Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T15:36:54.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lower Carboniferous (Chesterian) embryonic orthoceratid nautiloids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

B. Kröger  and
R. H. Mapes
B. Kröger
Affiliation:
Geologisch—Paläontologisches Institut und Museum der Universität Hamburg, Bundesstr. 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany
R. H. Mapes
Affiliation:
Department of Geologic Sciences, Ohio University, Athens 45701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

More than 500 specimens of embryonic shells of orthocerid nautiloids from the Imo Formation were investigated. Although the material is recrystallized, the external and internal features of the early growth stages are exceptionally well preserved. The material comprises eight species of Pseudorthoceratidae: Pseudorthoceras knoxense (McChesney, 1860); Ristedtoceras teriliratum n. sp.; Mooreoceras imoense n. sp.; Mooreoceras striatulum n. sp.; Reticycloceras peytonense Gordon, 1965; Dolorthoceras tenuifilosum Gordon, 1965; Mitorthoceras girtyi Gordon, 1965; and Euloxoceras angustinus Gordon, 1965. A new genus, Ristedtoceras, is erected and the genus Pseudorthoceras Girty, 1911 is emended.

The analysis indicates that the morphologic diversity of the early growth stages of the shells of these species are much more diverse than expected. The different species vary strongly in the embryonic shell size, cicatrix position and shape, numbers of septa in the embryonic shell at the time of hatching, embryonic shell ornamentation, and the outline of the first segment of the siphuncle and its position in cross section. This study shows that the shape and position of the cicatrix is a morphologic feature that has been under utilized in previous investigations. The high morphologic variance of the embryonic shells in these Imo orthocerids requires a revision of our understanding of the Pseudorthoceratidae. In addition, the implication of this analysis strongly supports using the morphology of the embryonic shell, and especially the cicatrix, in all future orthocerid systematic and phylogenetic analyses because it is proving to be an important set of characters in detecting homeomorphic evolutionary relationships that are not discernable in mature specimens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , May 2004 , pp. 560 - 573
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

Arnold, J. M. 1987. Reproduction and embryology of Nautilus, p. 353–372. In Saunders, W. B. and Landman, N.H. (eds.), Nautilus: The Biology and Paleobiology of a Living Fossil. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. M., Landman, N. H., and Mutvei, H. 1987. Development of the embryonic shell of Nautilus, p. 373–399. In Saunders, W. B. and Landman, N. H. (eds.), Nautilus: The Biology and Paleobiology of a Living Fossil. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Balashov, E. G. 1968. Ordovician Endoceratoidea of the USSR. University of Leningrad, Leningrad, 170 p.Google Scholar
Balashov, E. G., and Zhuravleva, F. A. 1962. Ortriad Orthoceratida, p. 82–93. In Ruzhencev, W. E. (ed.), Osnovi Paleontologiy. Isdatielstvo akademiy NAUK SSSR, Moskwa.Google Scholar
Bandel, K. 1979. Morphologie und Bildung der frühonogenetischen Gehäuse bei conchiferen Mollusken. Facies, 7:1–198.Google Scholar
Bandel, K. 1988. Early ontogenetic shell and shell structure as aids to unravel gastropod phylogeny and evolution. Malacological Review, supplement, 4:267–272.Google Scholar
Bandel, K., and Boletzky, S. v. 1979. A comparative study of the structure, development and morphological relationship of chambered cephalopod shells. Veliger, 21:313–354.Google Scholar
Blind, W. 1987. Vergleichend morphologische und schalenstrukturelle Untersuchungen an Gehäusen von Nautilus pompilius, Orthoceras sp., Pseudorthoceras sp. und Kionoceras sp. Palaeontographica, A, 198:101–128.Google Scholar
Blind, W. 1988. Comparative Investigations on the Shell Morphology and Structure of Nautilus pompilius, Orthoceras sp., Pseudorthoceras sp., and Kionoceras sp., p. 273–289. In Wiedmann, J. and Kullmann, J. (eds.), Cephalopods—Present and Past. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Bouchet, P. 1989. A review of poecilogony in gastropods. The Journal of Molluscan Studies, 55:67–78.Google Scholar
Brenckle, P. 1977. Foraminifers and other calcareous microfossils from Late Chesterian (Mississippian) Strata of Northern Arkansas, p. 73–88. In Sutherland, P. K. and Manger, W. L. (eds.), Upper Chesterian-Morrowan stratigraphy and the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Boundary in Northeastern Oklahoma and Northwestern Arkansas. Oklahoma Geological Survey Guidebook, 18.Google Scholar
Davis, R. A., and Campbell, C. B. 1968. An Orthocerid cephalopod From the Cherokee Group of Marion County, Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 73:279–284.Google Scholar
Davis, R. A., and Mapes, R. H. 1996. Phylum Mollusca, Class Cephalopoda, p. 166–195. In Feldmann, R. M. and Hackathorn, M. (eds.), Fossils of Ohio Bulletin (Ohio Division of Geological Survey), 70.Google Scholar
Dzik, J. 1984. Phylogeny of the Nautiloidea. Palaeontologia Polonica, 45:3–203.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D. 1987. Pseudorthoceratinae (Nautiloidea, Michelinoceratida) from the Lower Carboniferous of Nova Scotia, Canada. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 21:87–91.Google Scholar
Eichwald, E. 1851. Naturhistorische Bemerkungen, als Beitrag zu einer vergleichenden Geognosie, auf einer reise durch die Eifel, Tryol, Italien, Sizilien und Algier. Memoirs de la Societe Imperiale de Naturalistes d'Histoire de Moscou, 9:1–464.Google Scholar
Engeser, T. 1996. The position of the ammonoidea within the cephalopoda, p. 3–22. In Landman, N. H. and Tanabe, K. (eds.), Ammonoid Paleobiology. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Erben, H. K., and Flajs, G. 1976. Über die Cicatrix der Nautiloideen. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologisch-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität Hamburg, 44:59–68.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. G., and Teichert, C. 1969. Cameral deposits in cephalopod shells. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, 37:1–30.Google Scholar
Flower, R. H. 1939. Study of Pseudorthoceratidae. Palaeontographica Americana, 11(10):1–214.Google Scholar
Flower, R. H., and Caster, K. E. 1935. The cephalopod fauna of the Conewango Series of the Upper Devonian in New York and Pennsylvania. Bulletin of American Paleontology, 22(75):1–74.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1932. Black River and other cephalopods from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ontario, Pt. 1, Journal of the Scientific Laboratories of Denison University, 27:47–136.Google Scholar
Girty, G. H. 1909. The fauna of the Caney shale of Oklahoma. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 377:1–106.Google Scholar
Girty, G. H. 1911. On some new genera and species of Pennsylvanian fossils from the Wewoka formation of Oklahoma. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 21:119–156.Google Scholar
Girty, G. H. 1915. The Fauna of the Batesville Sandstone of northern Arkansas. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 593:1–170.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 1957. Mississippian cephalopods of northern and eastern Alaska. U.S. Geoogical Professional Paper, 283:1–61.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 1960. Some American Midcontinent Carboniferous cephalopods. Journal of Paleontology, 34:133–151.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 1965. Carboniferous cephalopods of Arkansas. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 460, 303 p.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2002. The structure of the evolutionary theory. The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1,433 p.Google Scholar
Grégoire, C. 1989. Organic remnants in shells of Cambrian nautiloids and in cameral deposits of Pennsylvanian nautiloids. Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 69:73–86.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. D., and Mapes, R. H. 2000. Ostracodes of the Imo Formation (Mississippian-Chesterian) of Northcentral Arkansas. Journal of Paleontology Memoir, 52(74), 23 p.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. D., Heaney, M. J. III, and Mapes, R. H. 1989. Bivalves (Mollusca) from the Imo Formation (Mississippian, Chesterian) of North-Central Arkansas. Journal of Paleontology, 63:582–603.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. D., Mapes, R. H., and Brown, C. J. 1982. Some Mississippian and Pennsylvanian rostroconchs from the Midcontinent region. Journal of Paleontology, 56:123–131.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1900. Cephalopoda, p. 502–592. In Zittel, K. A. and Eastman, C. R. (eds.), Textbook of Palaeontology. Volume 1. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Jeffery, D. L., Hoare, R. D., and Mapes, R. H. 1994. Gastropods (Mollusca) from the Imo Formation Mississippian, Chesterian in North-central Arkansas. Journal of Paleontology, 68:58–79.Google Scholar
Keupp, H. 2000. Ammoniten.—Paläobiologische Erfolgspiralen. Thorbecke Verlag, Stuttgart, 165 p.Google Scholar
Kröger, B. 2004. Orthocerataceae (Nautilida) of the baltoscandic Orthoceratite Limestone (Tremadocian–Caradocian, Ordovician). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 49(1):57–74.Google Scholar
Krotov, P. I. 1885. The Artinskian Stage—A Geological-Paleontological Monograph on Artinskian Sandstone. Trudy Obshchestva Etsestvois pytatelei pri Kazanskom Universitete, 13(5), 314 p.Google Scholar
Kuhn, O. 1940. Paläozoologie in Tabellen. Fischer Verlag, Jena, 50 p.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H. 1988. Early ontogeny of Mesozoic Ammonoids and Nautilida, p. 215–228. In Wiedmann, J. and Kullmann, J. (eds.), Cephalopods Present and Past. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Shigeta, Y. 1996. Ammonoid embryonic development, p. 343–405. In Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A. (eds.), Ammonoid Paleobiology. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lehman, U. 1990. Ammoniten.—Leben zwischen Scylla und Charybdis. Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, 257 p.Google Scholar
Manger, W. L. 1977. Stop descriptions—first day, p. 11–18. In Sutherland, P. K. and Manger, W. L. (eds.), Upper Chesterian-Morrowan Stratigraphy and the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Boundary in Northeastern Oklahoma and Northwestern Arkansas. Oklahoma Geological Survey Guidebook, 18.Google Scholar
Mapes, R. H. 1979. Carboniferous and Permian Bactritoidea (Cephalopoda) in North America. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Article, 64:1–75.Google Scholar
Mapes, R. H., and Boardman, D. R. 1992. Late Pennsylvanian cephalopods from the Kinney Quarry, Manzanita Mountains, New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin, 138:113–118.Google Scholar
Mapes, R. H., and Davis, R. A. 1996. Color patterns in ammonoids, p. 103–127. In Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A. (eds.), Ammonoid Paleobiology. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mapes, R. H., and Rexroad, C. B. 1986. Conodonts of the Imo Formation (Upper Chesterian), North-Central Arkansas. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 20:113–123.Google Scholar
McChesney, J. H. 1860. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western states, with illustrations. Transactions of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 1:1–57.Google Scholar
McCoy, F. 1844. A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous limestone fossils of Ireland. N. p., London, 274 p.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K. 1931. Two new genera of Late Paleozoic cephalopods from Central Asia. American Journal of Science, 23:417–425.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., Dunbar, C. O., and Condra, G. E. 1933. The nautiloid cephalopods of the Pennsylvanian system in the Mid-Continent region. Nebraska Geological Survey Bulletin, 9:1–240.Google Scholar
Niko, S. 1996. Pseudorthoceratid cephalopods from the Early Devonian Fukuji Formation of Gifu Prefecture, Central Japan. Transactions and Proceedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan, n. s., 181:347–360.Google Scholar
Rabitz, A. 1966. Der marine Katharina-Horizont (Basis des Westfal B) im Ruhrrevier und seine Fauna. Fortschritte in der Geologie von Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1966:125–194.Google Scholar
Raff, R. A. 1996. The shape of life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 520 p.Google Scholar
Ristedt, H. 1968. Zur Revision der Orthoceratidae. Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz, Abhandlungen der mathematischnaturwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1968:211–287.Google Scholar
Ristedt, H. 1971. Zum Bau der orthoceriden Cephalopoden. Palaeontographica A, 137:155–195.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B. 1973. Upper Mississippian Ammonoids from Arkansas and Oklahoma. The Geological Society of America Special Paper, 145, 110 p.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., Manger, W. L., and Gordon, M. Jr. 1977. Upper Mississippian and Lower and Middle Pennsylvanian Ammonoid Biostratigraphy of Northern Arkansas, p. 117–138. In Sutherland, P. K. and Manger, W. L. (eds.), Upper Chesterian-Morrowan Stratigraphy and the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Boundary in Northeastern Oklahoma and Northwestern Arkansas. Oklahoma Geological Survey Guidebook, 18.Google Scholar
Schindewolf, O. H. 1933. Vergleichende Morphologie und Phylogenie der Anfangskammern tetrabranchiater Cephalopoden–Eine Studie über Herkunft, Stammesentwicklung und System der niederen Ammonoideen. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, Neue Folge, 148:1–115.Google Scholar
Schindewolf, O. H. 1944. Über das Apikalende der Actinoceren. Jahrbuch des Reichsamtes für Bodenforschung, 62:207–247.Google Scholar
Serpagli, E., and Gnoli, M. 1977. Upper Silurian cephalopods from southwestern Sardiania. Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 16:153–196.Google Scholar
Shimansky, V. N. 1948. Early stages of development of Upper Paleozoic orthoceraconic Nautiloidea. Doklady Akademia Nauk SSSR, 60:871–874.Google Scholar
Shimansky, V. N. 1954. Straight Nautiloidea and Bactritoidea of the Sakmarian and Artinskian Stages of the Southern Urals. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, 44:1–156.Google Scholar
Shimansky, V. N. 1968. Kamennougol'nyye Orthoceratida, Oncoceratida, Actinoceratida i Bactritida. Akademiia Nauk SSSR Paleontologichesky Institut Trudy, 117:1–132.Google Scholar
Shimizu, S., and Obata, T. 1935. Cephalopoda, p. 59–88. In Shimizu, S., Ozaki, K., and Obata, T. (eds.), Gotlandian Deposits of Northwest Korea. The Journal of the Shanghai Science Institute Section II (Studies from the Department of the Shanghai Science Insitute, Section II), 1, Shanghai.Google Scholar
Shimuzu, S., and Obata, T. 1936. Remarks on Protocycloceras cfr. Cyclophorum and on the Permian and Carboniferous orthoconic nautiloids of Asia. Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 43:11–29.Google Scholar
Sohn, I. G. 1977. Late Mississippian and Early Pennsylvanian Ostracoda from Northern Arkansas—a preliminary survey, p. 149–160. In Sutherland, P. K. and Manger, W. L. (eds.), Upper Chesterian-Morrowan stratigraphy and the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Boundary in Northeastern Oklahoma and Northwestern Arkansas. Oklahoma Geological Survey Guidebook, 18.Google Scholar
Solsona, M., and Martinell, J. 1999. Protoconch as a taxonomic tool in Gastropoda systematics. Application in the Pliocene Mediterranean Naticicadae. GEOBIOS, 32:409–419.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, M. T., Windle, D. L., Mapes, R. H., and Hoare, R. D. 1997. Nautiloid and bactritoid cephalopods. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bullettin, 71:1–191.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1964. Nautiloidea-Orthocerida, p. K216–K261. In Teichert, C., Kummel, B., Sweet, W. C., Stenzel, H. B., Furnish, W. M., Glenister, B. F., Erben, H. K., Moore, R. C., and Zeller, D. E. N. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. K, Mollusca 3, Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Tanabe, K., and Uchiyama, K. 1997. Development of the embryonic shell structure in Nautilus. Veliger, 40, 203–215.Google Scholar
Teichert, C. 1964. Morphology of hard parts, p. K13–K53. In Teichert, C., Kummel, B., Sweet, W. C., Stenzel, H. B., Furnish, W. M., Glenister, B. F., Erben, H. K., Moore, R. C., and Zeller, D. E. N. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. K, Mollusca 3, Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Teichert, C., and Glenister, B. F. 1952. Fossil nautiloid faunas from Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 26:730–752.Google Scholar
Windle, D. L. Jr. 1973. Studies in Carboniferous nautiloids: cyrtocones and annulate orthocones. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 427 p.Google Scholar
Zhuravleva, F. A. 1978. Devonian Orthoceratoidea. Trudy Paleontologicheskyi Institut, 168:1–224.Google Scholar
Zhuravleva, F. A., and Balashov, Z. G. 1981. On the early ontogenesis of the actinoceroids. Paleontological Journal, 15:14–27.Google Scholar