Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T02:48:42.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Apparent cannibalism by Chesapeake Group naticid gastropods: a predictable result of selective predation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Patricia H. Kelley
Patricia H. Kelley*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of Mississippi, University 38677
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Naticid gastropods of the Chesapeake Group of Maryland, like extant naticids, apparently were cannibalistic. This cannibalism did not result from the absence of bivalve prey or from the ineptitude of the predator, as some previous authors have suggested. Instead, predation on Chesapeake Group naticids was a predictable result of prey selection to maximize energy gain per foraging time.

This study examines predation on Lunatia heros (530 specimens) and Polinices duplicatus (340 specimens) from the St. Marys Formation of the Chesapeake Group. Predation on naticids displayed the same characteristics as predation on bivalve prey, including selectivity of prey size and drillhole site. The two naticid species were differentially attacked, based on their relative cost-benefit ratios and escape sizes. Cannibalism is not anomalous; it is the expected result of selective predation, and is inhibited primarily by the high mobility of naticid prey.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 75 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Journal of Paleontology 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adegoke, O. S., and Tevesz, M. J. S. 1974. Gastropod predation patterns in the Eocene of Nigeria. Lethaia, 7:17–24.Google Scholar
Berg, C. J. Jr., and Porter, M. E. 1974. A comparison of predatory behavior among the naticid gastropods Lunatia heros, Lunatia triseriata, and Polinices duplicatus . Biological Bulletin, 147:469–470.Google Scholar
Blackwelder, B. W., and Ward, L. W. 1976. Stratigraphy of the Chesapeake Group of Maryland and Virginia. Geological Society of America Guidebook 7b, 55 p.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R. 1951. Observations on the penetration of tightly closing bivalves by Busycon and other predators. Ecology, 32:73–83.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A., and Martinell, J. 1984. Prey selection by naticid gastropods in the Pliocene of Emporda (Northeast Spain). Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie, Monatschefte, 1984:393–399.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A., Pisera, A., and Ryszkiewicz, M. 1974. Predation by muricid and naticid gastropods on the lower Tortonian mollusks from the Korytnica clays. Acta Geologica Polonica, 24:249–264.Google Scholar
Kabat, A. R., and Kohn, A. J. 1986. Predation on early Pleistocene naticid gastropods in Fiji. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 53:255–269.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1982. Prey preference of naticid gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: taxonomic and stratigraphic patterns. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 14:527.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1983. Evolutionary patterns of eight Chesapeake Group molluscs: evidence for the model of punctuated equilibria. Journal of Paleontology, 57:581–598.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1988. Predation by Miocene gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: stereotyped and predictable. Palaios, 3:436–448.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1989. Evolutionary trends within bivalve prey of Chesapeake Group naticid gastropods. Historical Biology, 2:139–156.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1982. Coevolution in a predator-prey system. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention III, 2:301–305.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1986. The evolution of predator-prey behavior: naticid gastropods and their molluscan prey, p. 88–110. In Nitecki, M. and Kitchell, J. A. (eds.), Evolution of Animal Behavior: Paleontological and Field Approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology, 7:533–552.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Rice, J. A., Kitchell, J. F., Hoffman, A., and Martinell, J. 1986. Anomalies in naticid predatory behavior: a critique and experimental observations. Malacologia, 27:291–298.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1963. Trophic relationships of eight sympatric gastropods. Ecology, 44:63–73.Google Scholar
Shattuck, G. B. 1904. Geological and paleontological relations with a review of earlier investigations, p. xxxiii–cxxvii. In Maryland Geological Survey, Miocene.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 312 p.Google Scholar
Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Nelson, P. C. 1980. Reconstruction of the trophic web in paleontology: community structure in the Stone City Formation (middle Eocene, Texas). Journal of Paleontology, 54:118–135.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D. 1970. Feeding habits of predatory gastropods in a Tertiary (Eocene) molluscan assemblage from the Paris basin. Palaeontology, 13:255–260.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D., Cleevelly, R. J., and Morris, N. J. 1983. Predatory gastropods and their activities in the Blackdown Greensand (Albian) of England. Palaeontology, 26:521–553.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and Escalation: An Ecological History of Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 527 p.Google Scholar