Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:27:46.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing for escalation in Lower Mississippian camerate crinoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2015

Jeffrey R. Thompson  and
William I. Ausich
Jeffrey R. Thompson
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, 155 South Oval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, 155 South Oval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crinoids were relatively unaffected by the end-Devonian Hangenberg mass extinction event. Major clades of Devonian durophagous fishes suffered significant extinctions, however, and the dominant surviving clades were biting or nipping predators. In part as a response to the Hangenberg event, early Mississippian crinoids underwent an adaptive radiation, while fish clades with a shell-crushing durophagous strategy diversified. Durophagous predators are inferred to have been more effective predators on camerate crinoids; and it is hypothesized, following the predictions of escalation, that through the early Mississippian, camerate crinoids evolved more effective anti-predatory strategies in response. We test this hypothesis of escalation by examining the changes in spinosity and plate convexity among camerate crinoids throughout this interval. A new method was formulated to test for an increase in convexity of the tegmen plates. Traits in Agaricocrinus, Aorocrinus, and Dorycrinus (Family Coelocrinidae) were tested for congruence to the escalation hypothesis, and results were mixed. Convexity of tegmen plates in Agaricocrinus, spine length/calyx diameter in Aorocrinus, calyx size in Aorocrinus, central spine length in Dorycrinus, and spine width in Dorycrinus did not have size increase trends supporting escalation. Rather than an increase in convexity, the variance of convexity in Agaricocrinus tegmen plates narrowed, which could reflect an optimum. Alternatively, morphological change consistent with the escalation hypothesis occurred in calyx size of Agaricocrinus and in lateral spine length and calyx size in Dorycrinus. Furthermore, central and lateral spine length, parameters of the spine width, and size trends support escalation when Aorocrinus and Dorycrinus are treated as a lineage. Thus, inferred escalation acted on traits differently within a single lineage and was relevant for both speciation and the diversification of a new genus.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 89 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved. 

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

Alroy, J. 2000. Understanding the dynamics of trends within evolving lineages. Paleobiology 26:319–329.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1997. Regional encrinites: a vanished lithofacies. Pp. 509–519in C. E. Brett and G. C. Baird, eds. Paleontological events: stratigraphic, ecological and evolutionary implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Kammer, T. W.. 1991. Systematic revisions to Aorocrinus, Dorycrinus, Macrocrinus, Paradichocrinus, Strotocrinus, and Uperocrinus: Mississippian camerate crinoids (Echinodermata) from the stratotype region. Journal of Paleontology 65:936–944.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Kammer, T. W.. 2006. Stratigraphical and geographical distribution of Mississippian (Lower Carboniferous) Crinoidea from England and Wales. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 56:91–109.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Kammer, T. W.. 2013. Mississippian crinoid biodiversity, biogeography and macroevolution. Palaeontology 56:727–740.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1990. Non-predatory drilling of Mississippian crinoids by platyceratid gastropods. Palaeontology 33:743–748.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 2002. Multi-snail infestation of Devonian crinoids and the nature of platyceratid-crinoid interactions. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 47:133–139.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. Pp. 195–209 in Kowalewski and Kelley 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Gahn, F. J.. 2004. Testing predator-driven evolution with Paleozoic crinoid arm regeneration. Science 305:1453–1455. doi: 10.1126/science.1101009.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Gahn, F. J.. 2012. Reconstructing predation pressure on crinoids: estimating arm-loss rates from regenerating arms. Paleobiology 39:40–51.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Messing, C. G.. 2007. Stalked crinoid locomotion, and its ecological and evolutionary implications. Palaeontologia Electronica 10:10.Google Scholar
Bowsher, A. L. 1955. Origin and adaptation of platyceratid gastropods. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Mollusca 5:1–11.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 2003. Durophagous predation in Paleozoic marine benthic assemblages. Pp. 401–432in P. H. Kelley, M. Kowalewski, and T. A. Hansen, eds. Predator-prey interactions in the fossil record. Plenum/Kluwer Academic, New York.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., and Walker, S. E.. 2002. Predators and predation in Paleozoic marine environments. Pp. 93–118 in Kowalewski and Kelley 2002.Google Scholar
Brodie, E. D. III, and Brodie, E. D. Jr. 1999. Predator-prey arms races. Bioscience 49:557–568.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. 1974. “Downward causation” in hierarchically organized biological systems. Pp. 179–186in F. J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky, eds. Studies in the philosophy of biology. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P. 2003. The escalation hypothesis: one long argument. Palaios 18:83–86.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., and Kelley, P. H.. 2002. The fossil record of predator-prey arms races: coevolution and escalation hypotheses. Pp. 353–374 in Kowalewski and Kelley 2002.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1996. Hierarchies in macroevolution. Pp. 42–61in J. W. Valentine, D. Jablonski, D. H. Erwin, and J. H. Lipps, eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 2000. Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution and Development 2:78–84.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 2010. Microevolution and macroevolution are not governed by the same processes. Pp. 180–193in F. J. Ayala and R. Arp, eds. Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, U.K.Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K.. 2003. Infestation of Middle Devonian (Givetian) camerate crinoids by platyceratid gastropods and its implications for the nature of their biotic interaction. Lethaia 36:71–82.Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K.. 2005. Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic? Paleobiology 31:151–164.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K.. 2010. Evolutionary History of Regeneration in Crinoids (Echinodermata). Integrative and Comparative Biology 50:514–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gahn, F. J., Fabian, A., and Baumiller, T. K.. 2003. Additional evidence for the drilling behavior of Paleozoic gastropods. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48:156–156.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1985. The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology. Paleobiology 11:2–12.Google Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., and Smith, A. G., eds. 2004. A geologic time scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hattin, D. E. 1958. Regeneration in a Pennsylvanian crinoid spine. Journal of Paleontology 32:701–702.Google Scholar
Hinde, G. J. 1885. Description of a new species of crinoids with articulating spines. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 15:157–173.Google Scholar
Hlavin, W. J. 1990. Arthrodire-Ctenacanth shark. Pp. 192–195in A. J. Boucot, ed. Evolutionary paleobiology of behavior and coevolution. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Huntley, J. W., and Kowalewski, M.. 2007. Strong coupling of predation intensity and diversity in the Phanerozoic fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:15,006–15,010.Google Scholar
Johnsen, S. A. L., Ahmed, M., and Leighton, L. R.. 2013. The effect of spines of a Devonian productide brachiopod on durophagous predation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 375:30–37.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Paleontology 59:551–560.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I.. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for late Osagean crinoids. Paleobiology 13:379–395.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I.. 2006. The “Age of Crinoids”: a Mississippian biodiversity spike coincident with widespread carbonate ramps. Palaios 21:238–248.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Sumrall, C. D., Zamora, S., Ausich, W. I., and Deline, B.. 2013. Oral region homologies in Paleozoic crinoids and other plesiomorphic pentaradial echinoderms. PLoS ONE 8:1–16. [http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077989].Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A.. 1993. Evolution of the naticid gastropod predator-prey system: an evaluation of the hypothesis of escalation. Palaios 8:358–375.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., and Kelley, P. H., eds. 2002. The fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Papers 8.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1978. Family Coelocrinidae Bather, 1899. Pp. T471–T472in R. C. Moore and K. Teichert, eds. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2, Vol. 2. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1984. Predation and survival among inadunate crinoids. Paleobiology 10:453–458.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Webster, G. D.. 1966. New Permian crinoid fauna from Southern Nevada. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 63:1–60.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. 1957. Crinoids. In H. S. Ladd, ed. Treatise on marine ecology and paleoecology, Vol. 2. Paleoecology. Geological Society of America Memoir 6:961–972.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. R., Parks, J. M., and Spreng, A. C.. 1952. Mississippian crinoid fauna from the Banff Formation, Sunwapta Pass, Alberta. Journal of Paleontology 26:544–575.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 2001. New example of Devonian predatory boreholes and the influence of brachiopod spines on predator success. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 165:53–69.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 2003. Morphological response of prey to drilling predation in the Middle Devonian. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 201:221–234.Google Scholar
Lieberman, B. S. 2008. Emerging syntheses between palaeobiogeography and macroevolutionary theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 120:51–57.Google Scholar
Lieberman, B. S., and Vrba, E. S.. 1995. Hierarchy theory, selection and sorting. Bioscience 45:394–399.Google Scholar
Malzahn, E. 1968. Über neue Funde von Janassa bituminosa (Schloth.) im niederrheinischen Zechstein; ein Beitrag zur Histologie der Zähne, Haut und Lebensweise. Geologisches Jahrbuch, Beihefte 85:67–85.Google Scholar
MathWorks, Inc. 2012. MATLAB 2012b and Curve Fitting Toolbox. Natick, Mass.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1985. Evolutionary implications of predation on recent comatulid crinoids from the Great Barrier Reef. Paleobiology 11:154–164.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Ausich, W. I.. 1983. Biotic interactions among recent and among fossil crinoids. Pp. 377–427in M. J. S. Tevesz and P. L. McCall, eds. Biotic interactions in Recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, D. J., and LaBarbera, M.. 1995. Effects of foliaceous varices on the mechanical properties of Chicoreus dilectus (Gastropoda: Muricidae). Journal of Zoology 236:151–160.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. A. 1979. Fish predation and the evolution of gastropod shell sculpture: experimental and geographic evidence. Evolution 33:697–713.Google Scholar
Salamon, M. A., Gorzelak, P., Niedzwiedzki, R., Trzesiok, D., and Baumiller, T. K.. 2014. Trends in shell fragmentation as evidence of mid-Paleozoic changes in marine predation. Paleobiology 40:14–23.Google Scholar
Sallan, L. C., and Coates, M. I.. 2010. End-Devonian extinction and a bottleneck in the early evolution of modern jawed vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:10131–10135.Google Scholar
Sallan, L. C., Kammer, T. W., Ausich, W. I., and Cook, L. A.. 2011. Persistent predator–prey dynamics revealed by mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:8335–8338.Google Scholar
Savarese, M., Dodd, R. J., and Lane, N. G.. 1997. Taphonomic and sedimentologic implications of crinoids intraskeletal porosity. Lethaia 29:141–156.Google Scholar
Signor, P.W. III, and Brett, C. E.. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology 10:229–245.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia (with an atlas of A. B. C. and 76 plates). Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
St. John, O., and Worthen, A.. 1875. Descriptions of fossil fishes. Geological Survey of Illinois 6:245–488.Google Scholar
Stone, H. M. I. 1998. On predator deterrence by pronounced shell ornament in epifaunal bivalves. Palaeontology 41:1051–1068.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D., and Waters, J. A.. 2012. Universal elemental homology in glyptocystitoids, hemicosmitoids, coronoids and blastoids: steps toward echinoderm phylogenetic reconstruction in derived Blastozoa. Journal of Paleontology 86:956–972.Google Scholar
Syverson, V. J., and Baumiller, T. K.. 2014. Temporal trends of predation resistance in Paleozoic crinoid arm branching morphologies. Paleobiology 40:417–427.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1976. Interoceanic differences in vulnerability of shelled prey to crab predation. Nature 260:135–136.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Biogeography and adaptation: patterns of marine life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1980. Evolution, species and fossils: how does life evolve? South African Journal of Science 76:61–84.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1983. Macroevolutionary trends: new perspectives on the roles of adaptation and incidental effect. Science 221:387–389.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1984. What is species selection? Systematic Zoology 33:318–328.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S., and Eldredge, N.. 1984. Individuals, hierarchies and processes: towards a more complete evolutionary theory. Paleobiology 10:146–171.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S., and Gould, S. J.. 1986. The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology 12:217–228.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F.. 1897. The North American Crinoidea Camerata. Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoirs 20 and 21.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., and Maples, C. G.. 1991. Mississippian pelmatozoan community reorganization; a predation-mediated faunal change. Paleobiology 17:400–410.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., and Webster, G. A.. 2009. A re-evaluation of Famennian echinoderm diversity: implications for patterns and extinction and rebound in the Late Devonian. In P. Königshof, ed. Devonian change: case studies in palaeogeography and palaeoecology. Geological Society of London Special Publication 314:149–161.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R., and Richardson, E. S.. 1963. The paleoecological history of two Pennsylvanian black shales. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago.Google Scholar