Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:51:36.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogenetic regulatory mechanisms, heterochrony, and eccentricity in dendrasterid sand dollars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Steven C. Beadle
Steven C. Beadle*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Posterior eccentricity has evolved independently in three lineages of northern Pacific sand dollars; it is best known in the genus Dendraster. In these forms, the anterior areas of the aboral surface are much more highly developed than the posterior areas; consequently, the apical system is located posteriorly, rather than centrally. This morphology is linked to an unusual and highly successful mode of suspension-feeding. The evolution of eccentricity appears to be related to regulatory mechanisms found in many non-eccentric sand dollars, such as Echinarachnius parma. During the ontogeny of this form, the growth rates of the ambulacra and interambulacra are correlated with their position along the longitudinal axis. Early in ontogeny, the anterior areas develop at a faster rate than the posterior areas; later in ontogeny, this relationship is completely reversed. Normally, these two phases of unequal growth counterbalance each other, and the mature test appears symmetrical. However, if the balance between the two phases were upset, eccentricity would naturally ensue. In fact, aberrant Recent and fossil Echinarachnius with the predicted anteriorly-and posteriorly-eccentric morphologies actually do exist. Posterior eccentricity is apparently produced by retention of the earlier unequal growth pattern, which favors anterior development. This represents trait neoteny; however, since the retained trait is a regulatory mechanism that controls growth rates over the entire aboral surface, the morphological effects are particularly profound. Thus, the seemingly bizarre morphology of Dendraster can be derived by a change in the timing of an existing regulatory mechanism. This may help to explain the sudden appearance of Dendraster in the fossil record and the absence of transitional forms. The unusual suspension-feeding behavior of Dendraster may have been derived from a righting response that is common among other sand dollars.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , Summer 1989 , pp. 205 - 222
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

Literature Cited

Agassiz, A. 1872-74. Revision of the Echini. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy 3. (Also as Illustrated Catalogue of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy 7)Google Scholar
Argamakova, V. F. 1934. O nekotorykh neogenovykh morskikh ezhakh o. Sakhalina. Neftyanogo Geologo-Pazvedochnogo Instituta Trudy, series A 41. (In Russian with English summary)Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Bottjer, D. J. 1985. Echinoderm role in the history of Phanerozoic tiering in suspension-feeding communities. Pp. 3–11. In Keegan, B. F., and O'Connor, B. D. S. (eds.), Echinodermata. A. A. Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Barron, J. A. 1981. Marine diatom biostratigraphy of the Montesano Formation near Aberdeen, Washington. Geological Society of America Special Paper 184:113–126.Google Scholar
Beadle, S. C. 1988. Morphogenesis in sand dollars, and its implications for the rapid origin of Dendraster (abstract). Geological Society of America abstracts with Programs 20:A372.Google Scholar
Clark, H. L. 1904. The echinoderms of the Woods Hole region. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 22:545–576.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1954. Some methods for strengthening the common x2 tests. Biometrics 10:417–451.Google Scholar
Coe, W. R. 1912. Echinoderms of Connecticut. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ridder, C., and Lawrence, J. M. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Echinoidea. Pp. 57–115. In Jangoux, M., and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1955. Classification of clypeasteroid echinoids. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 31:73–198.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1957. Notes on echinoids. Journal of Paleontology 31:625–631.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1966. Clypeasteroids. Pp. U450–U491. In Robison, R. A., and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part U, Echinodermata 3. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas; Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Dvali, M. F. 1939. Geologicheskoe peresechenie Kamchatskogo Sredinnogo khrebta cherez Krasnuyu Sopku. Neftyanogo Geologo-Pazvedochnogo Instituta Trudy, series A 122. (In Russian).Google Scholar
Ellers, O., and Telford, M. 1984. Collection of food by oral surface podia in the sand dollar, Echinarachnius parma (Lamarck). Biological Bulletin 166:574–582.Google Scholar
Fewkes, J. W. 1886. Preliminary observations on the development of Ophiopholis and Echinarachnius. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy 12:105–152.Google Scholar
Ghiold, J. 1984. Adaptive shifts in clypeasteroid evolution—feeding strategies in the soft-bottom realm. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 169:41–73.Google Scholar
Ghiold, J. 1985. The African sand dollar Rotula. Pp. 269–273. In Keegan, B. F., and O'Connor, B. D. S. (eds.), Echinodermata. A. A. Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Ghiold, J., and Hoffman, A. 1986. Biogeography and biogeographic history of clypeasteroid echinoids. Journal of Biogeography 13:183–206.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. 1929. Skeletal development in Arbacia, Echinarachnius, and Leptasterias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 217:289–334.Google Scholar
Grant, U. S. IV, and Hertlein, L. G. 1938. The West American Cenozoic Echinoidea. Publications of the University of California at Los Angeles in Mathematical and Physical Sciences 2.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, W., and Ujiié, H. 1965. Occurrence and relative growth of Echinarachnius microthyroides Nisiyama from Soeushinai, Hokkaidô. Bulletin of the National Science Museum 8:87–93.Google Scholar
Hayasaka, I., and Morishita, A. 1947. Notes on some fossil echinoids of Taiwan, II. Acta Geologica Taiwanica 1:93–110.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. T. 1927. Studies of Arbacia punctulata and allies, and of nonpentamerous echini. Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History 8:435–565.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. 1981. Morphology and classification of Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860—a cladistic analysis. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening 143:7–99.Google Scholar
Kew, W. S. W. 1920. Cretaceous and Cenozoic Echinoidea of the Pacific Coast Region of North America. University of California Publications in Geology 12:23–236.Google Scholar
Lohavanijaya, P., and Swan, E. F. 1965. The separation of post-basicoronal areas from the basicoronal plates in the interambulacra of the sand dollar, Echinarachnius parma (Lamarck). Biological Bulletin 129:167–180.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1988. DNA-DNA hybridization, the fossil record, phylogenetic reconstruction, and the evolution of the clypeasteroid echinoids. Pp. 107–119. In Paul, C. R. C., and Smith, A. B. (eds.), Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology. Clarendon Press; Oxford.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1984. Allometry and heterochrony in an Eocene echinoid lineage: morphological change as a byproduct of size selection. Paleobiology 10:407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1986. Ecological causation of heterochrony: a test and implications for evolutionary theory. Paleobiology 12:282–289.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1988. Roles of allometry and ecology in echinoid evolution. Pp. 165–173. In Paul, C. R. C., and Smith, A. B. (eds.), Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology. Clarendon Press; Oxford.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1987. Plate translocation in spatangoid echinoids: its morphological, functional, and phylogenetic significance. Paleobiology 13:312–325.Google Scholar
Merrill, R. J., and Hobson, E. S. 1970. Field observations of Dendraster excentricus, a sand dollar of western North America. American Midland Naturalist 83:595–624.Google Scholar
Mertie, J. B. Jr. 1933. Notes on the geography and geology of Lituya Bay. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 836:117–135.Google Scholar
Mooi, R. 1987. A Cladistic Analysis of the Sand Dollars (Clypeasteroida: Scutellina) and the Interpretation of Heterochronic Phenomena. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Morin, J. G., Kastendiek, J. E., Harrington, A., and Davis, N. 1985. Organization and patterns of interactions in a subtidal sand community on an exposed coast. Marine Ecology—Progress Series 27:163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, T. 1921. Studies of the Development and Larval Forms of Echinoderms. G. E. C. Gad; Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T. 1948. A Monograph of the Echinoidea, Volume IV, Part 2, Clypeastroida. C. A. Reitzel; Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Nisiyama, S. 1940. On the Japanese species of Echinarachnius. Pp. 803–862. In Jubilee Publication in the Commemoration of Professor H. Yabe, Volume II.Google Scholar
Nisiyama, S. 1968. The echinoid fauna from Japan and adjacent regions, Part II. Paleontological Society of Japan Special Paper 13.Google Scholar
O'Neill, P. L. 1978. Hydrodynamic analysis of feeding in sand dollars. Oecologia 34:157–174.Google Scholar
Parker, G. H. 1927. Locomotion and righting movements in echinoderms, especially in Echinarachnius. American Journal of Psychology 39:167–180.Google Scholar
Reese, E. S. 1966. The complex behavior of echinoderms. Pp. 157–218. In Boolootian, R. A. (eds.), Physiology of Echinodermata. Interscience Publishers; New York.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1979. Constructional morphology of sand dollars. Paleobiology 5:191–221.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1984. Echinoid Palaeobiology. George Allen and Unwin; London.Google Scholar
Sokolova, M. N., and Kuznetsov, A. P. 1960. O kharaktere pitaniya i roli troficheskogo faktora v raspredelenii ploskogo ezha Echinarachnius parma Lam. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 39:1253–1256. (In Russian with English summary)Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1981. A hydrodynamic interpretation of sand dollar morphology. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:605–622.Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1988. Ontogenetic regulatory mechanisms and evolution of mellitid lunules (Echinoidea, Clypeasteroida). Paleobiology 14:52–63.Google Scholar
Telford, M., Mooi, R., and Ellers, O. 1985. A new model of podial deposit feeding in the sand dollar, Mellita quinquiesperforata (Leske): the sieve hypothesis challenged. Biological Bulletin 169:431–448.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'A. W. 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timko, P. L. 1976. Sand dollars as suspension-feeders: a new description of feeding in Dendraster excentricus. Biological Bulletin 151:247–259.Google Scholar
Tower, W. L. 1901. An abnormal clypeasteroid echinoid. Zoologischer Anzeiger 24:188–191.Google Scholar
Wagner, C. D. 1974. Fossil and Recent sand dollar echinoids of Alaska. Journal of Paleontology 48:105–123.Google Scholar
Wang, C. C. 1984. New classification of clypeasteroid echinoids. Proceedings of the Geological Society of China 27:119–152.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. E., and The Western Cenozoic Subcommittee. 1944. Correlation of the marine Cenozoic formations of western North America. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 55:569–598.Google Scholar
Zenkevitch, L. 1963. Biology of the Seas of the U.S.S.R. George Allen and Unwin; London.Google Scholar