Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-24T01:39:43.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The poor fossil record of the regular echinoid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Porter M. Kier
Porter M. Kier*
Affiliation:
Department of Paleobiology, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fossil record of echinoids is poor because soon after death they break apart into isolated plates. In the present seas regular echinoid species outnumber irregular species; whereas, in the Tertiary only 20% of the known echinoid species are regular. This suggests that regular echinoids are less likely to be preserved than irregular echinoids. The tests of regular echinoids are exposed to scavengers and currents upon their death, but irregular echinoids generally live buried in the sediment and are protected from these destructive forces. Furthermore, the tests of the regular echinoids lack the calcareous supports found in some irregular echinoids. The gut is not filled with sediment and its apical system is generally larger and more fragile. Finally, many regular echinoids live in environments less likely to be preserved in the sedimentary record.

Although the irregular echinoid is more likely to be fossilized, its record is poor during some periods in the past. Although 1,014 irregular echinoid species are known from the Eocene, only 83 species are known from the Paleocene and only 343 are known from the Oligocene. Is this reduction because fewer species lived then or because they have not been preserved?

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Spring 1977 , pp. 168 - 174
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

Berggren, W. A. 1972. A Cenozoic time-scale—some implications for regional geology and paleobiogeography. Lethaia. 5:195–215.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. and Asgaard, U. 1975. Sediment structures produced by a spatangoid echinoid: a problem of preservation. Bull. Geol. Soc. Den. 24:261–281.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1967. Presidential Address. The Incompleteness of our Knowledge of the Fossil Record. J. Paleontol. 41:559–565.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. G. 1952. Echinoids. Chapter 21. Pp. 675–714. In: Moore, R. C., Lalicker, C. G., and Fischer, A. G., eds. Invertebrate Fossils. 766 Pp.McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.; New York.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1963. Tertiary echinoids from the Caloosahatchee and Tamiami Formations of Florida. Smithson. Misc. Collect. 145:1–63.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1975. The echinoids of Carrie Bow Cay, Belize. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 206:1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kier, P. M. and Grant, R. E. 1965. Echinoid distribution and habits, Key Largo Coral Reef Preserve, Florida. Smithson. Misc. Collect. 149:1–68.Google Scholar
Levinton, J. S. and Bambach, R. K. 1975. A comparative study of Silurian and Recent deposit-feeding bivalve communities. Paleobiology. 1:97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, W. D. 1975. Recent crinoid biostratinomy. Abstr. with Prog. 1975 Annu. Meet. Geol. Soc. Am. 7:1169.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1971. Post mortem disarticulation of Recent crinoids and ophiuroids under natural conditions. Abstr. with Prog. 1971 Annu. Meet. Geol. Soc. Am. 3:645–646.Google Scholar
Schäfer, W. 1972. Ecology and Paleoecology of Marine Environments. 568 Pp. Univ. of Chicago Press; Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Van Hinte, J. E. 1976a. A Jurassic time scale. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 60:489–497.Google Scholar
Van Hinte, J. E. 1976b. A Cretaceous time scale. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 60:498–516.Google Scholar
Watkins, R. and Boucot, A. J. 1975. Evolution of Silurian brachiopod communities along the southeastern coast of Acadia. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 86:243–254.Google Scholar