Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T18:07:56.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns of early colony development (astogeny) in four genera of trepostome bryozoans from the Upper Ordovician

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Joseph F. Pachut  and
Peggy Fisherkeller
Joseph F. Pachut
Affiliation:
1Department of Earth Sciences, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 723 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA,
Peggy Fisherkeller
Affiliation:
2Indiana State Museum, 650 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204, USA,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The early astogeny of specimens representing the bryozoan genera Dekayia, Parvohallopora, Heterotrypa, and Homotrypella follows the same pattern documented in other Ordovician trepostomes. After larval settlement and metamorphosis, typically three primary, periancestrular, autozooids bud distally from the founder zooid, the ancestrula, with secondary zooids budding from the primaries, tertiary zooids from the secondaries, and so on. Progressive lateral displacement of buds, through backbudding, eventually produces a subcircular ancestrular disk. Significant intergeneric differences in this basic pattern do not appear to exist. Intrageneric variability in budding pattern occurs during colony development. That variability might have resulted from any or all of the following sources: within-genus plasticity, the development of multiple ancestrulae, or environmental variation. The basic pattern of three primary buds developed from individual ancestrulae has been recognized in other trepostomes, some cyclostomes, and two suborders of cryptostomes. Cladistically, the trait must be considered polyphyletic until more is known about the number of primary buds in the remaining bryozoan suborders. Ancestrular dimensions are statistically similar across genera except between the smaller Dekayia and larger Parvohallopora, but ancestrular sizes in all four Dillsboro genera are consistent with the inference that they possessed a polyembryonic lecithotrophic larval type.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , July 2011 , pp. 744 - 756
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

Anstey, R. L. 1987. Astogeny and phylogeny: Evolutionary heterochrony in Paleozoic bryozoans. Paleobiology, 13:20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, R. L. and Pachut, J. F. 1995. Phylogeny, diversity history, and speciation in Paleozoic bryozoans, p. 239–284. In Erwin, D. H. and Anstey, R. L. (eds.), New Approaches to Speciation in the Fossil Record. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L. and Perry, T. G. 1973. Eden Shale bryozoans: A numerical study (Ordovician, Ohio Valley). Publications of the Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 80 p.Google Scholar
Audouin, J. V. 1826. Explication sommaire desplanchesde polypes de l'Egypte, histoire naturelle. Paris, C. L. F. Panckoucke, 28:225–244.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1987. Phylum Bryozoa, p. 497–549. In Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Rowell, A. J. (eds.), Fossil Invertebrates. Blackwell Science Publications, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. and McKinney, F. K. 1976. Skeletal architecture and preserved organs of four-sided zooids in convergent genera of Paleozoic Trepostomata (Bryozoa). Journal of Paleontology, 50:25–78.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1926. Studies on Recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zoologiska Bidrag Från Uppsala, 10:181–507.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. and Daly, E. J. 1985. Trepostome Bryozoa from the Dillsboro Formation (Cincinnatian Series) of Southeastern Indiana. Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin, 33:1–111.Google Scholar
Canu, F. and Bassler, R. S. 1928. Fossil and Recent Bryozoa of the Gulf of Mexico region. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 76:1–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., Sanner, J., and Jackson, J. B. C. 2007. Metrarabdotos and related genera (Bryozoa: Cheilostomata) in the late Paleogene and Neogene of tropical America. Paleontology Society Memoir, 67:1–96.Google Scholar
Cook, P. L. 1973. Early colony development in some Cheilostomata, p. 65–71. In Larwood, G. P. (ed.), Living and Fossil Bryozoa. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Corneliussen, E. F. and Perry, T. G. 1973. Niagaran ectoprocts from Tennessee. Journal of Paleontology, 47:151–220.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R. 1904. Development of some Paleozoic Bryozoa. American Journal of Science, 17:49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumings, E. R. 1912. Development and systematic position of the monticuliporids. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 23:357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmeyer, S. C. 1998. Kope to Bellevue formations: the Riedlin Road/Mason Road site (Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati, Ohio, region), p. 10–35. In Davis, R. A. and Cuffey, R. J. (eds.), Sampling the Layer Cake That Isn't. Guidebook No. 13, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 194 p.Google Scholar
Dzik, J. 1992. Early astogeny and relationships of the Ordovician rhabdomesine bryozoans. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 37:37–54.Google Scholar
Eiserhardt, E. and Kvachko, V. I. 1999. Homosyndrome fusion bei kreide-bryozoen. Greifswalder Geowissenschaftliche Beitrage, 6:177–191.Google Scholar
Gregory, J. W. 1899. Catalogue of the fossil Bryozoa in the Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History). The Cretaceous Bryozoa. Volume 1. British Museum (Natural History), London, 457 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1857. Observations on the genus Archimedes, or Fenestella, with descriptions of species, etc. American Association for the Advancement of Science Proceedings, 10:176–180.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4:1–9. <http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm>.Google Scholar
Harmelin, J-G. 1976. Le sous-ordre des Tubuliporina (Bryozoaires Cyclostomes) en Méditerranée. Ecologie et systématique. Mém. Inst. Océanogr., 10:1–326.Google Scholar
Hay, H. B., Kirchner, B., and Cuffey, R. J. 1998. “Excello” (Arnheim) to basal Saluda strata on Indiana Route 1 at South Gate Hill (Upper Ordovician, Southeastern Indiana), p. 1–194. In Davis, R. A. and Cuffey, R. J. (eds.), Sampling the Layer Cake That Isn't. Guidebook No. 13, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 194 p.Google Scholar
Hayward, P. J. and McKinney, F. K. 2002. Northern Adriatic Bryozoa from the vicinity of Rovinj, Croatia. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 270:1–139.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, P. J. and Ryland, J. S. 1979. British ascophoran bryozoans. Synopses of the British Fauna, New Series, 14:1–312.Google Scholar
Hickey, D. R. 1988. Bryozoan astogeny and evolutionary novelties: Their role in the origin and systematics of the Ordovician monticuliporid trepostome genus Peronopora . Journal of Paleontology, 62:180–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hincks, T. 1880. A history of the British marine Polyzoa. J. Van Vorst, London, 601 p.Google Scholar
Hincks, T. 1882. Polyzoa of Queen Charlotte Islands: Preliminary notice of some new species. Annual Magazine of Natural History, Series 5, 10:248–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. N., Manriquez, P. H., Morley, S., Craig, S. F., and Bishop, J. D. D. 2004. Kin or self-recognition? Colonial fusibility of the bryozoan Celleporella hylina. Evolution and Development, 6:431–437.Google ScholarPubMed
Key, M. M. Jr., Schumacher, G. A., Babcock, L. E., Frey, R. C., Heimbrock, W. P., Felton, S. H., Cooper, D. L., Gibson, W. B., Scheid, D. G., and Schumacher, S. A. 2010. Paleoecology of commensal epizoans fouling Flexicalymene spp. (trilobites) from the Upper Ordovician Cincinnati Arch region, U.S.A. Journal of Paleontology, 84:1121–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klyuge, G. A. 1962. Mshanki severnykh morey SSSR [Bryozoans of the Northern Sea of the USSR]. AN SSSR, Moskow-Leningrad, 584 p.Google Scholar
Lamouroux, J. 1821. Exposition méthodique des genres de l'ordre des Polypiers avec leur description et celle des principales espèces, figures dans 84 planches. Les 63 premières appurtenant à l'Histoire naturelle des zoophytes d'Ellis et Solander. Agasse Éd., Paris, 115 p.Google Scholar
Marintsch, E. J. 1998. Middle Ordovician Bryozoa of Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 112:1–121.Google Scholar
Mawatari, S. F. 1986. A new genus and species of celleporid bryozoan with ancestrula triad from Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Natural History, 20:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawatari, S. F. 1987. Post-larval development of Pseudocelleporina triplex (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), p. 177–182. In Ross, J. R. P. (ed.), Bryozoa: Present and Past. Western Washington University, Bellingham.Google Scholar
Mawatari, S. and Mawatari, S. F. 1975. Development and metamorphosis of the cyphonautes of Membranipora serrilamella Osburn, p. 13–18. In Pouyet, S. (ed.), Bryozoa 1974. Documents des Laboratoires de Geologie de al Faculte des Sciences de Lyon 3, Lyon.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1977. Paraboloid colony bases in Paleozoic stenolaemate bryozoans. Lethaia, 10:209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1978. Astogeny of the lyre-shaped Carboniferous fenestrate bryozoan Lyroporella . Journal of Paleontology, 52:83–90.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1981. Intercolony fusion suggests polyembryony in Paleozoic fenestrate bryozoans. Paleobiology, 7:247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1987. Paleobiological interpretation of some skeletal characters of Lower Devonian fenestrate Bryozoa, Prague Basin, Czechoslovakia, p. 161–168. In Ross, J. R. P. (ed.), Bryozoa: Present and Past. Western Washington University, Bellingham.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1993. A faster-paced world? Contrasts in biovolume and life-process rates in cyclostome (Class Stenolaemata) and cheilostome (Class Gymnolaemata) bryozoans. Paleobiology, 19:335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. and King, B. F. 1984. Early growth stages of some Paleozoic phylloporinid bryozoans. Journal of Paleontology, 58:852–866.Google Scholar
Milne-Edwards, H. and Haime, J. 1851. Monographie des polypiers fossiles des terrains Palaeozoiques. Archives du Museé d'Histoire Naturelles Paris, 5:1–502.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. 1879. On the structure and affinities of the “tabulate corals” of the Paleozoic Period, with critical descriptions of illustrative species. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh, 342 p.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. and Etheridge, R. J. 1877. On Prasopora grayae, a new genus and species of Silurian corals. Annual Magazine of Natural History, Series 4, 20:388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, C. 1970. On metamorphosis and ancestrula formation in cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Ophelia, 7:217–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, C. 1981. On morphology and reproduction of ‘Hippodiplosia’ insculpta and Fenestrulina malusi (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata). Ophelia, 20:91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachut, J. F. and Fisherkeller, P. 2010. Inferring larval type in fossil bryozoans. Lethaia, 43:396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, T. J. and Palmer, C. D. 1977. Faunal distribution and colonization strategy in a Middle Ordovician hardground community. Lethaia, 10:179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podell, M. E. and Anstey, R. L. 1979. The interrelationship of early colony development, monticules and branches in Palaeozoic bryozoans. Palaeontology, 22:965–982.Google Scholar
Rominger, C. 1866. Observations on Chaetetes and some related genera, in regard to their systematic position, with an appended description of some new species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1866:113–123.Google Scholar
Rosso, A. and Sanfilippo, R. 2005. Bryozoans and serpuloideans in skeletobiont communities from the Pleistocene of Sicily: Spatial utilisation and competitive interactions. Annali dell'Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica, volume special, p. 109–124.Google Scholar
Singh, R. J. 1979. Trepostomatous bryozoan fauna from the Bellevue Limestone, Upper Ordovician, in the tri-state area of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 76:157–288.Google Scholar
SYSTAT® 11. 2004. SPSS Software, Inc. Richmond, Calif. Google Scholar
Tavener-Smith, R. 1974. Early growth stages in rhabdomesoid bryozoans from the Lower Carboniferous of Hook Head, Ireland. Palaeontology, 17:149–164.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D. 1988. Major radiation of cheilostome bryozoans: Triggered by the evolution of a new larval type? Historical Biology, 1:45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D. and Larwood, G. P. 1990. Major evolutionary radiations in the Bryozoa, p. 209–233. In Taylor, P. D. and Larwood, G. P. (eds.), Major Evolutionary Radiations. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D. and McKinney, F. K. 2006. Cretaceous Bryozoa from the Campanian and Maastrichtian of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, United States. Scripta Geologica, 132:1–346.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D. and Weedon, M. J. 2000. Skeletal ultrastructure and phylogeny of cyclostome bryozoans. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 128:337–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D. and Wilson, M. A. 1994. Corynotrypa from the Ordovician of North America: Colony growth in a primitive stenolaemate bryozoan. Journal of Paleontology, 68:241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D. and Wilson, M. A. 1996. Cuffeyella, a new bryozoan genus from the Late Ordovician of North America, and its bearing on the origin of the post-Paleozoic cyclostomes, p. 351–360. In Gordon, D. P., Smith, A. M., and Grant-Mackie, J. A. (eds.), Bryozoans in Space and Time. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Ltd., Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Tobin, R. C. 1982. A model for cyclic deposition in the Cincinnatian Series of southwestern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and southwestern Indiana: Unpublished , University of Cincinnati, 483 p.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1886. Report on the Lower Silurian Bryozoa with preliminary descriptions of some new species. Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 14th Annual Report, 1885:57–103.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1888. A correlation of the Lower Silurian horizons of Tennessee and of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys with those of New York and Canada. American Geologist, 2:39–44.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. and Bassler, R. S. 1904. A revision of the Paleozoic Bryozoa (Trepostomata). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, 47:15–55.Google Scholar
Utgaard, J. and Perry, T. G. 1964. Trepostomatous bryozoan fauna of the upper part of the Whitewater Formation (Cincinnatian) of eastern Indiana and western Ohio. Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin, 33:1–111.Google Scholar
Vine, G. R. 1893. Report of the committee appointed for the completion of a report on the Cretaceous Polyzoa. Report of the Sixty-Second Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1892:301–337.Google Scholar
Viskova, L. A. 1981. Brood chambers in Recent and fossil marine bryozoans. Paleontological Journal, 4:35–52.Google Scholar
Zimmer, R. L. and Woolacott, R. M. 1977. Metamorphosis, ancestrulae, and coloniality in bryozoan life cycle, p. 91–142. In Woolacott, R. M. and Zimmer, R. L. (eds.), Biology of Bryozoans. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar