Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T17:11:16.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orientation and anatomical notation in conodonts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Mark A. Purnell ,
Philip C. J. Donoghue  and
Richard J. Aldridge
Mark A. Purnell
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K.
Philip C. J. Donoghue
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K.
Richard J. Aldridge
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All aspects of conodont paleontology rely on the identification and description of homologous anatomical units or elements. But the current schemes of anatomical notation and terms for orientation were formulated at a time when little was known of conodont anatomy or skeletal architecture, resulting in some confusion and difficulties in their application. With improving knowledge of conodonts, these problems are becoming increasingly acute.

In an attempt to address current problems, we introduce new terms for orientation in conodonts and their elements, and a modified scheme of anatomical notation. The principal axes of the conodont body are identified as rostrocaudal, dorsoventral, and mediolateral, with opposite lateral sides designated dextral and sinistral. Anatomical notation is defined according to topological relationships between elements with reference to the principal axes of the body and takes the form of letters with numeric subscripts (e.g., P1, P2, S0-S4). The ozarkodinid apparatus serves as a standard, but the Pn-Sn scheme can be applied rigorously to all taxa that are known from natural assemblages or where an hypothesis of topological homology can be inferred from secondary morphological criteria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 113 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 2000

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.)

Footnotes

∗

Present address: School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. <p.c.j.donoghue@bham.ac.uk>

References

Aldridge, R. J., and Theron, J. N. 1993. Conodonts with preserved soft tissue from a new Upper Ordovician Konservat-Lagerstätte . Journal of Micropalaeontology, 12:113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., Purnell, M. A., Gabbott, S. E., and Theron, J. N. 1995. The apparatus architecture and function of Promissum pulchrum Kovács-Endrödy (Conodonta, Upper Ordovician), and the prioniodontid plan. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B, 347:275–291.Google Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., Smith, M. P., Norby, R. D., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1987. The architecture and function of Carboniferous polygnathacean conodont apparatuses, p. 63–76. In Aldridge, R. J. (ed.), Palaeobiology of Conodonts. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., Briggs, D. E. G., Clarkson, E. N. K., and Smith, M. P. 1986. The affinities of conodonts—new evidence from the Carboniferous of Edinburgh, Scotland. Lethaia, 19:279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., Briggs, D. E. G., Clarkson, E. N. K., Smith, M. P., Clarkson, E. N. K., and Clark, N. D. L. 1993. The anatomy of conodonts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B, 340:405–421.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. R., Kennedy, D. J., McCracken, A. D., Nowlan, G. S., and Tarrant, G. A. 1979. The structure and evolution of Ordovician conodont apparatuses. Lethaia, 12:125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrick, J. E. 1977. Multielement simple-cone conodonts from the Clarita Formation (Silurian), Arbuckle Mountains, Oklahoma. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 11:47–68.Google Scholar
Bergström, S. M., and Sweet, W. C. 1966. Conodonts from the Lexington Limestone (Middle Ordovician) of Kentucky and its lateral equivalents in Ohio and Indiana. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 50:271–441.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Clarkson, E. N. K., and Aldridge, R. J. 1983. The conodont animal. Lethaia, 16:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. W. 1956. Composition of scientific words: a manual of methods and a lexicon of materials for the practice of logotechnics. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C, 882 p.Google Scholar
Donoghue, P. C. J., and Purnell, M. A. 1999a. Growth, function, and the conodont fossil record. Geology, 27:251–254.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, P. C. J., and Purnell, M. A. 1999b. Mammal-like occlusion in conodonts. Paleobiology, 25:58–74.Google Scholar
Dzik, J. 1991. Evolution of the oral apparatuses in the conodont chordates. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 36:265–323.Google Scholar
Dzik, J. 1994. Conodonts of the Mójcza Limestone. Palaeontologica Polonica, 53:43–128.Google Scholar
Gabbott, S. E., Aldridge, R. J., and Theron, J. N. 1995. A giant conodont with preserved muscle tissue from the Upper Ordovician of South Africa. Nature, 374:800–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. K. (ed.). 1994. Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, 483 p.Google Scholar
Igo, H., Norihiro, N., and Veerasak, N. 1988. Middle Triassic conodonts from southern Thailand. Annual Report of the Institute of Geoscience, the University of Tsukuba, 14:46–50.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1971. Element arrangement in conodont apparatuses of Hindeodella type and in similar forms. Lethaia, 4:101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1997. A new latest Telychian, Sheinwoodian and early Homerian (Early Silurian) standard conodont zonation. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Earth Sciences), 88:91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiang, Ji, and Ziegler, W. 1992. Introduction to some Late Devonian sequences in the Guilin area of Guangxi, south China. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 154:149–177.Google Scholar
Klapper, G. and Philip, G. M. 1971. Devonian conodont apparatuses and their vicarious skeletal elements. Lethaia, 4:429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, F.-G. 1968. Conodonten-gruppenfunde aus Kalken des tieferen Oberdevon. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 2:37–57.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. A. 1997. Apparatus architecture of Belodina (Conodonta): Interpretations based on fused clusters of Belodina compressa (Branson and Mehl, 1933) from the Middle Ordovician (Turinian) Plattin Limestone of Missouri and Iowa. Journal of Paleontology, 71:921–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löfgren, A. M. 1997. Reinterpretation of the lower Ordovician conodont apparatus Paroistodus . Palaeontology, 40:913–929.Google Scholar
Mietto, P. 1982. A Ladinian conodont-cluster of Metapolygnathus mungoensis (Diebel) from Trento area (NE Italy). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte, 1982:600–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, K. J. 1956. Taxonomy, nomenclature, orientation, and stratigraphic evaluation of conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 30:1324–1340.Google Scholar
Nicoll, R. S. 1977. Conodont apparatuses in an Upper Devonian palaeoniscoid fish from the Canning Basin, Western Australia. Bureau of Mineral Resources Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, 2:217–228.Google Scholar
Nicoll, R. S. 1985. Multielement composition of the conodont species Polygnathus xylus xylus Stauffer, 1940 and Ozarkodina brevis (Bischoff and Ziegler, 1957) from the Upper Devonian of the Canning Basin, Western Australia. Bureau of Mineral Resources Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, 9:133–147.Google Scholar
Nicoll, R. S. 1987. Form and function of the Pa element in the conodont animal, p. 77–90. In Aldridge, R. J. (ed.), Palaeobiology of Conodonts. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google Scholar
Nicoll, R. S. 1994. Seximembrate apparatus structure of the Late Cambrian coniform conodont Teridontus nakamurai from the Chatsworth Limestone, Georgina Basin, Queensland. AGSO Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, 15:367–379.Google Scholar
Nicoll, R. S. 1995. Conodont element morphology, apparatus reconstructions and element function: a new interpretation of conodont biology with taxonomic implications. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 182:247–262.Google Scholar
Nowlan, G. S. 1993. A huddle on conodonts. Lethaia, 26:214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orchard, M. J. 1998. Triassic multielement gondolellids, p. 82–83. In Bagnoli, G. (ed.), Seventh international conodont symposium held in Europe (ECOS VII), Abstracts. Tipografia Compositori, Bologna.Google Scholar
Orchard, M. J., and Rieber, H. 1996. Multielement clothing for Neogondolella (Conodonta, Triassic). Sixth North American Paleontological Convention Program and Abstracts. Paleontological Society Special Publication, 8:297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Over, D. J. 1992. Conodonts and the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary in the upper Woodford Shale, Arbuckle Mountains, south central Oklahoma. Journal of Paleontology, 66:293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purnell, M. A. 1992. Conodonts of the Lower Border Group and equivalent strata (Lower Carboniferous) in northern Cumbria and the Scottish Borders. Royal Ontario Museum, Life Sciences Contributions, 156:1–79.Google Scholar
Purnell, M. A. 1993. The Kladognathus apparatus (Conodonta, Carboniferous): homologies with ozarkodinids and the prioniodinid Bauplan. Journal of Paleontology, 67:875–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purnell, M. A., and Donoghue, P. C. J. 1997. Skeletal architecture and functional morphology of ozarkodinid conodonts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B, 352:1545–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purnell, M. A., and Donoghue, P. C. J. 1998. Skeletal architecture, homologies and taphonomy of ozarkodinid conodonts. Palaeontology, 41:57–102.Google Scholar
Purnell, M. A., and von Bitter, P. H. 1996. Bedding-plane assemblages of Idioprioniodus, element locations, and the Bauplan of prioniodinid conodonts, p. 48. In Dzik, J. (ed.), Sixth European conodont symposium, Abstracts. Instytut Paleobiologii PAN, Warszawa.Google Scholar
Ramovš, A. 1977. Skelettapparat von Pseudofurnishius murcianus (Conodontophorida) in der Mitteltrias Sloweniens (NW Jugoslawien). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 153:361–399.Google Scholar
Ramovš, A. 1978. Mitteltriassische Conodonten-clusters in Slovenien, NW Jugoslawien. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 52:129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repetski, J. E., Purnell, M. A., and Barrett, S. F. 1998. The apparatus architecture of Phragmodus , p. 91–92. In Bagnoli, G. (ed.), Seventh international conodont symposium held in Europe (ECOS VII), Abstracts. Tipografia Compositori, Bologna.Google Scholar
Rieber, H. 1980. Ein Conodonten-Cluster aus der Grenzbitumenzone (Mittlere Trias) des Monte San Giorgio (Kt. Tessin/Schweiz). Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 83:265–274.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1994. Homology, topology, and typology: the history of modern debates, p. 63–100. In Hall, B. K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Roth, V. L. 1991. Homology and hierarchies: problems solved and unresolved. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 4:167–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, T. 1986. Homology and evolution of the deep thigh musculature in birds and other reptilia. Journal of Morphology, 189:327–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sansom, I. J., Armstrong, H. A., and Smith, M. P. 1994. The apparatus architecture of Panderodus and its implications for coniform conodont classification. Palaeontology, 37:781–799.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H., and Müller, K. J. 1964. Weitere Funde von Conodonten-Gruppen aus dem oberen Karbon des Sauerlandes. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 38:105–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. P. 1991. Early Ordovician conodonts of East North Greenland. Meddelelser om Gr⊘nland, Geoscience, 26:1–81.Google Scholar
Smith, M. P., Briggs, D. E. G., and Aldridge, R. J. 1987. A conodont animal from the lower Silurian of Wisconsin, U.S.A., and the apparatus architecture of panderodontid conodonts, p. 91–104. In Aldridge, R. J. (ed.), Palaeobiology of Conodonts. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google Scholar
Stewart, I. R. 1995. Conodont bedding plane assemblages from the Ordovician of central Victoria, Australia., p. 103. In Brock, G. (ed.), First Australian Conodont Symposium and the Boucot Symposium, Abstracts and Program. Macquarie University Centre Ecostratigraphy and Palaeobiology Special Publication 1.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1981a. Macromorphology of elements and apparatuses, p. W5–W20. In Robison, R. A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. W, Miscellanea, Supplement 2, Conodonta. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1981b. Glossary of morphological and structural terms for conodont elements and apparatuses, p. W60–W67. In Robison, R. A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. W, Miscellanea, Supplement 2, Conodonta. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1988. The Conodonta: morphology, taxonomy, paleoecology, and evolutionary history of a long-extinct animal phylum. Oxford monographs on geology and geophysics No. 10. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 212 p.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C., and Schönlaub, H. P. 1975. Conodonts of the genus Oulodus Branson & Mehl, 1933. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 9:41–59.Google Scholar
Tautz, D. 1998. Evolutionary biology—Debatable homologies. Nature, 395:17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Bitter, P. H., and Merrill, G. K. 1998. Apparatus composition and structure of the Pennsylvanian conodont genus Gondolella based on assemblages from the Desmoinesian of northeastern Illinois, USA. Journal of Paleontology, 72:112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webers, G. F. 1966. The Middle and Upper Ordovician conodont fauna of Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey Special Publication, 4:1–123.Google Scholar