Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T01:17:51.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In situ crustoid graptolite colonies from an Upper Ordovician hardground, southwestern Ohio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Charles E. Mitchell ,
Mark A. Wilson  and
James M. St. John
Charles E. Mitchell
Affiliation:
1Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo 14260
Mark A. Wilson
Affiliation:
2Department of Geology, the College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio 44691
James M. St. John
Affiliation:
2Department of Geology, the College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio 44691
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In situ colonies of Bulmanicrusta? sp. encrusting the surface of a hardground from the Upper Ordovician Bull Fork Formation provide the first glimpse of the full colony form, habitat, and faunal associates of a crustoid graptolite. Bulmanicrusta? sp. exhibits a runner-type colony form suited to rapid expansion over hard substrates, indicating it was an opportunistic member of the hardground community. This community also included two bryozoans (“Proboscina” and Amplexopora), Cornulites, and crinoids. The Bulmanicrusta? sp. specimens contain numerous graptoblasts (small, thick-walled vesicles) in organic connection with the colony. These objects are located at branch termini and confirm that graptoblasts were not pathological features, but probably were resting cysts produced by the crustoid colony as a normal part of its life cycle. Thus, the presence of graptoblasts supports the interpretation that the Caesar Creek crustoid was adapted to ephemeral or disturbance-prone environments.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 67 , Issue 6 , November 1993 , pp. 1011 - 1016
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

Anders, D. 1980. Feinstrukturen und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Graptolithen. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 54:129–170.Google Scholar
Armstrong, W. G., Dilly, N. P., and Urbanek, A. 1984. Collagen in the pterobranch coenecium and the problem of graptolite affinities. Lethaia, 17:145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, S. M., and Mitchell, C. E. 1986. The graptolite correlation of the North American Ordovician Standard. Lethaia, 19:247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, J. D. D. 1989. Colony form and the exploitation of spatial refuges by encrusting Bryozoa. Biological Reviews, 64:197–218.Google Scholar
Bodenbender, B. E., Wilson, M. A., and Palmer, T. J. 1989. Paleoecology of Sphenothallus on an Upper Ordovician hardground. Lethaia, 22:217–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulman, O. M. B. 1970. Graptolithina, with sections on Enteropneusta and Pterobranchia, 2nd ed., Pt. V. In Teichert, C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 163 p.Google Scholar
Buss, L. W. 1979. Habitat selection, directional growth and spatial refuges: why colonial animals have more hiding places, p. 459–497. In Larwood, G. and Rosen, B. R. (eds.), Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. Systematics Association Special Volume 11, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Buss, L. W., and Blackstone, N. W. 1991. An experimental exploration of Waddington's epigenetic landscape. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 332:49–58.Google Scholar
Coats, A. G., and Jackson, J. B. C. 1985. Morphological themes in the evolution of clonal and aclonal marine invertebrates, p. 67–106. In Jackson, J. B. C., Buss, L. W., and Cook, R. E. (eds.), Population Biology and Evolution of Clonal Organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Crowther, P. R., Rickards, R. B., and Urbanek, A. 1987. Possible cellular tissue in an Ordovician graptoblast. Geological Magazine, 124:67–72.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Bell, A. 1987. Branching geometry and function of multiramous graptoloids. Paleobiology, 9:116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, A. R., and Taylor, P. D. 1982. Computer modeling of branching growth in the bryozoan Stomatopora. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, 163:389–416.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1985. Modules, branches, and the capture of resources, p. 1–34. In Jackson, J. B. C., Buss, L. W., and Cook, R. E. (eds.), Population Biology and Evolution of Clonal Organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Kozłowski, R. 1948. Les graptolithes et quelques nouveaux groupes d'animaux du Tremadoc de la Pologne. Palaeontologia Polonica, 3:1–235.Google Scholar
Kozłowski, R. 1962. Crustoidea—Nouveau groupe de graptolites. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 7:3–52.Google Scholar
Mierzejewski, P. 1977. The first discovery of Crustoidea (Graptolithina) and Rhabdopleurida (Pterobranchia) in the Silurian. Bulletin de l'Academie Polonaise des Sciences, Série des Sciences Techniques de la Terre, 25:103–107.Google Scholar
Palmer, T. J. 1982. Cambrian to Cretaceous changes in hardground communities. Lethaia, 15:309–323.Google Scholar
Palmer, T. J., Hudson, J. D., and Wilson, M. A. 1988. Paleoecological evidence for early aragonite dissolution in ancient calcite seas. Nature, 335:809–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, G. A., and Ausich, W. I. 1983. New Upper Ordovician echinoderm site: Bull Fork Formation, Caesar Creek Reservoir (Warren County, Ohio). Ohio Journal of Science, 83:60–64.Google Scholar
Shrake, D. L., Schumacher, G. A., and Swinford, E. M. 1988. The stratigraphy, sedimentology and paleontology of the Upper Ordovician Cincinnati Group of southwest Ohio. Field Trip Guidebook for the Fifth Mid-Year Meeting of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, 81 p.Google Scholar
St. John, J. M., and Wilson, M. A. 1991. Hardground development and its influence on sedimentation in the Richmond Group (Upper Ordovician) at Caesar Creek emergency spillway, Warren County, Ohio. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 23(3):62.Google Scholar
Tobin, R. C. 1986. An assessment of the lithostratigraphic and interpretive value of the traditional “biostratigraphy” of the type Upper Ordovician of North America. American Journal of Science, 286:673–701.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. E., and Wright, V. P. 1990. Carbonate Sedimentology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 482 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanek, A. 1983. The significance of graptoblasts in the life cycle of crustoid graptolites. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 28:313–326.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A., and Mierzejewski, P. 1984. The ultrastructure of the Crustoidea and the evolution of graptolite skeletal tissues. Lethaia, 17:73–91.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A., and Rickards, R. B. 1974. The ultrastructure of some retiolitids and graptoblasts. Palaeontological Association, Special Papers in Palaeontology, 13:177–188.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. A. 1985. Disturbance and ecologic succession in an Upper Ordovician cobble-dwelling hardground fauna. Science, 228:575–577.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. A. 1987. Ecological dynamics on pebbles, cobbles and boulders. Palaios, 2:594–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar