Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-wdhn8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T05:17:15.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strength of pedicle attachment in articulate brachiopods: ecologic and paleoecologic significance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

Charles W. Thayer
Charles W. Thayer*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn. 19174
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been claimed that articulate brachiopods are excluded from turbulent environments by the weakness of their pedicle attachment. The evidence does not support this conclusion. Experiments on the force required to remove brachiopods from their substrate show that removal force often equals that of bivalve mussels from turbulent environments having the same valve area. Intertidal brachiopods probably occupy cryptic habitats to avoid desiccation, not to avoid waves. Subtidal brachiopods are abundant in tidal currents of 4 knots (2 m/sec) where they are usually attached in exposed positions.

Although paleoecologists often assume that the size of the pedicle foramen is directly proportional to attachment strength, the relationship is not precise. Experimental detachment of brachiopods resulted from failure of the substrate, pedicle-substrate attachment, pedicle, or pedicle adjustor muscles, in approximately equal frequencies. At the same attachment strength, the foramen in Terebratalia is four times the size of the foramen in Hemithiris.

Although subapical foramina are supposedly unable to enlarge as the brachiopod grows, the subapical foramen of Hemithiris appears to do so.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Fall 1975 , pp. 388 - 399
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

Anonymous. 1972. Tidal Current Tables, 1973: Pacific Coast of North America and Asia. 254 pp. Natl. Ocean Surv., Commerce Dept. Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
Barr, A. J. and Goodnight, J. H. 1972. A User's Guide to the Statistical Analysis System. 260 pp. Student Supply Stores, N. C. State Univ.; Raleigh, N. C.Google Scholar
Bascomb, W. 1959. Ocean waves. Sci. Am. 201:74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, Z. P., Rhoads, D. C., and McAlester, A. L. 1974. Marine benthic communities in the Upper Devonian of New York. Lethaia. 7:93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R. G., and Surlyk, F. 1973. Borings produced by brachiopod pedicles, fossil and Recent. Lethaia. 6:349–365.Google Scholar
Brookfield, M. E. 1973. The life and death of Torquirhynchia inconstans (Brachiopoda, Upper Jurassic) in England. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimat., Palaeoecol. 13:241–259.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1961. Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecol. Monogr. 31:61–104.Google Scholar
Glaus, K. J. 1968. Factors influencing the production of byssus threads in Mytilus edulis. Biol. Bull. 135:420.Google Scholar
Harger, J. R. E. 1970. The effect of wave impact on some aspects of the biology of sea mussels. Veliger. 12:401–414.Google Scholar
Harger, J. R. E. 1972. Competitive coexistence among intertidal invertebrates. Am. Sci. 60:600–607.Google Scholar
Haro, A. De, 1963. Estructura y anatomia comparadas de las gonadas y pedúnculo de los braquiopodos testicardinos. Publ. Inst. Biol. apl., Barcelona. 35:97–117.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., Goreau, T. F., and Hartman, W. D. 1971. Brachiopod-coralline sponge communities and their paleoecological significance. Science. 173:623–625.Google Scholar
Lande, E., and Gulliksen, B. 1973. The benthic fauna of the tidal rapids to Borgenfjorden, North-Tr⊘ndelag, Norway. K. Nor. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. No. 1. 6 pp.Google Scholar
Logan, A. 1975. Ecological observations on the Recent articulate brachiopod Argyrotheca bermudana Dall from the Bermuda platform. Bull. Mar. Sci. 25(2):in press.Google Scholar
Long, J. A. 1964. The embryology of three species representing three superfamilies of articulate Brachiopoda. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Wash., Seattle, Wash.Google Scholar
McCammon, H. M. 1965. Filtering currents in brachiopods measured with a thermistor flowmeter. Trans. Ocean. Sci. Eng. 2:772–779.Google Scholar
McCammon, H. M. 1973. The ecology of Magellania venosa, an articulate brachiopod. J. Paleontol. 47:266–278.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1974. Intertidal community structure, experimental studies on the relationship between a dominant competitor and its principal predator. Oecologia (Berl.). 15:93–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pajaud, D. 1974. Écologie des Thécidées. Lethaia. 7:203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1962. Notes on the ecology of brachiopods in New Zealand. Trans. R. Soc. N. Z. (Zool.) 1:327–335.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1965. Ecology and paleoecology. Pp.H199–H214. In: Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kans. Press; Lawrence, Kans.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil Brachiopods. 199 pp. Hutchinson; London.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life habits of the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 125:1–296.Google Scholar
Van Winkle, W. 1970. Effect of environmental factors on byssal thread formation. Mar. Biol. 7:143–148.Google Scholar