Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-2qt69 Total loading time: 0.284 Render date: 2022-08-10T18:43:55.316Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Cephalopods: biasing agents in the preservation of lobsters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

Dale M. Tshudy
Affiliation:
1Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242
Rodney M. Feldmann
Affiliation:
1Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242
Peter D. Ward
Affiliation:
2Department of Geological Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle 98195

Abstract

Modern Nautilus, in natural and laboratory settings, scavenges both dead and molted decapod crustaceans. Ingestion of palinurid lobster exuviae by Nautilus follows a specific pattern in which the cephalopod consumes the exoskeleton beginning at the posteriormost part of the abdomen and continuing anteriorly. During the ingestion process, the cephalothorax is least likely to be consumed, either because the Nautilus may abandon the remains, or the cephalothorax may become separated from the abdomen at its weakest point, the articulation of the cephalothorax with the abdomen. Examination of 767 fossil lobster specimens from 50 formations, 41 of Cretaceous age, demonstrates that the fossil record of lobsters, the preponderance of which appear to be exuviae, is strongly biased in favor of cephalothoraxes. Observations on Nautilus suggest that anatomically selective scavenging by ancient cephalopods, both nautiloids and ammonoids, may explain, in part, the selective preservation of lobster cephalothoraxes over abdomens. Despite the range of variation in jaw morphologies among ammonoids, probably most could have fragmented and ingested decapod remains. Evidence for selective scavenging in the geologic past is purely circumstantial; no cephalopod bitemarks have been identified on fossil lobster exuviae. Pre-burial decomposition of connective tissues and subsequent disarticulation of the abdomen in the absence of scavenging may also have contributed significantly to the observed anatomical taphonomic bias.

Type
Research Article
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

Alexander, R. 1986. Resistance to and repair of shell breakage induced by durophages in Late Ordovician brachiopods. Journal of Paleontology, 60:273285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. A. 1986. Soft-bodied animals in the fossil record: the role of decay in fragmentation during transport. Geology, 14:979981.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidder, A. 1962. Use of the tentacles, swimming and buoyancy control in the pearly nautilus. Nature, 196:451454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliot, D. K., and Brew, D. C. 1988. Cephalopod predation on a Desmoinesian brachiopod from the Naco Formation, central Arizona. Journal of Paleontology, 62:147148.Google Scholar
Feldmann, R. M., and Tshudy, D. M. 1987. Ultrastructure in cuticle from Hoploparia stokesi (Decapoda: Nephropidae) from the Lopez de Bertodano Formation (Late Cretaceous–Paleocene) of Seymour Island, Antarctica. Journal of Paleontology, 61:11941203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haven, N. 1972. The ecology and behavior of Nautilus pompilius in the Philippines. Veliger, 15:7581.Google Scholar
Hewitt, R. A., and Watkins, R. 1980. Cephalopod ecology across a Late Silurian shelf tract. Neues Jahruch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 169:90117.Google Scholar
Kummel, B. 1964. Nautiloidea–Nautilida, p. K383K456. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. K, Mollusca 3. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Lehmann, U. 1980. Ammonite jaw apparatus and soft parts, p. 275287. In House, M. and Senior, J. (eds.), The Ammonoidea. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Lehmann, U. 1981. The Ammonites: Their Life and Their World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 246 p.Google Scholar
Macellari, C. 1986. Late Campanian–Maastrichtian ammonite fauna from Seymour Island (Antarctic Peninsula). Paleontological Society Memoir 18, p. 155.Google Scholar
Magnier, Y., and Laboute, P. 1978. Guides Sous-marin de Nouvelle Caledonie. Le Edition du Pacifique, 160 p.Google Scholar
Plotnick, R. E. 1986. Taphonomy of a modern shrimp: implications for the arthropod fossil record. Palaios, 1:286293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, A. G. 1951. The Integument of Arthropods. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 441 p.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. 1984. The role and status of Nautilus in its natural habitat: evidence from deep-water remote camera photosequences. Paleobiology, 10:469486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W., Spinosa, C., Teichert, C., and Banks, R. 1978. The jaw apparatus of recent Nautilus and its paleontological implications. Palaeontology, 21:129141.Google Scholar
Tanabe, K. 1983. The jaw apparatuses of Cretaceous desmoceratid ammonites. Palaeontology, 26:677686.Google Scholar
Tanabe, K., Fukuda, Y., Kanie, Y., and Lehmann, U. 1980. Rhyncholites and conchorynchs as calcified jaw elements in some late Cretaceous ammonites. Lethaia, 13:157168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanabe, K., Fukuda, Y., 1983. Buccal mass structure of the Cretaceous ammonite Gaudryceras. Lethaia, 16:249256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanabe, K., Fukuda, Y., 1987. The jaw apparatus of the Cretaceous ammonite Reesidites. Lethaia, 20:4148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1982. Nautilus: have shell, will float. Natural History, 91:6569.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1987. The Natural History of Nautilus. Allen and Unwin, Winchester, Massachusetts, 267 p.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. and Martin, A. 1978. On the buoyancy of the pearly Nautilus. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 205:512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P. D., and Wicksten, M. 1980. Food sources and feeding behavior of Nautilus macromphalous. Veliger, 23:119124.Google Scholar
24
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Cephalopods: biasing agents in the preservation of lobsters
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Cephalopods: biasing agents in the preservation of lobsters
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Cephalopods: biasing agents in the preservation of lobsters
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *