Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T07:30:51.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intercolony fusion suggests polyembryony in Paleozoic fenestrate bryozoans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Frank K. McKinney
Frank K. McKinney*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28608, and Research Associate, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fusion occurred between pairs of conspecific colonies of Permian fenestrate bryozoans that were of approximately equal radius at time of contact. In contrast, no fusion occurred in pairs of conspecific colonies that were of unequal radius at time of contact. It is suggested that histologically compatible colonies developed from larvae that settled essentially simultaneously and that the larvae were siblings, lecithotrophic with low mobility, and of the same genotype (i.e., polyembryonic). Thus polyembryony appears to have existed as a reproductive “strategy” for at least 275 Myr, and its scarcity in modern taxa cannot be due to recentness of evolution.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Spring 1981 , pp. 247 - 251
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

Borg, F. 1926. Studies on recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zool. Bidrag Uppsala. 10:181–507.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1933. A revision of the recent Heteroporidae (Bryozoa). Zool. Bidrag Uppsala. 14:254–394.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. 1971. “Self-recognition” in colonial marine forms and flowering plants in relation to the evolution of immunity. Nature. 232:230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, G. A. and Grant, R. E. 1962. Permian brachiopods of west Texas, I. Smithsonian Contrib. Paleobiol. 14, 231 pp.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R. 1904. Development of some Paleozoic Bryozoa. Am. J. Sci. 17:49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumings, E. R. 1905. Development of Fenestella. Am. J. Sci. 20:169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, M. D. and Hall, B. R. 1976. Life history, growth habits, and constructional roles of Acropora cervicornis in the patch reef environment. J. Sed. Petrol. 46:519–522.Google Scholar
Harmelin, J.-G. 1974. Les bryozoaires cyclostomes de Méditerranée, Écologie et systématique. These Univ. d'Aix-Marseille. 365 pp. 38 pls.Google Scholar
Hildemann, W. H., Raison, R. L., Hull, C. J., Akaka, L., Okamoto, J., and Cheung, G. 1977A. Tissue transplantation immunity in corals. 3rd Int. Coral Reef Symp. pp. 537–543.Google Scholar
Hildemann, W. H., Raison, R. L., Cheung, G., Hull, C. J., Akaka, L., and Okamoto, J. 1977B. Immunological specificity and memory in a scleractinian coral. Nature. 270:219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildemann, W. H., Johnson, I. S., and Jokiel, P. L. 1979. Immunocompetence in the lowest metazoan phylum: transplantation immunity in sponges. Science. 204:420–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, T. P. and Jackson, J. B. C. 1980. Do corals lie about their age? Some demographic consequences of partial mortality, fission, and fusion. Science. 209:713–715.Google ScholarPubMed
Humphries, E. M. 1979. Selected features of growth in Parasmittina nitida. pp. 195–218. In: Larwood, G. P. and Abbott, M. B., eds. Advances in Bryozoology. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Knight-Jones, E. W. and Moyse, J. 1961. Intraspecific competition in sedentary marine animals. Soc. Exp. Biol. Symp. 15:72–95.Google Scholar
M'Coy, F. 1862. A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous limestone fossils of Ireland. Williams & Norgate; London.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1978. Astogeny of the lyre-shaped Carboniferous fenestrate bryozoan Lyroporella. J. Paleontol. 52:83–90.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1979. Some paleoenvironments of the coiled fenestrate bryozoan Archimedes. pp. 321–336. In: Larwood, G. P. and Abbott, M. B., eds. Advances in Bryozoology. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Marcus, E. and Marcus, E. 1962. On some lunulitiform Bryozoa. Brazil Univ. Fac. Filosofia, Cien. Letras Bol. Zool. pp. 281–312.Google Scholar
Moyano, H. I. 1967. Sobre la fusión de dos colonias de Membranipora hyadesi Jullien, 1888. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Noticiario Mensual. 126:1–4.Google Scholar
Mukai, H. and Watanabe, H. 1974. On the occurrence of colony specificity in some compound ascidians. Biol. Bull. 147:411–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, T. J. and Palmer, C. D. 1977. Faunal distribution and colonization strategy in a Middle Ordovician hardground community. Lethaia. 10:179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D. 1973. Observations on colony overgrowth and spatial competition. pp. 173–183. In: Larwood, G. P., ed. Living and Fossil Bryozoa. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Tavener-Smith, R. 1966. Ovicells in fenestrate cryptostomes of Visean age. J. Paleontol. 40:190–198.Google Scholar
Vine, G. R. 1883. Fourth report of the committee appointed for the purpose of reporting on fossil Polyzoa. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Rep. 53rd Meet. pp. 161–209.Google Scholar