Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T03:04:52.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Atavograptus primitivus (Li) from the earliest Silurian of Arctic Canada: implications for monograptid evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Jeff J. Lukasik  and
Michael J. Melchin
Jeff J. Lukasik
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3J5, Canada
Michael J. Melchin
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, B2G 1C0, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been considered that all monograptids have theca 1 originating from a primary porus in the sicula (i.e., sinus and lacuna stages; Bulman, 1970). The major basis for this assumption has been studies of Late Silurian monograptid species such as Saetograptus chimaera (Barrande), Pristiograptus bohemicus (Barrande), and Pristiograptus dubius (Suess) (e.g., Eisenack, 1942; Walker, 1953; Urbanek, 1958). That all monograptids possessed this type of development was not questioned due to the lack of well-preserved, early monograptid specimens clearly showing the sicula–theca 1 relationship. Hutt et al. (1970) described Monograptus gregarius Lapworth, from the gregarius Zone, as having theca 1 originating through a primary porus (Hutt et al., 1970; Rickards and Hutt, 1970, referred to this as a “primary notch” although, according to Bulman, 1970, p. V11, the notch corresponds only to the sinus stage). Their figures of these specimens, however, do not unequivocally confirm its presence (Hutt et al., 1970, p. 14, Pl. 3, figs. 65, 67). Rickards and Hutt (1970) alluded to the possible presence of a primary porus in Atavograptus ceryx (Rickards and Hutt) from the persculptus Zone, but could not determine its existence with certainty. Mitchell (1987) was the first to question the presence of this mode of development of theca 1 in relation to the origin of the monograptids. He proposed, however, that the development of the fully uniserial rhabdosome was coincident with a change in both the sicular structure (the sinus and lacuna stages) and the early ontogeny of theca 1. He suggested that the sinus and lacuna stages represented a homologue of the hooded foramen seen in the th 11 protheca of some Pattern H species, from which th 12 emerges and that, in the uniserial monograptids, this feature is accelerated in the astogenetic sequence, appearing in the metasicular ontogeny rather than that of the first theca. He pointed out that this hypothesis could only be tested once suitable, isolated specimens of earliest monograptids could be studied to see if the sinus and lacuna stages were, indeed, coincident with the achievement of a fully uniserial rhabdosome. New evidence from isolated, early monograptid material allows us to test Mitchell's theory on monograptid origin.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 68 , Issue 5 , September 1994 , pp. 1159 - 1163
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

Bulman, O. M. B. 1970. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. V, Graptolithina. In Teichert, C. (ed.). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 163 p.Google Scholar
Eisenack, A. 1942. Uber einige Funde von Graptolithen aus ostpreussischen Silurgeschieben. Zeitschrift Geschiebeforschung, 18:29–42.Google Scholar
Hutt, J. E., Rickards, R. B., and Skevington, D. 1970. Isolated Silurian graptolites from the Bollerup and Klubbudden Stages of Dalarna, Sweden. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 4:1–23.Google Scholar
Lapworth, C. 1873. On an improved classification of the Rhabdophora. Geological Magazine, 1:10:500–504, 555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J.-J. 1990. Discovery of monograptids in basal part of Lower Silurian from S. Anhui with special reference to their origin. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 29:204–216.Google Scholar
Melchin, M. J. In press. Morphology and phylogenetic classification of some Llandovery (Silurian) diplograptid genera from the Cape Phillips Formation, Canadian Arctic Islands. Palaeontology.Google Scholar
Melchin, M. J., McCracken, A. D., and Oliff, F. J. 1991. The Ordovician–Silurian boundary on Cornwallis and Truro islands: preliminary data. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 28:1854–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, C. E. 1987. The evolution and classification of the Diplograptacae. Palaeontology, 30:353–405.Google Scholar
Rickards, R. B. 1974. A new monograptid genus and the origins of the main monograptid genera, p. 141–147. In Rickards, R. B., Jackson, D. E., and Hughes, C. P. (eds.), Graptolite Studies in Honour of O. M. B. Bulman. Special Papers in Palaeontology 13. The Palaeontological Association.Google Scholar
Rickards, R. B., and Hutt, J. E. 1970. The earliest monograptid. Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1663:115–119.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. 1958. Monograptidae from erratic boulders of Poland. Palaeontographica Polonica, 9:1–105.Google Scholar
Walker, M. 1953. The development of Monograptus dubius and Monograptus chimaera . Geological Magazine, 90:362–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S. H. 1983. The Ordovician–Silurian boundary graptolite fauna of Dob's Linn, southern Scotland. Palaeontology, 26:605–639.Google Scholar
Yang, D.-O., Ni, Y.-N., Li, J.-J., Chen, X., Lin, Y.-K., Yu, J.-H., Jiao, S.-D., Fang, Y.-T., Ge, M.-Y., and Mu, E.-Z. 1983. Graptolithina, p. 353–508. In Nanjing Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources (ed.), Palaeontology Atlas of East China Area (Part 1), Early Paleozoic Volume. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, China.Google Scholar