Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:36:11.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Graptolite ultrastructure: evolution of descriptive and conceptual terminology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

R. B. Rickards  and
L. W. Dumican
R. B. Rickards
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, U.K.
L. W. Dumican
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Graptolite ultrastructural studies using SEM and TEM are now more than a quarter of a century old and have reached the stage of routine procedure where material of suitable preservation is to hand. (Specimens may be chemically isolated from the rock or, in SEM and STEM studies, may be retained in the matrix.) Description of ultrastructural elements has evolved from the purely empirical to a conceptual/biological classification following (a) the recognition of the role of collagen fibrils in skeletal construction, and (b) the realization that at least two models of skeletal secretion are possible, each essentially opposed to the other. In this paper old terminology is explained with reference to current practice and the latter is tabulated and referred to the increasing number of described ultrastructural elements. Some of the outstanding problems of interpretation are outlined; and a set of concise, in some cases revised, ultrastructural definitions is given together with illustration, where appropriate, of the ultrastructural element defined.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 125 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Armstrong, W. G., Dilly, P. N. & Urbanek, A. 1984. Collagen in the pterobranch coenecium and the problem of graptolite affinities. Lethaia 17, 145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, W. B. N. & Takagi, R. S. 1970. Electron microscope investigation of Orthograptus quadimucronatus from the Maquoketa Formation (Late Ordovician) in Iowa. Journal of Paleontology 44, 177–224.Google Scholar
Bohlin, B. 1950. The affinities of the graptolites. Bulletin of the Geological Institute, University of Uppsala 34, 107–13.Google Scholar
Bulman, O. M. B. 1970. Graptolithina. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (ed. Teichert, C.), pt. V. i–xxxii, 1–163 (2nd edition). Geological Society of America & University of Kansas Press (New York, N.Y.; Lawrence, Kansas).Google Scholar
Chapman, A. J. & Rickards, R. B. 1982. Peridermal (cortical) ultrastructure in Dictyonema cf. rhinanthi-forme Bulman, and the significance of its bithecae. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 56, 217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, P. R. 1978. The nature and mode of life of the graptolite zooid with reference to secretion of the cortex. Acta palaeontologica polonica 23, 473–9.Google Scholar
Crowther, P. R. 1981. The fine structure of the graptolite periderm. Special Papers in Palaeontology 26, 119 pp.Google Scholar
Crowther, P. R. & Rickards, R. B. 1977. Cortical bandages and the graptolite zooid. Geologica et Palaeontologica 11, 9–46.Google Scholar
Dilly, P. N. (in press). Modern Pterobranchs. Observations on their behaviour and tube building. Special Publications of the Geological Society of London.Google Scholar
Holland, C. H. Rickards, R. B. & Warren, P. T. 1969. The Wenlock graptolites of the Ludlow District, Shropshire, and their stratigraphic significance. Palaeontologica 12, 663–82.Google Scholar
Hyde, P. J. W. 1972. High Resolution in the Scanning Electron Microscope. Cambridge: Cambridge Instrument Company.Google Scholar
Kirk, N. 1975. More thoughts on the construction and functioning of the rhabdosome in the Graptoloidea in the light of their ultrastructure. University College of Wales Aberystwyth, Department of Geology Publications no. 7, 1–24.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, R. 1938. Informations préliminaires sur les Graptolithes du Tremadoc de la Pologne et sur leur portée thórique. Annales Musei Zoologici Polonici 13, 183–96.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, R. 1949. Les graptolithes et quelques nouveaux groupes d'animaux du Tremadoc de la Pologne. Palaeontologica Polonica 3, 1–235.Google Scholar
Kraatz, R. 1968. Electrone mikroskopische beobachtungen an Monograptus Rhabdosomen. Der Aufschluss 12, 356–61.Google Scholar
Rickards, R. B. 1975. Palaeoecology of the Graptolithina, an extinct Class of the Phylum Herriichordata. Biological Reviews 50, 397–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, R. B., Crowther, P. R. & Chapman, A. J. 1982. Ultrastructural studies of graptolites–a review. Geological Magazine 119, 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, R. B., Hyde, P. J. W. & Krinsley, D. H. 1971. Periderm ultrastructure of a species of Monograptus (Phylum Hemichordata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 178, 347–56.Google Scholar
Rickards, R. B. & Stait, B. 1984. Psigraptus, its classification, evolution and zooid. Alcherringa, 101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towe, K. M. & Urbanek, A. 1972. Collagen-like structure in Ordovician graptolite periderm. Nature 237, 443–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towe, K. M. & Urbanek, A. 1974. Fossil organic material: a unique fibril ultrastructure in Silurian graptolites. Proceedings, 8th International Congress of Electron Microscopy, Canberra, Australia 2, 694–5.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. 1976. The problem of graptolite affinities in the light of ultrastructural studies on peridermal derivations in pterobranchs. Acta palaeontologica polonica 21, 3–36.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A., Koren', T. N. & Mierzejewski, P. 1982. The fine structure of the virgular apparatus in Cystograptus vesiculosus. Lethaia 15, 207–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanek, A. & Mierzejewski, P. 1978. The ultrastructure of ribbon-like deposits over the thecae in Orthograptus gracilis Roemer. Acta palaeontologica polonica 23, 637–42.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. & Mierzejewski, P. 1984. The ultrastructure of Crustoidea and the evolution of graptolite skeletal tissues. Lethaia 17, 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanek, A., Mierzejewski, P. & Rickards, R. B. (in press). New observations on the fine structure of graptoblasts. Lethaia.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. & Towe, K. M. 1974. Ultrastructural studies on graptolites. 1. The periderm and its derivatives in Dendroidea and in Mastigograptus. Smithsonian Contributions to Palaeobiology 20, 1–48.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. & Towe, K. M. 1975. Ultrastructural studies on graptolites. 2. The periderm and its derivatives in the Graptoloidea. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 22, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, W. 1958. Graptolithen und ihre fraglichen Verwandten im elektronenmikroskopischen Verleich. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologise Abhandlungen 7, 307–312.Google Scholar