this difference reflects an early Mesozoic proliferation of durophagous predators and therefore points to a beginning of the “Mesozoic marine revolution” soon after the end-Permian mass extinction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 6 , November 2004 , pp. 1086 - 1090
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

Bayle, É. 1878. Fossiles principaux des terrains. Explication de la carte géologique de la France, 4, atlas, pls. 1–158.Google Scholar
Beurlen, K. 1944. Beiträge zur Stammesgeschichte der Muscheln. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1–2:133–145.Google Scholar
Bittner, A. 1901. Lamellibranchiaten aus der Trias des Bakonyer Waldes. Resultate der wissenschaftlichen Erforschung des Balatonsees. Anhang: Palaeontologie der Umgebung des Balatonsees, 2(3):1–107.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B., and Guensburg, T. E. 1994. Predation by the Ordovician asteroid Promopalaeaster on a pelecypod. Lethaia, 27:235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. M. 1968. On the biology and palaeontology of some predators of bivalved Mollusca. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 4:29–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, L. R. 1969. Family Terquemiidae Cox, 1964, p. N380–N382. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part N, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
de Koninck, L. G. 1885. Faune du Calcaire Carbonifère de la Belgique.—Cinquième partie, Lamellibranches. Annales de la Musée Royal de Histoire Naturelle Belgique, 11:1–283.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K., and Gale, A. S. 1990. Predatory asteroids and the decline of the articulate brachiopods. Lethaia, 23:77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Orbigny, A. 1842–1851. Paléontologie françhise. Terrains jurassiques. Tome I. Céphalopodes. Masson, Paris, 642 p.Google Scholar
Eudes-Deslongchamps, M. 1860. Essai sur les plicatules fossiles des terrains du Calvados et sur quelques autres genres voisins ou démembrés de ces coquilles. Memoires de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, 11:1–164.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Jablonski, D. 1984. Late Triassic Naticid drillholes: carnivorous gastropods gain a major adaptation but fail to radiate. Science, 224:78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. E. 1858. On Carpenteria and Dujardinia, two genera of a new form of Protozoa with attached multilocular shells filled with sponge, apparently intermediate between Rhizopoda and Porifera. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 26:266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, E. M. 1991. The role of predation in the evolution of cementation in bivalves. Palaeontology, 34(2):455–460.Google Scholar
Harper, E. M., Forsythe, G. T., and Palmer, T. 1998. Taphonomy and the Mesozoic marine revolution: preservation state masks the importance of boring predators. Palaios, 13:352–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hautmann, M. 2001a. Taxonomy and phylogeny of cementing Triassic Bivalves (Families Prospondylidae, Plicatulidae, Dimyidae and Ostreidae). Palaeontology, 44(2):339–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hautmann, M. 2001b. Die Muschelfauna der Nayband-Formation (Obertrias, Nor-Rhät) des östlichen Zentraliran. Beringeria, 29:1–181.Google Scholar
Hautmann, M. 2004. Early Mesozoic evolution of alivincular bivalve ligaments and its implications for the timing of the “Mesozoic marine revolution.” Lethaia, 37:165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertlein, L. G. 1952. Newaagia, a new name for Philippiella Waagen. Journal of Paleontology, 26:275.Google Scholar
Jux, U., and Omara, S. 1983. Pachypteria sinaitica n. sp.—eine aufgewachsene austernähnliche Muschel aus dem Unterkarbon Ägyptens. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 57:79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tomus I (tenth edition). Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm, 824 p.Google Scholar
McRoberts, C. A. 2001. Triassic bivalves and the initial marine Mesozoic revolution: A role for predators? Geology, 29(4):359–362.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRoberts, C. A., and Blodgett, R. B. 2002. Late Triassic (Norian) mollusks from the Taylor Mountains Quadrangle, southwestern Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1662:55–75.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1965. Classification of the Bivalvia. American Museum Novitates, 2206:1–25.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D., and Boyd, D. W. 1970. Oyster-like Permian Bivalvia. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 143:217–282.Google Scholar
Peržel, M. 1966. Nové poznatky o stratigrafii chočského príkrovu Malých Karpát—Neue Erkenntnisse über die Stratigraphie der Choč-Decke in den Kleinen Karpaten. Geologické Práce (Zprávy), 38:87–98.Google Scholar
Ptchelincev, V. F. 1960. Semejstwo Prospondylidae fam. nov., p. 86–87. In Eberzin, A. G. (ed.), Osnavy paleontologii. Mollyuski—pantsirnye, dvustvorchatye, lopatonogie [Fundamentals of Paleontology. Molluscs: Loricata, Bivalvia, Scaphopoda]. Isdatelstwo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F. A. 1852. Handbuch der Petrefactenkunde. Laupp'sche Buchhandlung, Tübingen, 792 p.Google Scholar
Repin, Yu. S. 1996. New Late Triassic Bivalves from Iran and a taxonomy of the superfamily Spondylacea. Paleontological Journal, 30(4):363–369. (Translated from Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 1996, 3:3–8)Google Scholar
Schäfle, L. 1929. Über Lias- und Doggeraustern. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Folge), 17:65–88.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1977. Trends, rates and patterns of evolution in the Bivalvia, p. 209–250. In Hallam, A. (ed.), Patterns of Evolution as Illustrated by the Fossil Record. Elsevier, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, R. 1868. Terquemia, p. 65. In Woodward, S. P. (ed.), A Manual of the Mollusca (appendix volume). Weale, London.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: Evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology, 3:245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and Escalation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 527 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. E., and Brett, C. E. 2002. Post-paleozoic patterns in marine predation: Was there a Mesozoic and Cenozoic marine predatory revolution? Paleontological Society Papers, 8:119–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1978. Morphology, morphoclines and a new classification of the Pteriomorphia (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B, 284:345–365.Google Scholar
Wilkens, L. A. 1981. Neurobiology of the scallop. I. Starfish-mediated escape behaviours. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, ser. B, 211:341–372.Google Scholar
Wilkes, J. 1810. Conchology, p. 14–41. In Encyclopaedia Londinensis; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature. J. Adlard, London.Google Scholar
Young, G. M., and Bird, J. 1822. A Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast: Describing the Strata and Fossils Occurring Between the Humber and the Tees, from the German Ocean to the Plain of York. G. Clark, Whitby, 336 p.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, E. 1886. Ein neuer Monomyarier aus dem ostthüringischen Zechstein (Prospondylus libeanus). Jahrbuch der königlich preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, 1885:105–119.Google Scholar