Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-rz4zl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-11T16:57:04.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing the differential filling of morphospace and allometric space through time: the morphological and developmental dynamics of Early Jurassic ammonoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Sylvain Gerber
Sylvain Gerber*
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The evolutionary history of shell geometry of Early Jurassic ammonoids during the Pliensbachian–Toarcian second-order mass extinction is explored at both adult and ontogenetic levels. The ontogenetic approach builds on the concept of allometric space to get insights into the developmental aspects of morphological evolution. Investigation of the deployment of taxa in adult morphospace and allometric space allows the appraisal of the temporal evolution of morphological and allometric disparities. Curves of taxonomic diversity, adult morphological disparity, allometric disparity, and average adult size are contrasted. Results show that during the Pliensbachian–Toarcian interval, ammonoids underwent two successive and drastic declines in taxonomic diversity. Patterns of morphospace and allometric space occupancy suggest nonselective extinction at both morphological and developmental levels. Another measure of allometric disparity suggests the occurrence of two heterochronic trends, a peramorphocline followed by a paedomorphocline, during the Toarcian. These trends are concomitant with changes in average adult size that compensate for the heterochronic effects and explain the striking stability of morphological disparity despite changes in diversity. The results also emphasize the existence of two contrasted evolutionary dynamics in Pliensbachian and Toarcian ammonoids. Methodologically, the allometric disparity approach appears to be a fruitful tool to analyze the rather understudied clade-wide ontogenetic aspects of morphological evolution. Combining multiple approaches to describe clade morphological dynamics leads to a better characterization and understanding of the diversity-disparities relationships and a better distinction of the potential processes driving these macroevolutionary patterns.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , Summer 2011 , pp. 369 - 382
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Alberch, P. 1980. Ontogenesis and morphological diversification. American Zoologist 20:653–667.Google Scholar
Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5:296–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. 2000. The concept of developmental reprogramming and the quest for an inclusive theory of evolutionary development. Evolution and Development 2:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, H., Landman, N. H., Klofak, S. M., and Guex, J., 1996. Mode and rate of growth in ammonoids. Pp. 407–461 in Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckman, S. S. 1892. A monograph of the interior oolite ammonites of the British Islands, Part II, Pp. 313–344. Palaeontographical Society, London.Google Scholar
Callomon, J. H. 1963. Sexual dimorphism in Jurassic ammonoidea. Transactions of the Leicester Literary and Philosophical Society 57:21–56.Google Scholar
Callomon, J. H. 1981. Dimorphism in ammonoids. Pp. 257–273 in House, M. R. and Senior, J. R., eds. The Ammonoidea. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Cecca, F., and Macchioni, F. 2004. The two Early Toarcian (Early Jurassic) extinction events in ammonoids. Lethaia 37:35–56.Google Scholar
Ciampaglio, C. N., Kemp, M., and McShea, D. W. 2001. Detecting changes in morphospace occupation patterns in the fossil record: characterization and analysis of measures of disparity. Paleobiology 27:695–715.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cock, A. G. 1966. Genetical aspects of metrical growth and form in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 41:131–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, R. A., Landman, N. H., Dommergues, J.-L., Marchand, D., and Bucher, H. 1996. Mature modifications and dimorphism in ammonoid cephalopods. Pp. 463–539 in Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Dera, G., Puceat, E., Pellenard, P., Neige, P., Delsate, D., Joachimski, M. M., Reisberg, L., and Martinez, M. 2009. Water mass exchange and variations in seawater temperature in the NW Tethys during the Early Jurassic: evidence from neodymium and oxygen isotopes of fish teeth and belemnites. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 286:198–207.Google Scholar
Dera, G., Neige, P., Dommergues, J.-L., Fara, E., Laffont, R., and Pellenard, P. 2010. High-resolution dynamics of Early Jurassic marine extinctions: the case of Pliensbachian–Toarcian ammonites (Cephalopoda). Journal of the Geological Society 167:21–33.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., and Meister, C. 1989. Trajectoires ontogénétiques et hétérochronies complexes chez des ammonites (Harpoceratinae) du Jurassique inférieur (Domérien). Geobios 12:157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., David, B., and Marchand, D. 1986. Les relations ontogenèse-phylogenèse: applications paléontologiques. Geobios 19:335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., Cariou, E., Contini, D., Hantzpergue, P., Marchand, D., Meister, C., and Thierry, J. 1989. Homéomorphies et canalisations évolutives: le rôle de l'ontogenèse. Quelques exemples pris chez les ammonites du Jurassique. Geobios 22:5–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., Laurin, B., and Meister, C. 1996. Evolution of ammonoid morphospace during the Early Jurassic radiation. Paleobiology 22:219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L. 2001. The recovery and radiation of Early Jurassic ammonoids: morphologic versus palaeobiogeographical patterns. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 165:195–213.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., Montuire, S., and Neige, P. 2002. Size patterns through time: the case of the Early Jurassic ammonite radiation. Paleobiology 28:423–434.Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. 2002. Multivariate approaches to development and evolution. Pp. 51–78 in Minus-Purvis, N. and McNamara, K. J., eds. Human Evolution through developmental change. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. 2003. Developmental morphospaces and evolution. Pp. 35–65 in Crutchfield, J. P. and Schuster, P., eds. Evolutionary Dynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contribution from the Museum of Paleontology. University of Michigan 28:101–140.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18:1–16.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1994. Morphological disparity in Ordovician-Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of the morphological space. Paleobiology 20:320–344.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 28:129–152.Google Scholar
Gerber, S. 2007. Morphological disparity at ontogenetic and evolutionary scales: examples from cephalopods. , University of Burgundy, Dijon.Google Scholar
Gerber, S., Neige, P., and Eble, G. J. 2007. Combining ontogenetic and evolutionary scales of morphological disparity: a study of early Jurassic ammonites. Evolution and Development 9:472–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, S., Eble, G. J., and Neige, P. 2008. Allometric space and allometric disparity: a developmental perspective in the macroevolutionary analysis of morphological disparity. Evolution 62:1450–1457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, S. 2011. Developmental aspects of morphological disparity dynamics: a simple analytical exploration. Paleobiology 37:237–251.Google Scholar
Godfrey, L. R., and Sutherland, M. R. 1995a. Flawed inference: why size based tests of heterochronic processes do not work. Journal of Theoretical Biology 172:43–61.Google Scholar
Godfrey, L. R. 1995b. Paradox of peramorphic paedomorphosis: heterochrony and human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 29:405–431.Google Scholar
Goodall, C. R. 1991. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 53:285–339.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2000. Of coiled oysters and big brains: how to rescue the terminology of heterochrony, now gone astray. Evolution and Development 2:241–248.Google Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J.G., Smith, A. G., Agterberg, F. P., Bleeker, W., Cooper, R. A., Davydov, V., Gibbard, P., Hinnov, L., House, M. R., Lourens, L., Luterbacher, H.-P., McArthur, J., Melchin, M. J., Robb, L. J., Shergold, J., Villeneuve, M., Wardlaw, B. R., Ali, J., Brinkhuis, H., Hilgen, F. J., Hooker, J., Howarth, R. J., Knoll, A. H., Laskar, J., Monechi, S., Powell, J., Plumb, K. A., Raffi, I., Röhl, U., Sanfilippo, A., Schmitz, B., Shackleton, N. J., Shields, G. A., Strauss, H., Van Dam, J., Veizer, J., van Kolfschoten, Th., and Wilson, D. 2004. A geologic time scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Guex, J. 2006. Reinitialization of evolutionary clocks during sublethal environmental stress in some invertebrates. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 242:240–253.Google Scholar
Guex, J., Koch, A., O'Dogherty, L., and Bucher, H. 2003. A morphogenetic explanation of Buckman's law of covariation. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 174:603–606.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1987. Radiations and extinctions in relation to environmental change in the marine Jurassic of north west Europe. Paleobiology 13:152–168.Google Scholar
Hammer, O., and Bucher, H. 1999. Reaction-diffusion processes: application to the morphogenesis of ammonoid ornamentation. Geobios 32:841–852.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Jenkyns, H. C., and Clayton, C. J. 1997. Lower Jurassic epicontinental carbonates and mudstones from England and Wales: chemostratigraphic signals and the early Toarcian anoxic event. Sedimentology 144:687–706.Google Scholar
Jolicoeur, P. 1963. The multivariate generalization of the allometry equation. Biometrics 19:497–499.Google Scholar
Jourdan, F., Feraud, G., Bertrand, H., Watkeys, M. K., and Renne, P. R. 2007. Distinct brief major events in the Karoo large igneous province clarified by new 40Ar/39Ar ages on the Lesotho basalts. Lithos 98:195–209.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. Pp. 23–49 in Marcus, L. F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G. J. P., and Slice, D. E., eds. Advance in morphometrics. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P. 1998. Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biological Reviews 73:79–123.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Dommergues, J.-L., and Marchand, D. 1991. The complex nature of progenetic species—examples from Mesozoic ammonites. Lethaia 24:409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makowski, H. 1962. Problem of sexual dimorphism in ammonites. Palaeontologica Polonica 12:1–92.Google Scholar
Marchand, D., and Dommergues, J.-L. 1988. Rythmes evolutifs et heterochronie du developpement: exemples pris parmi les Ammonites jurassiques. Pp. 67–78 in Wiedmann, J. and Kullmann, J., eds. Cephalopods, present and past. Proceedings of the 2nd International Cephalopod Symposium, Tübingen. E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1988. Heterochrony in evolution: a multidisciplinary approach. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L., and McNamara, K. J. 1991. Heterochrony: the evolution of ontogeny. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology 8:130–142.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1995. Evolutionary change and heterochrony. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1997. Shapes of time: the evolution of growth and development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J., and McKinney, M. L. 2005. Heterochrony, disparity, and macroevolution. In Vrba, E. S. and Eldredge, N., eds. Macroevolution: diversity, disparity, contingency. Paleobiology 31(Suppl. to No. 2):17–26.Google Scholar
Mitteroecker, P., and Gunz, P. 2009. Advances in morphometrics. Evolutionary Biology 36:235–247.Google Scholar
Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., and Bookstein, F. L. 2005. Heterochrony and geometric morphometrics: a comparison of cranial growth in Pan paniscus versus Pan troglodites . Evolution and Development 7:244–258.Google Scholar
Navarro, N. 2003. MDA: a MATLAB-based program for morphospace-disparity analysis. Computers and Geosciences 29:655–664.Google Scholar
Needham, J. 1933. On the dissociability of the fundamental processes in ontogenesis. Biological Reviews 8:180–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neige, P., Brayard, A., Gerber, S., and Rouget, I. 2009. Les Ammonoïdés (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): avancées et contributions récentes a la paléobiologie évolutive. Comptes Rendus Palevol 8:167–178.Google Scholar
Pálfy, J., and Smith, P. L. 2000. Synchrony between Early Jurassic extinction, oceanic anoxic event, and the Karoo-Ferrar food basalt volcanism. Geology 28:747–750.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41:43–65.Google Scholar
Riley, T. R., and Knight, K. B. 2001. Age of pre-break-up Gondwana magmatism. Antarctic Science 13:99–110.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. Journal of Classification 16:197–223.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J., and Slice, D. E. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39:40–59.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Raup, D. M. 1986. Periodicity in marine extinction events. Pp. 3–36 in Elliott, D. K., ed. Dynamics of extinction. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Shea, B. T. 1985. Bivariate and multivariate growth allometry: statistical and biological considerations. Journal of Zoology 206:367–390.Google Scholar
Slice, D. E. 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Systematic Biology 50:141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, C. G. 1996. The statistical theory of shape. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Solignac, M., Cariou, M.-L., and Wimitzki, M. 1990. Variability, specificity and evolution of growth gradients in the species complex Jaera albifrons (Isopoda, Asellota). Crustaceana 59:121–145.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. W. 1942. On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1980. Comparative shell shape distributions in Jurassic-Cretaceous ammonites and Jurassic-Tertiary nautilids. Paleobiology 6:32–43.Google Scholar
Webster, M., and Zelditch, M. L. 2005. Evolutionary modifications of ontogeny: heterochrony and beyond. Paleobiology 31:354–372.Google Scholar
Webster, M., Sheets, H. D., and Hugues, N. C. 2001. Allometric re-patterning in trilobite ontogeny: testing for heterochrony in Nephrolenellus . Pp. 105–144 in Zelditch, M. L., ed. Beyond heterochrony: the evolution of development. Wiley-Liss, New York.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1966. Covariation and taxonomy of the Jurassic ammonite Sonninia adicra (Waagen). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 124:289–312.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A. 2001. Disparity vs. diversity. Pp. 495–500 in Briggs, D. E. G. and Crowther, P. R., eds. Paleobiology II. Blackwell Publishing, Maiden, Mass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G., and Fortey, R. A. 1994. Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and Recent arthropods. Paleobiology 20:93–130.Google Scholar
Yacobucci, M. M. 2004. Buckman's paradox: variability and constraints on ammonoid ornament and shell shape. Lethaia 37:57–69.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L. 2003. The ontogenetic dynamics of shape disparity. Paleobiology 29:139–156.Google Scholar