Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T12:55:26.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disarticulated shells of Late Ordovician brachiopods: inferences on strength of hinge and valve architecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Richard R. Alexander
Richard R. Alexander*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological and Marine Sciences, Rider College, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

More than five thousand specimens of nine species of articulate brachiopods from the Waynesville-Liberty Formation (Late Ordovician) of southeastern Indiana were analyzed for the percentage of specimens disarticulated and the ratio of pedicle to brachial valves. Among biconvex species, the rhynchonellid Hiscobeccus capax displayed the highest ratio (2.66) of articulated to disarticulated specimens, an observation attributed to its cyrtomatodont hinge. The six orthid species from the same assemblages have much higher frequencies of disarticulated valves and deltidiodont hinges, which did not necessitate breakage of the teeth or sockets in order to disassociate the valves. Platystrophia clarksvillensis has the highest percentage of articulated specimens among the orthids, a fact attributed to the hydrodynamic stability of this species and the interlocking of the valves by the plicae around the commissure. The largest of the three concavo-convex taxa, Rafinesquina ponderosa, has the highest ratio of articulated to disarticulated specimens (3.03) and requires the fastest current velocities to transport the shells based on flume experiments.

Additionally, the deltidiodont hinge of R. ponderosa is more complex than those of Strophomena planumbona and Leptaena richmondensis, which might have increased the amount of jostling necessary to disarticulate the valves. The infrequency of brachial valves of H. capax, Hebertella occidentalis, Plaesiomys subquadrata, S. planumbona, and R. ponderosa and the pedicle valves of L. richmondensis probably reflects the comparative mechanical weaknesses of these valves given the high frequency of fragments in the biosparites, which resemble tempestites. Pedicle valves of orthids and rhynchonellids are up to 10 times thicker posteriorly relative to corresponding points on the opposite valve. Brachial valves of L. richmondensis are more than four times thicker anteriorly relative to the pedicle valve. The occurrence of posterior remnants of the fragmented brachial valve still hinged to the unfractured pedicle valve support the idea that the thinner valve is mechanically much weaker.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , July 1990 , pp. 524 - 532
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

Alexander, R. R. 1975. Phenotypic lability of the brachiopod Rafinesquina alternata (Ordovician) and its correlation with the sedimentologic regime. Journal of Paleontology, 49:607–618.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. R. 1984. Comparative hydrodynamic stability of brachiopod shells on current scoured arenaceous substrates. Lethaia, 17:17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. R. 1986a. Life orientation and post-mortem reorientation of Chesterian brachiopod shells by paleoecurrents. Palaios, 1:303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. R. 1986b. Resistance to and repair of shell breakage induced by durophages in Late Ordovician brachiopods. Journal of Paleontology, 60:273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. R. 1989. Influence of valve geometry, ornamentation, and microstructure on fractures in Late Ordovician brachiopods. Lethaia, 22:133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsden, T. W. 1975. Hunton Group in the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 121, 214 p.Google Scholar
Amsden, T. W., and Ventress, E. P. S. 1963. Early Devonian brachiopods of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 94, 238 p.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1981. Principles of Benthic Marine Paleoecology. Academic Press, New York, 463 p.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J., Brace, W., and Demar, R. 1958. Distribution of brachiopod and pelecypod shells by currents. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 28:321–332.Google Scholar
Cummings, E. R. 1908. The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Cincinnati Series of Indiana. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, Annual Report, 32:607–1188.Google Scholar
Emery, K. O. 1968. Positions of empty pelecypod valves on the continental shelf. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 38:1264–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, W. T. 1962. Stratigraphy and paleoecology of the Richmond Group in southeastern Indiana. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 73:621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, R. C. 1987. The paleoecology of a Late Ordovician shale unit from southwest Ohio and southeastern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 61:242–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, F. W., and Martin, W. D. 1979. Benthic community development in limestone beds of the Waynesville (Upper Dillsboro) Formation (Cincinnatian Series, Upper Ordovician) of southeastern Indiana. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 49:1295–1306.Google Scholar
Hinterlong, G. S. 1981. Paleoecologic succession in the Corryville Member (McMillan Formation, Upper Ordovician), Stonelick Creek, Clermont County, Ohio. Unpubl. , , Oxford, Ohio, 120 p.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1988. Taphonomic effects of sea-floor exposure on an Ordovician brachiopod assemblage. Palaios, 3:588–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaanusson, V. 1971. Evolution of the brachiopod hinge, p. 33–46. In Dutro, J. T. (ed.), Paleozoic Perspectives: a tribute to G. Arthur Cooper. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 3.Google Scholar
Kreisa, R. D. 1981. Storm-generated sedimentologic features in subtidal marine facies with examples from the Middle and Upper Ordovician of southwestern Virginia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51:823–848.Google Scholar
Krumpolz, B. J. 1980. Paleoecology, biostratinomy, and sedimentology of the Mt. Auburn Member (McMillan Formation, uppermost Maysvillian) in the area of Cincinnati, Ohio. Unpubl. , , 141 p.Google Scholar
Menard, H. W., and Boucot, A. J. 1951. Experiments on the movement of shells by water. American Journal of Science, 249:131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1988. Population paleoecology of edrioasteroid echinoderms from the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati Arch region. Geological Society of America, Abstract with Programs, 20(1):56.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Tobin, R. C., Pryor, W. A., Harrison, W. B., Osgood, R. G., Hinterlong, G. D., Krumpolz, B. J., and Mahan, T. K. 1981. Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and paleoecology of the Cincinnatian series (Upper Ordovician) in the vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 31–72. In Roberts, T. G. (ed.), Geological Society of America Cincinnati '81 Field Trip Guidebooks, Vol. 1. Stratigraphy, Sedimentology. American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Middlemiss, F. A. 1962. Brachiopod ecology and Lower Greensand palaeogeography. Palaeontology, 5:253–267.Google Scholar
Pope, J. K. 1976. Comparative morphology and shell histology of the Ordovician Strophomenacea (Brachiopoda). Palaeontographica Americana, 8:131–213.Google Scholar
Reid, S. R., and Broadhead, T. W. 1983. Epibiont encrustations as indicators of life—and hydrodynamic orientation of Leptaena (Brachiopoda, Strophomenida). Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 15(6):669.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. 1978. The hinging mechanisms of brachiopods—taphonomic considerations. Journal of Paleontology, 52:748.Google Scholar
Velbel, M. A., and Brandt, D. S. 1989. Differential preservation of brachiopod valves: taphonomic bias in Platystrophia ponderosa. Palaios, 4:193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worsley, D. 1971. Faunal anticipation on the Lower Llandovery of the Oslo Region, Norway. Norsk Geological Tidsskr, 51:161–167.Google Scholar