Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-02T16:39:39.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxonomy and paleoecology of Devonian rostroconch mollusks from Ohio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

R. D. Hoare
R. D. Hoare*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rostroconchs are a common faunal component in the Devonian rocks of Ohio, particularly in the Columbus and Dundee Limestones. Hippocardia cunea (Conrad) is the most abundant species. Also present are H. monroica (Grabau), H. ohioense (Meek), H. curta n. sp., and Bransonia? sibleyense (La Rocque).

Growth series of Hippocardia cunea show that the large hood and the rostrum begin to develop early in ontogeny. The rates of increase in the number of comarginal growth increments on the posterior or rostral face and radial ribs on the body of the shell are slow; most size increase of the shell occurred in the increasing widths of the ribs and the interspaces. The length/height ratio increases from young to juvenile specimens and then decreases in adult specimens. However, the length/width and height/width ratios show a general decrease from young to adult specimens. Considerable variation in shell lateral profile is present in H. cunea.

Three specimens of Hippocardia cunea show borings entering the posterior rostral portion of the shell, presumably made by Trypanites, a polychaete worm. In one instance, a boring caused disfiguration of the shell material indicating that the host was alive at the time of the boring. The orientation and location of the borings and the presence of one specimen believed to be preserved in life position provides the base for interpreting H. cunea as an infaunal deposit feeder.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 63 , Issue 6 , November 1989 , pp. 838 - 846
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

Bonem, R. M. 1981. A new look at orientation and functional morphology of conocardid mollusks. South–Central Section Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 13:234.Google Scholar
Bonem, R. M. 1982. Morphology and paleoecology of the Devonian rostroconch genus Bigalea . Journal of Paleontology, 56:1362–1374.Google Scholar
Branson, C. C. 1942. Type invertebrate fossils of North America (Devonian): Conocardiidae. Wagner Free Institute of Science, Philadelphia, 30 cards.Google Scholar
Brown, T. 1843. The Elements of Fossil Conchology. Houlston & Stoneman, London, 133 p.Google Scholar
Carman, J. E. 1936. Sylvania sandstone of northwestern Ohio. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 47:253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, H. F. 1911. The fossils and stratigraphy of the Middle Devonic of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin 21, 222 p.Google Scholar
Conrad, T. A. 1840. Third annual report on the Palaeontological Department of the Survey. New York Geological Survey Annual Report, 4:199–207.Google Scholar
Conrad, T. A. 1842. Observations on the Silurian and Devonian Systems of the United States, with descriptions of new organic remains. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Journal, 8:228–280.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A., and Cloud, P. R. 1938. New Devonian fossils from Calhoun County, Illinois. Journal of Paleontology, 12:444–460.Google Scholar
Ehlers, G. M., Stumm, E. C., and Kesling, R. V. 1951. Devonian rocks of southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio. Geological Society of America Field Trip Guidebook, 40 p.Google Scholar
Grabau, A. W., and Sherzer, W. H. 1910. The Monroe Formation of southern Michigan and adjoining regions. Michigan Geological and Biological Survey, Geological Series; Vol. 1, Pub. 2, 248 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1843. Geology of New York, Pt. 4: Comprising the Survey of the Fourth Geological District. Albany, 683 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1855. Notes on some fossils of the so-called Taconic System described by Doctor Emmons. American Journal of Science, 19:434–435.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1883. Lamellibranchiata [plates and explanations]. New York Geological Survey, Paleontology, Vol. 5, Pt. 1, 20 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1885. Lamellibranchiata, II. Descriptions and figures of the Dimayaria of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton, Portage, and Chemung groups. New York Geological Survey, Paleontology, Vol. 5, Pt. 1, II, p. 269–561.Google Scholar
La Rocque, J. A. A. 1950. Pre-Traverse Devonian pelecypods of Michigan. Michigan University Museum of Paleontology Contribution, 7:271–366.Google Scholar
Laubenfels, M. W. de. 1955. Porifera, p. E21–E112. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. E, Archaeocyatha and Porifera. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. 1871. Descriptions of new species of invertebrate fossils from the Carboniferous and Devonian of Ohio. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Proceedings, p. 57–93.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1877. American Palaeozoic Fossils: A Catalogue of the Genera and Species. Published by the author, Cincinnati, 253 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, 664 p. (First appendix, 1892, p. 665–718; Second appendix, 1897, p. 719–793.) Google Scholar
Nettleroth, H. 1889. Kentucky Fossil Shells; a monograph of the fossil shells of the Silurian and Devonian rocks of Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey, 245 p.Google Scholar
Neumayr, M. 1891. Beiträge zu einer morphologischen Eintheilung der Bivalven. K. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien Denkschriften, 58:701–801.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. 1970. Mode of life of Conocardium, a Paleozoic pelecypod. Nautilus, 83:77–80.Google Scholar
Nussmann, D. G. 1961. Ecology and pyritization of the Silica Formation, Middle Devonian, of Lucas County, Ohio. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 144 p.Google Scholar
Pohl, E. R. 1929. The Devonian of Wisconsin; Pt. 1, Lamellíbranchiata. Milwaukee Public Museum Bulletin 11, 100 p.Google Scholar
Pojeta, J. JR., and Runnegar, B. 1976. The paleontology of rostroconch mollusks and the early history of the phylum Mollusca. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 968, 88 p.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B. 1978. Origin and evolution of the class Rostroconchia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 284:319–333.Google Scholar
Savage, T. E. 1931. The Devonian fauna of Kentucky, p. 217–247. In Jillson, W. R., The Paleontology of Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey, Vol. 36.Google Scholar
Scherzer, W. H., and Grabau, A. W. 1909. New upper Siluric fauna from southern Michigan. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 19:540–553.Google Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1988. Middle Devonian stratigraphy and conodont biostratigraphy, north-central Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science, 88:2–18.Google Scholar
Stauffer, C. R. 1909. The Middle Devonian of Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey Bulletin 10, 204 p.Google Scholar
Stauffer, C. R., Hubbard, G. D., and Bownocker, J. A. 1911. Geology of the Columbus quadrangle. Ohio Geological Survey Bulletin 14, 133 p.Google Scholar
Whitfield, R. P. 1882. Descriptions of new species of fossils from Ohio, with remarks on some of the geological formations in which they occur. New York Academy of Science Annals, 2:193–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitfield, R. P. 1893. Note on the Marcellus shale and other members of the Hamilton Group in Ohio, as determined from palaeontological evidence, p. 432–440. In Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey, Vol. 7.Google Scholar