Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-02T18:32:29.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogeny and phylogeny of the dorsal cup in calceocrinid crinoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dorsal cups of 17 calceocrinid species illustrate the relations between ontogeny and phylogeny for this unique family. Paedomorphosis in conjunction with increasing adult body size comprises the dominant pattern. During evolution, the plate structure of the dorsal cup was rearranged so that the hinge of advanced crinoids resembles the juvenile configuration of more primitive species. Consideration of allometric equations dealing with the size and shape of the dorsal cup and hinge suggests that most changes were caused by displacements of the initial intercepts and offsets of timing in development. The growth of the hinge moment of typical taxa produces hinges that are functionally equivalent in adult crinoids of different body sizes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , March 1990 , pp. 300 - 318
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

Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5:296–317.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. M. 1982. Locomotion of Animals. Blackie, Glasgow and London, 162 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1984. Calceocrinids from the Early Silurian (Llandoverian) Brassfield Formation of southwestern Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 58:1167–1185.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1986. Palaeoecology and history of the Calceocrinidae (Palaeozoic Crinoidea). Palaeontology, 29:85–99.Google Scholar
Breimer, A., and Webster, G. D. 1975. A further contribution to the paleoecology of fossil stalked crinoids. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B, 78:149–167.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1981. Systematics and paleoecology of the Late Silurian (Wenlockian) calceocrinids from New York and Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 55:145–175.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1966. Functional morphology of Calceocrinidae with description of some new species. Journal of Paleontology, 40:613–634.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1977. Calceocrinids from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of southern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular, 78:1–28.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1982. Phylogeny of primitive calceocrinids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1:90–110.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1988. Ontogeny and phylogeny in primitive calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 62:917–934.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Strimple, H. L. 1983. Ordovician calceocrinids from northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 57:1261–1281.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1978. Middle Ordovician crinoids from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 74:372–506.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1989. The improbability of a muscular crinoid column. Lethaia, 22:307–315.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D. 1984. Early Llandovery crinoids and stelleroids from the Cataract Group (Lower Silurian) in southern Ontario, Canada. Royal Ontario Museum, Life Sciences Contribution 137, 82 p.Google Scholar
Goldring, W. 1923. The Devonian crinoids of the State of New York. New York State Museum, Memoir 16, 670 p.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41:587–640.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1971. Geometric similarity in allometric growth: a contribution to the problem of scaling in the evolution of size. American Naturalist, 105:113–136.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 498 p.Google Scholar
Green, P. E. 1978. Analyzing Multivariate Data. Dryden Press, Hindsdale, Illinois, 519 p.Google Scholar
Hayami, I., and Matsukuma, A. 1970. Variation of bivariate characters from the standpoint of allometry. Palaeontology, 13:588–605.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London, 276 p.Google Scholar
Imbrie, J. 1956. Biometrical methods in the study of invertebrate fossils. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 108:211–252.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Palmatozoen. Palaeontologischen Zeitschrift, Band III, Heft, 1:1–128.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, 13:379–395.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. B., and Sigler, J. P. 1969. Cunctocrinus, a new Middle Devonian calceocrinid crinoid from the Silica Shale of Ohio. University of Michigan, Museum of Paleontology, Contributions, 22:339–360.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7, Journal of Paleontology, 49, supplement, 74 p.Google Scholar
Kuhry, B., and Marcus, L. F. 1977. Bivariate linear models in biometry. Systematic Zoology, 2:201–209.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr., Meyer, D. L., and Roux, M. 1978. The crinoid stereom, p. T217–T233. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. (ed.) 1988a. Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Topics in Geobiology 7, Plenum Press, New York, 348 p.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. (ed.) 1988b. Classifying heterochrony, allometry, size, and time, p. 17–34. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Topics in Geobiology 7, Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology, 8:130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology, 60:4–13.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1988. The abundance of heterochrony in the fossil record, p. 287–325. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Topics in Geobiology 7, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962. Revision of Calceocrinidae. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 4, 40 p.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1983. Applied Linear Regression Models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 547 p.Google Scholar
Prokop, R. J. 1970. Family Calceocrinidae, Meek and Worthen, 1869 (Crinoidea) in the Silurian and Devonian of Bohemia. Sbornik Geologickych Ved Paleontologie Svak, 12:79–134.Google Scholar
Ringueberg, E. N. S. 1889. The Calceocrinidae; a revision of the family, with descriptions of some new species. New York Academy of Science, 4:388–408.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926. American Silurian crinoids. Smithsonian Institution Publication 2871:1–143.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1976. A new genus of calceocrinid from Spain with comments on mosaic evolution. Palaeontology, 19:681–688.Google Scholar
White, J. F., and Gould, S. J. 1965. Interpretation of the coefficient in the allometric equation. American Naturalist, 99:5–18.Google Scholar