Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T12:37:43.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Echinoderms of the Somerset Shale Member, Salem Limestone (Mississippian), in Indiana and Kentucky

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

Howard Randall Feldman
Howard Randall Feldman*
Affiliation:
Kansas Geological Survey, 1930 Constant Avenue, Campus West, The University of Kansas, Lawrence 66047-2598
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Somerset Shale Member (Mississippian: Valmeyeran) is a discontinuous shale at the base of the Salem Limestone in southern Indiana and central Kentucky. It is the only significant terrigenous unit within a thick sequence of shoaling carbonates deposited on the eastern side of the Illinois Basin over the Borden Delta siltstones. The Somerset Shale contains a diverse echinoderm fauna of blastoids (five species), crinoids (20 species), and echinoids (two species). Most of the species are known only from the Somerset or from carbonate rocks directly above and below the Somerset Shale. There remains a small number of species previously known mostly from terrigenous rocks (the Borden Delta) below the carbonates. This demonstrates that at least some of the faunal differences between the Borden crinoids and those of the overlying carbonates are the result of paleoecologic factors. The Somerset Shale may mark a useful biostratigraphic boundary defined by last occurrences of the genera Barycrinus, Cyathocrinites, and Actinocrinites and the base of the range of Batocrinus. The species Batocrinus somersetensis n. sp., Dizygocrinus calvus n. sp., and Barycrinus punctus n. sp. are described.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 63 , Issue 6 , November 1989 , pp. 900 - 912
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

Ausich, W. I. 1978. Community organization, paleontology, and sedimentology of the Lower Mississippian Borden delta platform (Edwardsville Formation, southern Indiana). Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, 430 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., Kammer, T. W., and Lane, N. G. 1979. Fossil communities of the Borden (Mississippian) delta in Indiana and northern Kentucky. Journal of Paleontology, 53:1186–1192.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Lane, N. G. 1985. Crinoid assemblages and geographic endemism in the Lower Mississippian (Carboniferous) of the United States Continental Interior, p. 216–224. In Dutro, J. T. Jr., and Pfefferkorn, H. W. (eds.), Neuvième Congrès International de Stratigraphie et de Geologie du Carbonifère, Compte Rendu, Volume 5, Paleontology, Paleoecology, Paleogeography. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Austin, T., and Austin, T. Jr. 1842. Proposed arrangement of the Echinodermata, particularly as regards the Crinoidea, and a subdivision of the class Adelostella (Echinidae). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 1, 11:195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1938. Pelmatozoa Palaeozoica. Fossilium Catalogus, I, Animalia (W. Quenstedt ed.), Pt. 83, 194 p.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S., and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliography and faunal index of pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America Special Paper 45, 734 p.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science, Reports, 68th Annual Meeting, p. 916–923.Google Scholar
Beede, J. W. 1906. Echinodermata, p. 1243–1270. In Cumings, E. R., Beede, J. W., Branson, E. B., and Smith, E. A., Fauna of the Salem Limestone. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, 30th Annual Report (1905).Google Scholar
Broadhead, T. W. 1981. Carboniferous camerate crinoid subfamily Dichocrininae. Palaeontographica Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Vorziet, Abteilung A, 176:81–157.Google Scholar
Bruguière, J. G. de. 1791. Tableau Encyclopedique et Méthodique des Trois Règnes de la Nature, Vol. 7, l'Helminthogie.Google Scholar
Butts, C. 1922. The Mississippian Series of eastern Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey Series 6, Vol. 7, 188 p.Google Scholar
Carbonate Petrology Seminar. 1987. Ramp Creek and Harrodsburg Limestones: A shoaling-upward sequence with storm-produced features in southern Indiana, U.S.A. Sedimentary Geology, 52:207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, J. L. 1974. New genera of spiriferid and brachythyridid brachiopods. Journal of Paleontology, 48:674–696.Google Scholar
Casseday, S. A. 1854. Beschreibung eines neuen Crinoideengeschlechts aus dem Kohlenkalkstein Nordamerikas. Deutsche Geologische Gesellschaft, Zeitschrift, 6:237–242.Google Scholar
Casseday, S. A., and Lyon, S. S. 1862. Descriptions of two new genera and eight new species of fossil Crinoidea, from the rocks of Indiana and Kentucky. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Proceedings, 5:16–31.Google Scholar
Claus, C. 1880. Grundzuge der Zoologie, 4th edition, Vol. 1. Marburg and Leipzig.Google Scholar
Cline, L. M. 1944. Class Blastoidea, p. 133–137. In Shimer, H. W. and Shrock, R. R., Index Fossils of North America. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Conkin, J. E., and Conkin, B. M. 1976. Guide to the Rocks and Fossils of Jefferson County, Kentucky, Southern Indiana, and Adjacent Areas, second and revised edition. University of Kentucky Publication, 239 p.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R., Beede, J. W., Branson, E. B., and Smith, E. A. 1906. Fauna of the Salem Limestone of Indiana. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, 30th Annual Report (1905), p. 1187–1496.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. Jr., and Carpenter, P. H. 1886. Catalogue of the Blastoidea in the Geological Department of the British Museum (Natural History), with an account of the morphology and systematic position of the group, and a revision of the genera and species. British Museum Catalogue, London, 322 p.Google Scholar
Fay, R. O. 1961a. The type of Tricoelocrinus Meek and Worthen. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 21:90–94.Google Scholar
Fay, R. O. 1961b. Blastoid studies. The University of Kansas Paleontology Contributions No. 27, Echinodermata Article 3, 147 p.Google Scholar
Fay, R. O. 1962. The type of Tricoelocrinus, a correction. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 22:188.Google Scholar
Fay, R. O. 1964. An outline classification of the Blastoidea. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 24:81–90.Google Scholar
Fay, R. O., and Wanner, J. 1967. Systematic descriptions, p. S396–S445. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. S, Echinodermata 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. R. 1987. Facies faunas of the Salem Limestone (Mississippian) in southern Indiana and central Kentucky. Southeastern Geology, 27:171–183.Google Scholar
Galloway, J. J., and Kaska, H. V. 1957. Genus Pentremites and its species. Geological Society of America, Memoir 69, 104 p.Google Scholar
Gurley, W. F. E. 1884. New Carboniferous fossils. Private publication. Bulletin no. 2, Danville, Illinois, 12 p.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, zweiter Band: allegemiene Entwickelungs–Geschichte der Organismen. Berlin, 462 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1856. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Carboniferous limestones of Indiana and Illinois. Transactions of the Albany Institute, Vol. 4, Art. 1.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1858. Paleontology of Iowa. Iowa Geological Survey, Report, 1(2):473–724.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1860. Contributions to the paleontology of Iowa: being descriptions of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils. Geological Report of Iowa, 1(2):1–94.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1861. Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea from the Carboniferous rocks of the Mississippi Valley. Boston Society of Natural History, Journal, 7:261–328.Google Scholar
Hirt, D. S. 1988. Occurrence and biochronology of Middle Mississippian brachiopods of the Ramp Creek Formation and Harrodsburg Limestone, Indiana and Kentucky. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 130 p.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. T. 1912. Phylogeny of the echini with a revision of Palaeozoic species. Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. 7,491 p.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 3:1–128.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1984. Crinoids from the New Providence Shale Member of the Borden Formation (Mississippian) in Kentucky and Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 58:115–130.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for Late Osagean crinoids. Paleobiology, 13:379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I. 1989. The Osagean–Meramecian (Mississippian) boundary problem revisited: the forgotten role of James Hall's Geode Bed. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, 21(4):17.Google Scholar
Koninck, L. G. de, and Lehon, H. S. 1854. Recherches sur les crinoids de terrain carbonifère de la Belgique. Académie Royal de Belgique, Class de Sciences, Mémoires Vol. 28, Mémoires 3, p. 1–217.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1963a. Two new Mississippian camerate (Batocrinidae) crinoid genera. Journal of Paleontology, 37:691–702.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1963b. The Berkeley crinoid collection from Crawfordsville, Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 37:1001–1008.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1972. Synecology of Middle Mississippian (Carboniferous) camerate crinoid communities in Indiana. Proceedings of the 24th International Geological Congress, section 7, p. 89–94.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1973. Paleontology and paleoecology of the Crawfordsville fossil site (Upper Osagean: Indiana). University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 99, 141 p.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1978. Family Batocrinidae, p. T466–T471. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Sevastopulo, G. D. 1987. Stratigraphic distribution of Mississippian camerate crinoid genera from North America and western Europe. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 98:199–206.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Sevastopulo, G. D. 1990. Biogeography of Lower Carboniferous crinoids in North America and western Europe, p. 333–338. In McKerrow, W. S. and Scotese, C. R. (eds.), Palaeozoic Palaeogeography and Biogeography. Geological Society of London Memoir 12.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1948. Osage–Meramec contact. Journal of Geology, 56:288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1973. Stratigraphic crinoid zonation in Iowa Mississippian rocks. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 80(1):25–33.Google Scholar
Leske, N. G. 1778. Additamenta da Jacobi Theodori Kleinii Naturalem dispositionem echinodermatum et lucubratiumculam de aculeis echinorum marinorum. Leipzig, 218 p.Google Scholar
Lyon, S. S., and Casseday, S. A. 1859. Description of nine new species of Crinoidea from the Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana and Kentucky. American Journal of Science and Arts, Ser. 2, 28:233–246.Google Scholar
M'Coy, F. 1844. Carboniferous Limestone Fossils of Ireland. Dublin, 207 p.Google Scholar
M'Coy, F. 1849. On some new Palaeozoic Echinodermata. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 2, 3:244–254.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1861. Descriptions of new Carboniferous fossils from Illinois and other western states. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences (1860), Ser. 1, 13:447–472.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1865. Description of new Crinoidea, etc., from the Carboniferous rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences (1865), Ser. 1, 17:155–166.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 of one echinoid. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences (1868), 20:335–359.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A Natural History of the Crinoidea or Lily-shaped Animals, with Observations on the Genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites . Bryan and Co., Bristol, 150 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1889. North American Geology and Paleontology. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, 664 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1891. Palaeontology: advance sheets. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, 17th Annual Report (1891), p. 1–103.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S., and Gurley, W. F. E. 1893. Description of some new species of invertebrates from the Palaeozoic rocks of Illinois and adjacent states. Illinois State Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 3:1–81.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1952. Crinoids, p. 604–652. In Moore, R. C., Lalicker, C. G., and Fischer, A. G., Invertebrate Fossils, 1st ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 46, 153 p.Google Scholar
Münster, G. G. 1839. Beischreibung einiger neuen Crinoideen aus der Ubergangs-formation. Beiträge zur Petrefacten-Kunde, 1:1–124.Google Scholar
Nicoll, R. S., and Rexroad, C. B. 1975. Stratigraphy and conodont paleontology of the Sanders Group (Mississippian) in Indiana and adjacent Kentucky. Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin 51, 36 p.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. D. d'. 1851. Cours Elèmentaire de Paléontologie et Geologie Stratigraphiques. Masson, Paris, Vol. 2, 841 p.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. 1856. Illustration of the Geology of Yorkshire, or a Description of the Strata and Organic Remains, Part 2. The Mountain Limestone Districts. John Murray, London, 253 p.Google Scholar
Roemer, C. F. 1852–1854. II, Erste Periode, Kohlen-Gehrige, Vol. 1, p. 1–788. In Bronn, H. G., 1851–1856 Lethaea Geognostica.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1820. Observations on some species of Zoophytes and shells principally fossil. American Journal of Science, 2:34–45.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1825. On two genera and several species of Crinoidea. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Ser. 1,4(2):289–296.Google Scholar
Sedimentology Seminar. 1966. Cross-bedding in the Salem Limestone of central Indiana. Sedimentology, 6:95–114.Google Scholar
Sheikh Ali, K. S. 1974. Stratigraphic and paleoenvironmental study of the St. Louis Limestone (Mississippian), and subjacent beds of the Salem Limestone, Gullets Creek section, Lawrence County, Indiana. Unpubl. M.A. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 78 p.Google Scholar
Shumard, B. F. 1857. Descriptions of new fossil Crinoidea from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western and southern portions of the United States. St. Louis Academy of Science, Transactions, 1:71–80.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1913. Crinoidea, p. 173–243. In von Zittel, K. A. (translated and edited by Eastman, C. R.), Text-book of Paleontology, 2nd ed., Vol. 1. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Stockdale, P. B. 1939. Lower Mississippian rocks of the east-central interior. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 22, 248 p.Google Scholar
Thompson, T. L. 1986. Paleozoic succession in Missouri, Part 4, Mississippian System. Missouri Geological Survey Report of Investigations 70, 182 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Camerata, p. T408–T519. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Van Sant, J. F. 1964. Crawfordsville crinoids, p. 34–126. In Van Sant, J. F. and Lane, N. G., Crawfordsville (Indiana) crinoid studies. University of Kansas Paleontology Contribution 35, Echinodermata Article 7.Google Scholar
Van Sant, J. F., and Lane, N. G. 1964. Crawfordsville (Indiana) crinoid studies. University of Kansas Paleontology Contribution 35, Echinodermata Article 7, 136 p.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1881. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Part 2. Family Sphaeroidocrinidae, with the sub-families Platycrinidae, Rhodocrinidae, and Actinocrinidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (1881), 33:177–414.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Part 3, section 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (1885), 37:223–364.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1897. The North American Crinoidea Camerata. Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology, Memoirs, Vol. 20, 897 p., Vol. 21, 83 Pls. Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., Broadhead, T. W., and Horowitz, A. S. 1982. The evolution of Pentremites (Blastoidea) and Carboniferous crinoid community succession. Proceedings of the Third International Echinoderm Conference, Roterdam, A. A. Balkema Publishers, p. 133–138.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., Horowitz, A. S., and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1985. Ontogeny and phylogeny of the Carboniferous blastoid Pentremites . Journal of Paleontology, 59:701–712.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1973. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America, Memoir 137, 341 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1988. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids and coronate echinoderms 1981–1985. Geological Society of America, Microform Publication 18, 235 p.Google Scholar
Welch, J. R., and Lane, N. G. 1977. A new crinoid fauna from the Harrodsburg Limestone (Mississippian) of southern Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 86:285–289.Google Scholar
White, C. A. 1878. Descriptions of new species of invertebrate fossils from the Carboniferous and Upper Silurian rocks of Illinois and Indiana. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences (1878), 30:29–37.Google Scholar
Worthen, A. H. 1882. Descriptions of fifty-four new species of crinoids from the Lower Carboniferous limestones and Coal Measures of Illinois and Iowa. Illinois State Museum of Natural History, Bulletin, 1:3–38.Google Scholar
Worthen, A. H. 1883. Descriptions of fossil invertebrates. Illinois Geological Survey, 7:269–322.Google Scholar
Zittel, K. A. Von. 1895. Grundzüge der Palaeontologie (Palaeozoologie), 1st ed. R. Oldenbourg, München, 971 p.Google Scholar