Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:25:50.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships among Venericardia (Bivalvia: Carditidae) on the U.S. Coastal Plain during the Paleogene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2015

Kate J. McClure  and
Rowan Lockwood
Kate J. McClure
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, The College of William and Mary, PO Box 8795, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187, USA, 〈rxlock@wm.edu〉
Rowan Lockwood
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, The College of William and Mary, PO Box 8795, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187, USA, 〈rxlock@wm.edu〉
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the abundance and diversity of Venericardia bivalves on the U.S. Coastal Plain during the Paleogene, the evolutionary relationships within the genus remain unresolved. The primary objectives of this study were to reconstruct a phylogeny of Venericardia species, identify major clades within the genus, and determine whether groupings within traditional venericard classifications constitute monophyletic taxa. Fifty-one conchological characters were applied to 18 venericard and two outgroup species. Parsimony analysis produced three equally parsimonious trees and robustness was assessed through Bremer support and bootstrap values. The resultant trees indicate that the smooth-ribbed planicostate venericards are monophyletic, whereas the sharp-ribbed alticostate venericards are paraphyletic. Additionally, the original planicostate subtaxon, Venericor, is monophyletic whereas the original alticostate subtaxa, Claibornicardia, Glyptoactis, and Rotundicardia, are nonmonophyletic.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 522 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © 2015, 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

Aldrich, T.H., 1894, The (Midway) Clayton Tertiary section and its fossils, in Smith, E.A., Johnson, L.C., and Langdon, D.W. Jr., eds., Report on the Geology of the Coastal Plain of Alabama: Montgomery, Geological Survey of Alabama, p. 240–248.Google Scholar
Bremer, K., 1994, Branch support and tree stability: Cladistics, v. 10, p. 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavan, A., 1969, Family Carditidae Fleming, 1828, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. N Mollusca 6: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. N548–N558.Google Scholar
Conrad, T.A., 1833, On some new fossils and recent shells of the United States: The American Journal of Science and Arts, v. 23, p. 339–346.Google Scholar
Conrad, T.A., 1845, Descriptions of eight new fossil shells of the United States: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, v. 2, p. 173–175.Google Scholar
Conrad, T.A., 1855, Report of Mr. T. A. Conrad on the fossil shells collected in California by W. P. Blake, geologist of the expedition, under the command of Lieutenant R. S. Williamson, United States Topographical Engineers, 1853, in Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad Route from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, Appendix to the Preliminary Geological Report of William P. Blake: Washington D.C., War Department, p. 5–6.Google Scholar
Conrad, T.A., 1867, Descriptions of new genera and species of fossil shells: American Journal of Conchology, v. 2, p. 8–16.Google Scholar
Dall, W.H., 1903, Contributions to the Tertiary fauna of Florida: Wagner Free Institute of Science, v. 3, 1654 p.Google Scholar
Debry, R.W., and Olmstead, R.G., 2000, A simulation study of reduced tree–search effort in bootstrap resampling analysis: Systematic Biology, v. 49, p. 171–179.Google Scholar
Gardner, J.A., 1927, New species of mollusks from the Eocene of Texas: Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, v. 17, p. 362–383.Google Scholar
Gardner, J.A., and Bowles, E., 1939, The Venericardia planicosta group in the Gulf Province: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 189-F, p. 143–215.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J., 1974, The origin and function of ‘bizarre’ structures: antler size and skull size in the ‘Irish elk,’ Megaloceros giganteus: Evolution, v. 28, p. 191–220.Google Scholar
Goloboff, P.A., Farris, J.S., and Nixon, K.C., 2008, TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis: Cladistics, v. 24, p. 774–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gradstein, F., Ogg, J., and Smith, A., 2004. A Geologic Time Scale 2004: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 589 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, J.A., De Luna, E., and Sánchez‐Hernández, C., 2003, Morphometrics in the quantification of character state identity for the assessment of primary homology: an analysis of character variation of the genus Artibeus (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae): Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 80, p. 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, G.D., 1919, Pelecypoda of the St. Maurice and Claiborne stages: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 6, 268 p.Google Scholar
Heaslip, W.G., 1968, Cenozoic evolution of the alticostate venericards in Gulf and East Coastal North America: Palaeontographic Americana, v. 6, p. 55–135.Google Scholar
Ivany, L.C., Wilkinson, B.H., Lohmann, K.C., Johnson, E.R., Mcelroy, B.J., and Cohen, G.J., 2004, Intra–annual isotopic variation in Venericardia bivalves: implications for Early Eocene temperature, seasonality, and salinity on the U.S. Gulf Coast: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 74, p. 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellum, L.B., 1926, Paleontology and stratigraphy of the Castle Hayne and Trent Marls in North Carolina: U.S. Geological Society Professional Paper, v. 143, 44 p. 11 pls.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J.B., 1801. Systême des Animaux sans Vertèbres ou Tableau General des Classes, des Orders et des Genres de ces Animaux: Paris, Chez Deterville, 432 p.Google Scholar
Lea, I., 1833. Contributions to Geology: Philadelphia, Carey, Lea and Blanchard, 227 p.Google Scholar
McNamara, K.J., 1986, A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony: Journal of Paleontology, v. 60, p. 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, O., 1885, The genealogy and the age of the species in the southern old-tertiary: The American Journal of Science, v. 30, p. 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K.G., Kominz, M.A., Browning, J.V., Wright, J.D., Mountain, G.S., Katz, M.E., Sugarman, P.J., Cramer, B.S., Christie-Blick, N., and Pekar, S.F., 2005, The Phanerozoic record of global sea-level change: Science, v. 310, p. 1293–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, E.J., 1992, Tertiary marine pelecypods of California and Baja California: Erycinidae through Carditidae: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, v. 1228E, p. 1–37.Google Scholar
Palmer, K.V., and Brann, D.C., 1965, Catalogue of the Paleocene and Eocene mollusca of the southern and eastern United States. Part 1. Pelecypoda, Amphineura, Scaphopoda and Cephalopoda: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 48, p. 1–471.Google Scholar
Philip, G.M., 1963, Two Australian tertiary neolampadids, and the classification of cassiduloid echinoids: Paleontology, v. 6, p. 718–726.Google Scholar
Rutsch, R.F., 1943, Die Paleocaen-Mollusken der Inseln Trinidad und Soldado Rock (Britisch-Westindien): Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, v. 36, p. 139–192.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J.J., 2002, A compendium of fossil marine animal genera: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 363, 560 p.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 2000, Stratigraphy in phylogeny reconstruction: Journal of Paleontology, v. 74, p. 763–766.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenzel, H.B., Krause, E.K., and Twining, J.T., 1957, Pelecypoda from the type locality of the Stone City Beds (Middle Eocene) of Texas: University of Texas Publication No. 5704, 236 p.Google Scholar
Stewart, R.B., 1930, Gabb’s California Cretaceous and Tertiary Type Lamellibranchs: The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Special Publication, v. no. 3, 331 p.Google Scholar
Strait, D.S., Moniz, M.A., and Strait, P.T., 1996, Finite mixture coding: a new approach to coding continuous characters: Systematic Biology, v. 45, p. 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swofford, D.L., 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods), version 4.b.10: Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Thiele, K., 1993, The holy grail of the perfect character: the cladistic treatment of morphometric data: Cladistics, v. 9, p. 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vokes, H.E., 1980. Genera of the Bivalvia: a Systematic and Bibliographic Catalogue (revised and updated edition): Ithaca, New York, Paleontological Research Institution, 307 p.Google Scholar
Ward, L.W., 1992, Molluscan biostratigraphy of the Miocene Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain of North America: Virginia Museum of Natural History Memoire, v. 2, p. 1–159.Google Scholar
Woodring, W.P., 1982, Geology and paleontology of Canal Zone and adjoining parts of Panama: description of Tertiary mollusks (pelecypods: Propeamussiidae to Cuspidariidae): U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, v. 306F, p. 541–759.Google Scholar