Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:29:27.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Late Paleozoic edrioasteroids (Echinodermata) from the North American Midcontinent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Colin D. Sumrall
Colin D. Sumrall*
Affiliation:
7481 E. Camino Santo, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new classification is proposed for late Paleozoic Edrioasteroidea (Echinodermata), separating forms with the advanced clavate thecal design from those with the ancestral pyrgate thecal design, and a new Subfamily Discocystinae is erected to receive the clavate agelacrinitid edrioasteroids. Lepidodiscus Meek and Worthen is restricted to the pyrgate type species L. squamosus (Meek and Worthen) and two unnamed species, whereas the clavate L. laudoni (Bassler) is assigned to Clavidiscus, new genus. The clavate Discocystis priesti Strimple and three new species, Hypsiclavus kinsleyi, new genus and species, Hypsiclavus huntsvillensis, new genus and species, and Hypsiclavus guensburgi, new genus and species, are placed in Hypsiclavus, new genus. Bostryclavus, new genus, is erected to receive Echinodiscus sampsoni Miller. A redescription of Discocystis kaskaskiensis (Hall) and a diagnosis of Spiraclavus Sumrall are included for completeness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 70 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 969 - 985
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

Bassler, R. S. 1935. The classification of the Edrioasteroidea. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 93:1–11.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1936. New species of American Edrioasteroidea. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 95:1–33.Google Scholar
Bell, B. M. 1976a. A study of North American Edrioasteroidea. New York State Museum Memoir 21, 446p.Google Scholar
Bell, B. M. 1976b. Phylogenetic implications of ontogenetic development in the class Edrioasteroidea. Journal of Paleontology, 50:1001–1019.Google Scholar
Bell, B. M. 1977. Respiratory schemes in the class Edrioasteroidea. Journal of Paleontology, 51:619–632.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1858. On the Asteriadae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains, Decade 3:75–85.Google Scholar
Chapman, E. J. 1860. On a new species of Agelacrinites and on the structural relations of that genus. Canadian Journal of Industry, Science, and Art, 5:358–365.Google Scholar
Chesnut, D. R., and Ettensohn, F. R. 1988. Hombergian (Chesterian) echinoderm paleontology and paleoecology, south-central Kentucky. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 95(333), 102 p.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M. 1901. New Agelacrinites. New York State Museum Bulletin 49, Paleontologic Papers, 182–198.Google Scholar
Ehlers, G. M., and Kesling, R. V. 1958. Cyclic pattern of ambulacral covering plates in Discocystis laudoni and its taxonomic implications. University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology, Contribution 14:265–267.Google Scholar
Gregory, J. W. 1897. On Echinocystis and Palaeodiscus—Two genera of Echinoidea. Geological Society of London, Quarterly Report, 53:123–136.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. and Sprinkle, J. 1994. Revised phylogeny and functional interpretation of the Edrioasteroidea based on new taxa from the Early and Middle Ordovician of western Utah, Fieldiana, Publication 1463, 43 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1858. Palaeontology of Iowa. Iowa Geological Survey Report, Embracing the Results of Investigations Made During Portions of the Years, 1855, 1856, 1857, v. 1, pt. 2. Palaeontology, 473–724.Google Scholar
Horowitz, A. S., and Waters, J. A. 1972. A Mississippian echinoderm site in Alabama. Journal of Paleontology, 46:660–665.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V., and Ehlers, G. M. 1958. The edrioasteroid Lepidodiscus squamosus (Meek and Worthen). Journal of Paleontology, 32:923–932.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1868. Remarks on some types of Carboniferous Crinoidea, with descriptions of new genera and species of the same, and one echinoid. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science, Proceedings, 5:335–359.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1891. Paleontology. Geological Survey of Indiana, 17th Annual Report (Advanced Publication), 103 p.Google Scholar
Mooi, R., David, B., and Marchand, D. 1994. Echinoderm skeletal homologies: classical morphology meets modern phylogenetics, p. 87–95. In David, B., Guille, A., Féral, J., and Roux, M. (eds.), Echinoderms Through Time. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1983. British Carboniferous edrioasteroids (Echinodermata). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History (Geology), 37:113–138.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Arbizu, M. A. 1987. Inverse development in a Devonian edrioasteroid from Spain and the phylogeny of the Agelacrinitidae. Lethaia, 20:49–62.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1968. A new edrioasteroid. Iowa Academy of Science Proceedings. 73:260–262.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. 1992. Spiraclavus nacoensis, a new clavate agelacrinitid edrioasteroid from central Arizona. Journal of Paleontology, 66:90–98.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. 1994 (1993). Basic designs in Isorophinid edrioasteroids. Lethaia, 26:289–302.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D., and Sprinkle, J. 1990. “Blisters”, “stuffers”, and “stalkers”—basic designs in Late Paleozoic edrioasteroids. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 22(7):A34.Google Scholar