Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:13:57.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary trends in the articulate brachiopod hinge mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Sandra J. Carlson
Sandra J. Carlson*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evolutionary patterns in the articulate brachiopod hinge are investigated and this empirical example is used as a model to examine evolutionary trends and evolutionary constraints. Several features of the hinge-system geometry exhibit persistent directional change from the Cambrian to the Recent and result in increased mechanical advantage in opening the valves. These geometric changes are reflected also in general features of shell morphology and growth and in patterns of familial diversity through time. Specific, identifiable constraints on brachiopod morphology and function related to the position of the pedicle and muscles and nature of the hinge line and hinge structures may be said to direct the observed trends. The pattern of evolutionary change among all articulate brachiopods is most satisfactorily accommodated by a diffusion model of morphological change. Examined independently, the deltidiodonts (with noninterlocking hinge structures) appear to reflect a process of directional selection through time, whereas change in the cyrtomatodont hinge mechanism (with interlocking teeth and sockets) may reflect the incidental effects of selection for increasing mantle-cavity volume rather than increasing diductor (opening) muscle moment. The “transition” from deltidiodont to cyrtomatodont hinge structures over the course of brachiopod evolutionary history may be interpreted from at least two distinctly different perspectives. Paleoecologically, this transition appears to reflect a habitat shift from soft sediment to hard, rocky substrates. Phylogenetically, the transition reflects the process of evolution: deltidiodonts persist as their modified descendants, the cyrtomatodonts. Investigating the acquisition of evolutionary novelties over time, or the transition from primitive to derived morphological features, may be the most informative approach to follow in studying evolutionary trends.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Summer 1992 , pp. 344 - 366
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

Baker, P. 1990. The classification, origin and phylogeny of the-cideidine brachiopods. Palaeontology 33(1):175–191.Google Scholar
Batschelet, E. 1965. Statistical methods for the analysis of problems in animal orientation and certain biological rhythms. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Monograph, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Brunton, C.H.C., and MacKinnon, D. I. 1972. The systematic position of the Jurassic brachiopod Cadomella. Palaeontology 15(3):405–411.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. J. 1989. The articulate brachiopod hinge mechanism: morphological and functional variation. Paleobiology 15(4):364–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, S. J. 1990. Phylogenetic relationships among brachiopod higher taxa. Pp. 3–10in MacKinnon, D. I., Lee, D. E., and Campbell, J. D., eds. Brachiopods through time. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. J. 1991. A phylogenetic perspective on articulate brachiopod diversity and the Permo-Triassic extinctions. Pp. 119–142in Dudley, E., ed. The unity of evolutionary biology, Vol. 1. Proceedings, Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oreg.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J. 1984. Quantitative genetics and development constraints on evolution by selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 110:155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1981. Pattern and process in paleobiology: the role of cladistic analysis in systematic paleontology. Paleobiology 7(4):456–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damuth, J., and Heisler, I. L. 1988. Alternative formulations of multilevel selection. Biology and Philosophy 3:407–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology 39(4):307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T., Ayala, F. J., Stebbins, G. L., and Valentine, J. W. 1977. Evolution. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1985. Evolutionary morphology: beyond the analogous, the anecdotal, and the ad hoc. Paleobiology 11:120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1986. Progress in organismal design. Pp. 99–117in Raup, D. M. and Jablonski, D., eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis and its application in evolutionary paleobiology. Pp. 103–122in Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical Paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology no. 4. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1989. There are extinctions and extinctions: examples from the Lower Paleozoic. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 325:327–355.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1980. The evolutionary biology of constraint. Daedalus 109(2):39–52.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1988. Trends as changes in variance: a new slant on progress and directionality in evolution (Presidential Address). Journal of Paleontology 62(3):319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1990. Speciation and sorting as the source of evolutionary trends, or “things are seldom what they seem.” Pp. 3–27in McNamara, K. J., ed. Evolutionary trends. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings, Royal Society of London 205B:581–598.Google Scholar
Grene, M. 1987. Hierarchies in biology. American Scientist 75:504–510.Google Scholar
Hanson, T. A. 1978. Larval dispersal and species longevity in lower Tertiary gastropods. Science (Washington, D.C.) 199:885–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Jaanusson, V. J. 1971. Evolution of the brachiopod hinge. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 3:33–46.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1987. Heritability at the species level: analysis of geographic ranges of Cretaceous mollusks. Science (Washington, D.C.) 238:360–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, J.B.C., and McKinney, F. K. 1990. Ecological processes and progressive macroevolution of marine clonal benthos. Pp. 173–209in Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. D., eds. Causes of evolution: a paleontological perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1970. The units selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidgard, S., and Jackson, J.B.C. 1989. Growth in encrusting cheilostome bryozoans: I. Evolutionary trends. Paleobiology 15:255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, G. R. 1980. Shell form in biconvex articulate Brachiopoda: a geometric analysis. Paleobiology 6(1):57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1990. Classifying and analysing evolutionary trends. Pp. 28–58in McNamara, 1990.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J., ed. 1990. Evolutionary trends. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H., ed. 1988. Evolutionary progress. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Gould, S. J. 1974. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology 23(3):305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Michelson, A. 1965. Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. Science 147:1294–1295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T.J.M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology 81:525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L., and McCord, R. D. 1991. Incumbent replacement: evidence for long-term evolutionary progress. Paleobiology 3:202–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, A. J. 1981a. The Cambrian brachiopod radiation: monophyletic or polyphyletic origins? Pp. 184–187in Taylor, M., ed. Short papers for the Second International Symposium on the Cambrian System. U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 81-743.Google Scholar
Rowell, A. J. 1981b. The origin of the brachiopods. Pp. 97–109in Broadhead, T., ed. Lophophorates: notes for a short course. Organized by Dutro, J. T. and Boardman, R. S.Studies in Geology no. 5. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Sawyer, S. 1976. Branching diffusion processes in population genetics. Advances in Applied Probability 8:659–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. A compendium of fossil marine families. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions to Biology and Geology 51:1–125. Unpublished updates 1983, 1986, 1988.Google Scholar
Slatkin, M. 1981. A diffusion model of species selection. Paleobiology 7:421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Patterson, C. 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology 23:127–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1973. An explanation for Cope's Rule. Evolution 27:1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, S. M. 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 72:646–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: pattern and process. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1990. The general correlation between rate of speciation and rate of extinction: fortuitous causal linkages. Pp. 103–127in Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. D., eds. Causes of evolution: a paleontological perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1986. Natural selection and fitness, adaptation and constraint. Pp. 23–44in Raup, D. M. and Jablonski, D., eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1979. Biological bulldozers and the evolution of marine benthic communities. Science (Washington, D.C.) 203:458–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thayer, C. W. 1983. Sediment-mediated biological disturbance and the evolution of marine benthos. Pp. 479–685in Tevesz, M.J.S. and McCall, P. L., eds. Biotic interactions in Recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1983. Macroevolutionary trends: new perspectives on the roles of adaptation and incidental effect. Science (Washington, D.C.) 22:387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1984. What is species selection? Systematic Zoology 33:318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E. S., and Gould, S. J. 1986. The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology 12(2):217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 1968. Evolution of the shell structure of the articulate brachiopods. Special Papers in Paleontology 2:1–55.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J. 1965. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part H, Brachiopoda. The Geological Society of America, Boulder Colo. and the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S., and Sober, E. 1989. Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoretical Biology 136:337–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynne-Edwards, V. C. 1962. Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar