Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T09:46:31.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Graptolites from the Wheeler and Marjum Formations (Cambrian, Series 3) of Utah

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2015

Steven T. LoDuca  and
Anthony Kramer
Steven T. LoDuca
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Geology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti MI 48197, USA,
Anthony Kramer
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH 45221, USA,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Specimens from the Wheeler and Marjum Formations of Utah comprising an elongate stipe with freely projecting conical thecae are described as dithecoid graptolites, the first reported from these units. The Wheeler Shale specimens, assigned to Archaeolafoea monegettae (Chapman, 1919), provide the first record of Archaeolafoea Chapman, 1919 from the Cambrian of Laurentia and show clear fusellar structure in backscattered electron images, confirming a graptolite affinity for this taxon. Mastigograptus sp., described on the basis of a single well-preserved specimen from the Marjum Formation, shows for the first time in a Cambrian mastigograptid an arrangement of thecae similar to that known for Ordovician representatives of the genus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 403 - 410
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

Andres, D. 1961. Die Struktur von Mastigograptiden aus einem ordovizischen Geschiebe Berlins. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, 12:636–647.Google Scholar
Andres, D. 1977. Graptolithen aus ordovizischen Geschieben und die frühe Stammesgeschichte der Graptolithen. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 51:52–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, L. E., Robison, R. A., and Peng, S. C. 2011. Cambrian stage and series nomenclature of Laurentia and the developing global chronostratigraphic scale. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, 67:12–26.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. E., Robison, R. A., Rees, M. N., Peng, S. C., and Saltzman, M. R. 2007. The Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) of the Drumian Stage (Cambrian) in the Drum Mountains, Utah, U.S. Episodes, 30:85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D. E. B. and Urbanek, A. 2002. The ultrastructure, development, and systematic position of the graptolite genus Mastigograptus . Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 47:445–458.Google Scholar
Bateson, W. 1885. The later stages in the development of Balanoglossus kowalevskii, with a suggestion as to the affinities of the Enteropneusta. Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society, 25:81–122.Google Scholar
Bordonaro, O. L., Pratt, B. R., and Robledo, V. 2012. Systematic, morphometric and palaeobiogeographic study of Blainia gregaria Walcott, 1916 (Trilobita, Ptychopariida), middle Cambrian of the Precordillera of western Argentina. Geological Journal, online DOI: 10.1002/gj.1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, M. J. and Koepnick, R. B. 1979. A middle Cambrian platform-to-basin transition, House Range, west central Utah. Brigham Young University Geological Studies, 26:1–17.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Allison, P. A., DeSantis, M. K., Liddell, W. D., and Kramer, A. 2009. Sequence stratigraphy, cyclic facies, and Lagerstätten in the middle Cambrian Wheeler and Marjum Formations, Great Basin, Utah. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 277:9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G. and Robison, R. A. 1984. Exceptionally preserved non-trilobite arthropods and Anomalocaris from the middle Cambrian of Utah. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 111:1–24.Google Scholar
Bronn, H. G. 1849. Index Palaeontologicus oder Übersicht der bis jetzt bekannten fossilen Organismen, Prof. H. R. Göppert und Herm. V. Meyer. In Bronn, H. G. (ed.), Zweite Abtheilung. B. Enumerator palaeontologicus: Systematische Zusammenstellung und geologische Entwicklungs-Gesetze der organischen Reiche, 1– 976. E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Bulman, O. M. B., 1970. Graptolithina with sections on Enteropneusta and Pterobranchia, p. 1–163. In Teichert, K. and Moore, R. (eds,), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part V (2nd edition). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder and Lawrence.Google Scholar
Chapman, F. 1919. On some hydroid remains of lower Palaeozoic age from Monegetta, near Lancefield. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 31:388–393.Google Scholar
Chapman, F. and Thomas, D. E. 1936. The Cambrian Hydroida of the Heathcote and Monegeeta districts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 48:193–219.Google Scholar
Chapman, A. J., Durman, P. N., and Rickards, R. B. 1996. A provisional classification of the graptolite Order Dendroidea. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 70:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway Morris, S. and Robison, R. A. 1982. The enigmatic medusoid Peytoia and a comparison of some Cambrian biotas. Journal of Paleontology, 56:116–122.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S. and Robison, R. A. 1986. Middle Cambrian priapulids and other soft-bodied fossils from Utah and Spain. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 117:1–22.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S. and Robison, R. A. 1988. More soft-bodied animals and algae from the Middle Cambrian of Utah and British Columbia. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 122:1–48.Google Scholar
Gaines, R. R., Briggs, D. E. G., and Zhao, Y. L. 2008. Cambrian Burgess Shale-type deposits share a common mode of fossilization. Geology, 36:755–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, R. R. and Droser, M. L. 2010. The paleoredox setting of Burgess Shale-type deposits. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 297:649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, R. R., Kennedy, M. J., and Droser, M. L. 2005. A new hypothesis for organic preservation of Burgess Shale taxa in the middle Cambrian Wheeler Formation, House Range, Utah. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 220:193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, B. F. 1963. New Cambrian conchostracans from Wyoming and Newfoundland, brachiopods from Vermont, and worm, hydrozoan, and problematicum from Newfoundland. Journal of Paleontology, 37:264–267.Google Scholar
Howley, R. A. and Jiang, G. Q. 2010. The Cambrian Drumian carbon isotope excursion (DICE) in the Great Basin, western United States. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 296:138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howley, R. A., Rees, M. N., and Jiang, G. Q. 2006. Significance of middle Cambrian mixed carbonate-siliciclastic units for global correlation: Southern Nevada, U.S. Palaeoworld, 15:360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, K. J., Johnston, P. A., and Powell, W. G. 2009. A new, middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale-type biota, Bolaspidella Zone, Chancellor Basin, southeastern British Columbia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 277:106–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, A. 2006. Characterization of Burgess Shale Type biofacies from the Wheeler Shale, Utah. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 38, No. 7, p. 66.Google Scholar
Lankester, E. R. 1877. Notes on the embryology and classification of the animal kingdom: Comprising a revision of speculations relative to the origin and significance of the germ-layers. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, New Series, 17:399–454.Google Scholar
Maletz, J., Steiner, M., and Fatka, O. 2005. Middle Cambrian pterobranchs and the question: What is a graptolite? Lethaia, 38:73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mierzejewski, P. 1986. Ultrastructure, taxonomy, and affinities of some Ordovician and Silurian organic microfossils. Palaeontologia Polonica, 47:129–220.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C., Melchin, M., Cameron, C., and Maletz, J. 2013. Phylogenetic analysis reveals that Rhabdopleura is an extant graptolite. Lethaia, 46:34–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obut, A. M. 1964. Podtip Stomochordata, p. 279–337. In Orlov, Y. A. (ed.), Osnovy Paleontologii: Echinodermata, Hemichordata, Pogonophora i Chaetognatha. Nedra Press, Moscow.Google Scholar
Poulsen, C. 1927. The Cambrian, Ozarkian and Canadian faunas of northwest Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, 70:237–343.Google Scholar
Quilty, P. G. 1971. Cambrian and Ordovician dendroids and hydroids of Tasmania. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, 17:171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, M. 1986. A fault-controlled trough through a carbonate platform: The middle Cambrian House Range embayment. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 97:1057–1069.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, R. B., Baillie, P. W., and Jago, J. B. 1990. An upper Cambrian (Idamean) dendroid assemblage from near Smithton, northwestern Tasmania. Alcheringa, 14:207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, B. and Durman, P. N. 2006. Evolution of the earliest graptolites and other hemichordates. In Bassett, M. G. and Deisler, V. K. (eds.), Studies in Palaeozoic Palaeontology. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, UK, Geological series 25.Google Scholar
Robison, R. A. 1971. Additional middle Cambrian trilobites from the Wheeler Shale of Utah. Journal of Paleontology, 45:796–804.Google Scholar
Robison, R. A. 1991. Middle Cambrian biotic diversity: examples from four Utah Lagerstätten, p. 77–98. In Simonetta, A. M. and Conway Morris, S. (eds.), The Early Evolution of Metazoa and the Significance of Problematic Taxa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Robison, R. A. and Babcock, L. E. 2011. Systematics, paleobiology, and taphonomy of some exceptionally preserved trilobites from Cambrian Lagerstätten of Utah. Paleontological Contributions, 5:1–47.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1908. Graptolites of New York: Pt. II, Graptolites of the Higher Beds. New York State Museum Memoirs, 11:457–583.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1931. Some new middle Cambrian fossils from British Columbia. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 79:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1933. The Cambrian of the upper Mississippi Valley: Part III, Graptolitoidea. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, 12:307–348.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1947. Graptolites of North America. Geological Society of America Memoir 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scotese, C. R. 2001. Atlas of Earth History, PALEOMAP Project, Arlington, Texas.Google Scholar
Sdzuy, K. 1974. Mittelkambrische Graptolithen aus NW-Spanien. Palaöntologische Zeitschrift, 48:110–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, M., Church, S. B., and Robison, R. A. 2011. A new Cambrian arthropod, Emeraldella brutoni, from Utah. Paleontological Contributions, http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8086.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1879. The Utica Slate and related formations of the same geological horizon. Transactions of the Albany Institute, 10:1–17.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1919. Cambrian geology and paleontology IV, no. 5, middle Cambrian algae. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 67 (5):217–260.Google Scholar