Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T10:50:49.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pre- and postmortem skeletal modifications of the Cupressocrinitidae (Crinoidea, Cladida)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Jan Bohatý
Jan Bohatý*
Affiliation:
Institut für Geologie und Mineralogie der Universität zu Köln, Zülpicher Str. 49a, D-50674 Köln, Germany,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The discovery of new specimens and restudy of known collections resulted in revision of some members of the cladid crinoid family Cupressocrinitidae. “Cupressocrinites gracilis” is generically separated from Cupressocrinites whereby “Procupressocrinus” is resurrected from synonomy and assigned to the Cupressocrinitidae with C. gracilis Goldfuss, 1831 as the type species. Studies of the Sandberger collection presuppose the revision of “Abbreviatocrinites abbreviates altus” (=A. altus n. comb.) and A. nodosus. Furthermore, the hitherto undetermined cupressocrinitids are described as Cupressocrinites ahuettensis n. sp. and Robustocrinites cataphractus n. sp. The event-controlled distribution of Robustocrinites is discussed and shows similarities to other crinoid genera within the Eifel region. Observed arm-regeneration in Robustocrinites, as well as the postmortem incurred ossicular-boring of an indeterminable organism and the skeletal-colonization by a trepostome bryozoan, are further observations of other pre- and postmortem ossicular modifications in cupressocrinitid skeletons.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 45 - 62
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

Amemiya, S. and Oji, T. 1992. Regeneration in sea lilies. Nature, 357:546–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassler, R. S. and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America Special Paper 45:1–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science Report, (1898):916–923.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1919. Cupressocrinus gibber n. sp. du Dévonien supérieur de Belgique. Bulletin de la Société Belge de Géologie de Paléontologie et d'Hydrologie, 28:129–136.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1926. Notes sur Cupressocrinus et Rhopalocrinus. Bulletin de la Société Belge de Géologie de Paléontologie et d'Hydrologie, 36:39–51.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1990. Non-predatory drilling of Mississippian crinoids by platyceratid gastropods. Palaeontology, 33(3):743–748.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Boreholes in Devonian blastoids and their implication for boring by platyceratids. Lethaia, 26:41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1995. Borings in Devonian and Mississippian Blastoids (Echinodermata). Journal of Paleontology, 69(6): 1084–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, R. T. 2005. Correlation of the proposed Middle Devonian Substage with the global ammonoid record. Document of the International Subcommission on Devonian Stratigraphy Annual Meeting, Novosibirsk, 6 p.Google Scholar
Becker, R. T. 2007. Correlation of the proposed Middle Givetian Substage with the global ammonoid record. Subcommission on Devonian Stratigraphy, Newsletter 22:17–23.Google Scholar
Bohatý, J. 2001. Wachstumsanomalien mitteldevonischer Crinoidenkelche aus den Kalkmulden der Eifel (Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Greifswalder Geowissenschaftliche Beiträge, 9(2001):7–9.Google Scholar
Bohatý, J. 2005a. Doppellagige Kronenplatten: Ein neues anatomisches Merkmal paläozoischer Crinoiden und Revision der Familie Cupressocrinitidae (Devon). Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 79(2):201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohatý, J. 2005b. Bactrocrinites (Crinoidea) aus dem Mittel-Devon der Eifel (linksrheinisches Schiefergebirge, Deutschland)—Taxonomie, Biostratigraphie und Fazieskontrolle. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 235(3):381–410.Google Scholar
Bohatý, J. 2006. Neue Cupressocrinitidae (Crinoidea) aus den mitteldevonischen Kalkmulden der Eifel (linksrheinisches Schiefergebirge, Deutschland). Senckenbergiana lethaea, 86(2): 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohatý, J. and Herbig, H.-G. 2007. The validity of the Middle Devonian camerate crinoid species Hexacrinites hieroglyphicus (Goldfuss, 1839) and H. marginatus (Schultze, 1866). Geobios, 40(6):731–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E. and Eckert, J. D. 1982. Paleoecology of a well-preserved crinoid colony from the Silurian Rochester Shale in Ontario. Life Science Contribution, Royal Ontario Museum, 131:1–20.Google Scholar
Dohm, B. 1930. Die Kalkmulde von Gerolstein in der Eifel. Eine Einführung in die Geologie. Georg Fischer, Wittlich, 64 p.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. and Lewis, D. N. 1999. An epibiont and the functional morphology of the column of a platycrinitid crinoid. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 52:321–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubatolova, Yu. A. 1964. Morskie lilii devona Kuzbassa [Devonian crinoids of the Kuznetz Basin]. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoe Otdeleniye Trudy Instituta Geologii i Geofiziki: 1–153.Google Scholar
Dubatolova, Yu. A. 1975. Devonian crinoids of the Minusin Basin [in Russian]. Trudy Instituta Geologii i Geofiziki AN SSSR, Sibirskoe Otdelenie, 272:1–58.Google Scholar
Franzén, C. 1977. Crinoid holdfasts from the Silurian of Gotland. Lethaia, 10:219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahn, F. J. and Baumiller, T. K. 2005. Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic? Paleobiology, 31(1): 151–164.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galle, A. 1978. Favositidae (Tabulata) from the Devonian of Bohemia. Sbornik Geologických Ved, Paleontologie, 20:33–62.Google Scholar
Galle, A. and Prokop, R. J. 2000. Complex parasitism and symbiosis of crinoid, subepidermal parasite, and tabulate coral. Lower Devonian (Pragian), Barrandian, Czech Republic. Vestnik Ceského Geologického Ústavu, 75:441–444.Google Scholar
Gluchowski, E. 2005. Epibionts on upper Eifelian crinoid columnals from the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 50(2): 315–328.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, G. A. 1826–44. Petrefacta Germaniae tam ea, quae in museo universitatis regiae Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanae servantur, quam alia quaecunque in Museis Hoeninghusiano, Muensteriano aliisque extant iconibus et descriptionibus illustrate (Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Herrn Grafen Georg zu Münster, herausgegeben von Dr. Aug. Goldfuss)—1 (1826–33): Divisio secunda: Radiariorum Reliquiae—Strahlenthiere der Vorwelt, p. 115–221. Arnz and Co, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, G. A. 1839. Beiträge zur Petrefactenkunde. Nova Acta Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum [=Kaiserlich Leopoldinisch-Carolinische Akademie der Naturforscher, Verhandlungen], 19(1):329–352.Google Scholar
Halleck, M. S. 1973. Crinoids, hardgrounds, and community succession: The Silurian Waldron-Laurel contact in southern Indiana. Lethaia, 6:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, J. 1997. Die Crinoiden des Mittel-Devon der Eifler Kalkmulden. Private published, Bonn, 274 p.Google Scholar
Hauser, J. 2001. Neubeschreibung mitteldevonischer Eifel-Crinoiden aus der Sammlung Schultze (Museum of Comparative Zoology, The Agassiz Museum, Harvard University, Mass., USA), nebst einer Zusammenstellung der Eifelcrinoiden (Holotypen) der Goldfuss Sammlung. Private published, Bonn, 198 p.Google Scholar
Hauser, J. 2006a. Cupressocrinites goldfussi n.sp.—Ein neuer Vertreter der Gattung Cupressocrinites GOLDFUSS, 1831 aus dem Mitteldevon der Eifel (Deutschland, Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Private published, PDF-document http://www.devon-crinoiden.de/cupressogoldfussi.pdf [does not meet ICZN regulations for acceptable taxonomic names. Therefore new names considered nomen nudum].Google Scholar
Hauser, J. 2006b. Dachsbergcrinites nov. gen. (Crinoidea, Inadunata)—Eine neue Crinoiden-Gattung aus dem Mitteldevon der Eifel (Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Private published, PDF-document www.devon-crinoiden.de/Dachsbergcrinites.pdf [does not meet ICZN regulations for acceptable taxonomic names. Therefore new names considered nomen nudum].Google Scholar
Hauser, J. 2007a. Die Crinoidenwelt der Eifel vor 350.000.000 Jahren—Neue Crinoiden aus dem Mitteldevon der Eifel, Teil 2. Private published, Bonn, 83 p.Google Scholar
Hauser, J. 2007b. Systematik, p. 22–73, pl. 1–2. In Hauser, J. and Landeta, F. G. (eds.), Neue Crinoiden aus dem Paläozoikum von Nordspanien. Private published, Bonn, Oviedo, 73 p.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen. Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 3(1): 1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, C. D. E. 1825. Icones Fossilium Sectiles. London, 4 p., 8 pls. [pls. 9–19 unpubl.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamarck, J. B. P. A. De. 1801. Systême des animaux sans vertèbres, ou tableau général des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux; présentant leurs caractères essentiels et leur distribution, d'après la considération de leurs rapports naturels et de leur organisation, et suivant l'arrangement établi dans les galeries du Muséum d'Hist. Naturelle, parmi leurs dépouilles conservées; précédé du discours d'ouverture du Cours de Zoologie, donné dans le Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle l'an 8 de la République. Lamarck & Deterville, Paris, viii + 432 p.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J. B. P. A. De. 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, présentant les caractères généraux et particuliers de ces animaux, leur distribution, leurs classes, leurs familles, leurs genres, et la citation des principales espèces qui s'y rapportent; précédée d'une introduction offrant la détermination des caractères essentiels de l'animal, sa distinction du végétal et des autres corps naturels, enfin, l'exposition des principes fondamentaux de la zoologie, Volume 2, Verdière. Paris, 568 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Menn, J. 1985. Les Crinoides du Dévonien inferieur et moyen du Massif armoricain. Mémoires de la Société géologique et minéralogique de Bretagne, 30:1–268.Google Scholar
Maurer, F. 1875. Paläontologische Studien im Gebiet des rheinischen Devon. 2. Die Fauna des Rotheisenstein der Grube Haina. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, 1875:596–618.Google Scholar
Mcintosh, G. C. 2001. Devonian cladid crinoids: Families Glossocrinidae Goldring, 1923, and Rutkowskicrinidae new family. Journal of Paleontology, 75:783–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Biotic interactions among recent and among fossil crinoids, p. 377–427. In Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L. (eds.), Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Oji, T. 1993. Eocene crinoids from Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula: paleobiogeographic and paleoecologic implications. Journal of Paleontology, 67(2):250–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miesen, J. 1971. Crinoiden der Eifel. Private published, Leverkusen, 70 p.Google Scholar
Milicina, V. S. 1977. Crinoidei iz eifelskikh otlozhenii vostochnogo sklona Severnogo i Srednego Urala; Novie materiali po paleontologii Urala. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Uralskii Nauchnii Tsentr, Institut Geologii i Geokimii, 12:123–143.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. and Gurley, W. F. E. 1890. Description of some new genera and species of Echinodermata from the Coal Measures and Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa. Journal Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 13(1):3–25.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 46:1–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Jeffords, R. M. 1968. Classification and nomenclature of fossil crinoids based on studies of dissociated parts of their columns. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 46:1–86.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., Lane, N. G., and Strimple, H. L. 1978. Order Cladida Moore and Laudon, 1943, p T578–T759. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2 (Crinoidea). The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas, Boulder, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Mozzi, D., Dolmatov, I. Y., Bonasoro, F., and Carnevali, M. D. C. 2006. Visceral regeneration in the crinoid Antedon mediterranea: basic mechanisms, tissues and cells involved in gut regrowth. Central European Journal of Biology, 1(4):609–635.Google Scholar
Oji, T. 2001. Fossil Record of Echinoderm Regeneration with Special Regard to Crinoids. Microscopy Research and Technique, 55(6):397–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, S. E. and Bork, K. B. 1998. Secondary tiering on crinoids from the Waldron Shale (Silurian: Wenlockian) of Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 72:887–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polyarnaya, Z. A. 1973. Members of the genus Cupressocrinites (Crinoidea) from the Givetian of the Southern Urals. Paleontological Journal. 7(4): 562–565. [Original: Predstaviteli Tyada Cupressocrinites (Crinoidea) iz Zhivetskikh Otlozhenii Yuzhnogo Urala. Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal, 4(1973): 132–135.Google Scholar
Powers, B. G. and Ausich, W. I. 1990. Epizoan associations in a Lower Mississippian Paleocommunity (Borden Group, Indiana, U.S.A.). Historical Biology, 4:245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, C. F. 1852–54. Erste Periode, Kohlen-Gebirge, p. 210–291. In Bronn, H. G. (ed.), 1851–1856. Lethaea Geognostica, 3(2):1–788. E. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung; Nägele and Obermiller, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Sandberger, G. and Sandberger, F. 1856. Ordnung III. Crinoidea, Meerlilien Miller, p. 383–403. In Sandberger, G. and Sandberger, F. (eds.), 1849–1856. Die Versteinerungen des Rheinischen Schichtensystems in Nassau. Mit einer kurzgefassten Geognosie dieses Gebietes und mit steter Berücksichtigung analoger Schichten anderer Länder. Kreidel and Niedner, Wiesbaden, I–XV, 564 p., 41 pls. (atlas) [1849: 1–40, pls. 1–5; 1850: 41–72, pls. 6–8, 11–12; 1851: 73–104, pls. 9–10, 10a–b, 13; 1852: 105–168, pls. 14–23; 1854: 169–232, pls. 24–33; 1856: I–XV, 233–564, pls. 34–39].Google Scholar
Schlotheim, E. F. Von. 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch die Beschreibung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler überreste des Thier- und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt erläutert. Beckersche Buchhandlung, Gotha, p. 1–437, pl. 15–29.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C. 1885. über einige neue Anthozoen aus dem Devon. Verhandlungen des naturhistorischen Vereins der preussischen Rheinlande und Westphalens, 44:114–151.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. E. 1941. Die Crinoiden des Rheinischen Devons II. Teil. A. Nachtrag zu: Die Crinoiden des Hunsrückschiefers; B. Die Crinoideen des Unterdevons bis zur cultrijugatus-Zone (mit Ausschluß des Hunsrückschiefers). Abhandlungen der Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, 182:1–253.Google Scholar
Schnur, J. 1849. Crinoiden, p. 21–22. In Steininger, J. (ed.), Die Versteinerungen des übergangsgebirges der Eifel. Jahresbericht über den Schul-Cursus 1848/1849 an dem Gymnasium zu Trier. Published by the gymnasium of Trier, 34 p.Google Scholar
Schoene, B. R., Basse, M., and May, A. 1998. Korrelationen des Eifelium/Givetium-Grenzbereichs im Rheinischen Schiefergebirge. Senckenbergiana lethaea, 77(1/2):233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, L. 1866. Monographie der Echinodermen des Eifler Kalkes. Carl Gerolds Sohn, Wien, 118 p., 13 pls.; also published in: Schultze, L. 1867. Monographie der Echinodermen des Eitler Kalkes. Denkschrift der Mathematisch Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 26(2): 113–230.Google Scholar
Sieverts-Doreck, H. 1963. über Missbildungen bei Cupressocrinus elongatus aus dem Mitteldevon der Eifel. Decheniana, 115(2):239–244.Google Scholar
Simms, M. J. and Sevastopulo, G. D. 1993. The origin of articulate crinoids. Palaeontology, 36(1):91–109.Google Scholar
Struve, W. 1982. The great gap in the record of marine Middle Devonian, p. 433–447. In: Ziegler, W. and Werner, R. (eds.), On Devonian Stratigraphy and Palaeontology of the Ardenno-Rhenish Mountains and related Devonian Matters. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 55:1–508.Google Scholar
Struve, W. 1992. Neues zur Stratigraphie und Fauna des rhenotypen Mittel-Devon. Senckenbergiana lethaea, 71(5/6):503–624.Google Scholar
Struve, W. (t) Plodowski, G., and Weddige, K. 1997. Tagesexkursion I (27.09.1997) Biostratigraphische Stufengrenzen und Events in der Prümer und Hillesheim Mulde, p. 123–167. In Eschghi, I. and Rudolf, H. (eds.), 67. Jahrestagung der Paläontologischen Gesellschaft, 21.-28.09.1997 in Daun/Vulkaneifel, Exkursionsführer. Terra Nostra, Schriften der Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung, 97(7): 1–202.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D. T. and Wilson, M. A. 2007. Morphology and affinities of hederelloid “bryozoans,”, p. 88. In Hageman, S. J. and McKinney, F. K. (eds.), 14th Meeting of the International Bryozoology Association, 02.-07.07.2007 , Abstracts with Program. Boone, North Carolina, 2007, http://www.iba.appstate.edu/IBAfiles/AbstrastWprogram.pdf (IBA Website, p. 88).Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. and Springer, F. 1880. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea I, the families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1879:226–378.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea. Discussion of the classification and relation of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3(1):223–364.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. and Springer, F. 1889. Crinoids. In Miller, S. A. (ed.), North American geology and paleontology. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, 664 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1973. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, 1942–1968. Memoirs of the Geological Society of America, 137:1–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. D. 2003. Bibliography and Index of Paleozoic crinoids, coronates and hemistreptocrinoids 1758–1999, Index of the crinoid crowns and parts of crowns. Geological Society of America, Boulder, GSA Website http://crinoid.gsajournals.org/crinoidmod.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. and Jell, P. A. 1999. New Carboniferous crinoids from eastern Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 43(1):237–278.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., Hafley, D. J., Blake, D. B., and Glass, A. 1999. Crinoids and stelleroids (Echinodermata) from the Broken Rib Member, Dyer Formation (Late Devonian, Famennian) of the White River Plateau, Colorado. Journal of Paleontology, 73(3):461–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. D., Maples, C. G., Mawson, R., and Dastanpour, M. 2003. A cladid-dominated Early Mississippian crinoid and conodont fauna from Kerman Province, Iran and revision of the glossocrinids and rhenocrinids. Journal of Paleontology Memoir 60, 77 (supplement to no. 3), 35 p.Google Scholar
Weissmüller, A. 1998. Ein umfangreicher Fund von Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck im Oberen Muschelkalk (mo2) des Diemeltales (Nordhessen). Philippia, 8(4):245–270.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. A. and Taylor, P. D. T. 2001. “Pseudobryozoans” and the problem of encruster diversity in the Paleozoic. PaleoBios, 21 (addendum of no. 2): 134–135.Google Scholar