Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:08:31.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cyrtoctenus wittebergensis sp. nov. (Chelicerata: Eurypterida), a large sweep-feeder from the Carboniferous of South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

C. D. Waterston ,
B. W. Oelofsen  and
R. D. F. Oosthuizen
C. D. Waterston
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Royal Scottish Museum, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland.
B. W. Oelofsen
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa.
R. D. F. Oosthuizen
Affiliation:
Zwartskraal, Klaarstroom, District of Prince Albert, South Africa.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cyrtoctenus wittebergensis sp. nov. is described from a unique holotype from the Witteberg Group of the Cape Supergroup. It is a giant hibbertopteroid eurypterid having combs and specialised movable spines of crytoctenid type (Størmer & Waterston 1968) on the more distal podomeres of the second to fourth prosomal appendages. The function of the combs and their associated movable spines is discussed and it is suggested that together they formed a unique adaptation of eurypterid structures to sweep filter-feeding, the combs forming the filters and the spines the cleaners. The digestive tract is remarkably preserved and shows a spiral valve, posterior to the stomach, which is interpreted as an adaptive feature in this large arthropod to increase the absorptive area of the gut.

The new evidence provided by the South African specimen has required the re-interpretation of the disarticulated Cyrtoctenus specimens previously described from Europe. Disjecta membra recently obtained from the Tournaisian of Foulden, Berwickshire, which may belong to Cyrtoctenus, are described and show characters previously unknown in Scottish material but similar to certain features in the South African specimen.

The taxonomic relationships within the Hibbertopteroidea are discussed in the light of the new combination of characters found in C. wittebergensis. Two families are recognised in the superfamily, the Hibbertopteridae, including Hibbertopterus and Campylocephalus, and the new family Cyrtoctenidae which is here erected to include Cyrtoctenus, Dunsopterus and possibly also Hastimima.

Keywords

BerwickshireGondwanalandHibbertopteroideaintestinesweep-feedingtaxonomyWitteberg Group.
Type
Structure and function
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 76 , Issue 2-3: Fossil Anthropods as Living Animals , 1985 , pp. 339 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1985

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

Bergström, J. 1969. Remarks on the Appendages of Trilobites. LETHAIA 2, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucot, A. J., Brunton, C. H. C. & Theron, J. N. 1983. Implications for the age of South African Devonian rocks in which Tropidoleptus (Brachiopoda) has been found. GEOL MAG 120, 51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Rolfe, W. D. I. & Brannan, J. 1979. A giant myriapod trail from the Namurian of Arran, Scotland. PALAEONTOLOGY 22, 273–91.Google Scholar
Caster, K. E. 1947. Expedicao a o Estado do Piaui. MIN METAL 12, 271–2.Google Scholar
Caster, K. E. & Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1964. Upper Ordovician Eurypterids of Ohio. PALAEONTOGR AM 4, 301–42.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M. & Ruedemann, R. 1912. The Eurypterida of New York. MEM NEW YORK STATE MUS NAT HIST 14, vol. 1, 1–439, vol. 2, plates.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. U. 1979. Visceral anatomy and arthropod phylogeny. In Gupta, A. P. (ed.) Arthropod phylogeny, 467–549. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. R. 1982. A Revision of the Devonian (Emsian-Eifelian) Trilobita from the Bokkeveld Group of South Africa. S AFR MUS ANN 89, (1), 1–174.Google Scholar
Copeland, M. J. & Bolton, T. E. 1960. Canadian Fossil Arthropoda Eurypterida, Phyllocarida and Decapoda. BULL GEOL SURV CAN 60, 1–84.Google Scholar
Dennell, R. 1934. The feeding mechanism of the common cumacean crustacean Diastylis bradyi. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 58, 125–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Toit, A. 1954. The Geology of South Africa, 3rd edn. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Fage, L. 1949. Classe des Mérostomacés (Merostomata, Woodward (1866)). In Grassé, P.-P. (ed.) Traité de Zoologie VI, 219–62. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Forsythe, R. 1982. The late Palaeozoic to early Mesozoic evolution of southern America: a plate tectonic interpretation. J GEOL SOC LONDON 139, 671–82.Google Scholar
Fretter, V. & Graham, A. 1976. A Functional Anatomy of Invertebrates. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fritsch, A. 1895. Fauna der Gaskohle und der Kalksteine der Permformation Bohmens, 3, no. 4, 1–132. Prague.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B. G. 1969. New palaeoniscoid fish from the Witteberg Series of South Africa. ZOOL J LINN SOC 48, 423–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heubusch, C. A. 1962. Preservation of the intestine in three specimens of Eurypterus. J PALEONTOL 36, 222–4.Google Scholar
Jubb, R. A. 1965. A new palaeoniscid fish from the Witteberg Series (Lower Carboniferous) of South Africa. S AFR MUS ANN 48, 267–72.Google Scholar
Kaestner, A. 1968. Invertebrate Zoology, vol. 2, New York: Interscience. (Translated by H. W., and Levi, L. R..)Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1948. The Mazon Creek Eurypterid: a Revision of the Genus Lepidoderma. ILLINOIS STATE MUS SCI PAP 3 (4), 1–46.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1958. Some previously unknown morphological structures of Carcinosoma newlini (Claypole). J PALEONTOL 32, 295–303.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Wareing, E. N. 1959. A Taxonomic Review of some Late Paleozoic Eurypterida. J PALEONTOL 33, 251–6.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1961. Nota sobra la presencia de un Eurypteridao en el Devonico Inferior de la Argentina. REV ASSOC GEOL ARGENTINA 15, (102), 109–11.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1963. Pennsylvanian Invertebrates of the Mazon Creek Area; Illinois: Eurypterida. FIELDIANA (GEOL) 12, 85–106.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1966. A Revision of the Families and Genera of the Stylonuracea (Eurypterida). FIELDIANA (GEOL) 14, 169–97.Google Scholar
Lake, P. 1904. The trilobites of the Bokkeveld Beds. S AFR MUS ANN 4, 201–20.Google Scholar
Loock, J. C. 1967. The stratigraphy of the Witteberg-Dwyka contact beds. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
Manton, S. M. 1977. The Arthropoda, Habits, Functional Morphology and Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. M. & Orr, A. P. 1960. In Waterman, T. H. (ed.) The Physiology of Crustacea, vol. 1, 227–58. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Mezzalira, S. 1951. Ocorrencias do euripteridio Hastimima no estado de Sao Paulo. D G M NOT PREL E EST 52, 1–14.Google Scholar
Neumayer, L. 1904. Die Koprolithen des Perms von Texas. PALAEONTOGRAPHICA 51, 121–8.Google Scholar
Oelofsen, B. W. 1981. An anatomical and systematic study of the family Mesosauridae (Reptilia, Progonosauria) with special reference to its associated fauna and palaeo-ecological environment in the Whitehill sea. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
Parker, T. J. 1885. On the intestinal spiral valve in the genus Raia. TRANS ZOOL SOC LONDON 11, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, W. 1912. The evolution of the vertebrates and their kin. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Pinto, I. D. 1972. Permian insects from Parana Basin, South Brazil I. Mecoptera. REV BRAS GEOC 2, 105–16.Google Scholar
Pinto, I. D., Ornellas, L. P. & Purper, I. 1978. Fossil insects and the problem of Permo-Carboniferous boundaries. Act. II Congr. Argentino Paleont. Bioestr. I CONGR LATINOAM PALEONTOL B A 1978 IV (1980), 207–13.Google Scholar
Plotnik, R. E. 1985. Lift based mechanisms for swimming in eurypterids and portunid crabs. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH EARTH SCI 76, 325–37.Google Scholar
Plumstead, E. P. 1967. A general review of the Devonian fossil plants found in the Cape System of South Africa. PALAEONTOL AFR 10, 1–83.Google Scholar
Plumstead, E. P. 1969. Three thousand million years of plant life in Africa. GEOL SOC S AFR TRANS 80, 267–77.Google Scholar
Price, P. 1927. The coprolite limestone horizon of the Conemaugh Series in and around Morgantown, West Virginia. CARNEGIE MUS ANN 17, 211–54.Google Scholar
Rennie, J. V. L. 1934. Note on an Estheria from the Witteberg Series. S AFR J SCI 31, 233–5.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1921. Preservation of Alimentary Canal in an Eurypterid. BULL NEW YORK STATE MUS 227/228, 92–5.Google Scholar
Salamuni, R. & Bigarella, J. J. 1967. The pre-Gondwana basement. In Bigarella, J. J., Becker, R. D. & Pinto, I. D. (eds) Problems in Gondwana Geology, 3–22, 1st. Intl. Gondwana Symposium.Google Scholar
Salter, J. W. 1862. On some Fossil Crustacea from the Coal Measures and Devonian Rocks of British North America. Q J GEOL SOC LONDON 19, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seward, A. C. 1909. Notes on Fossil Plants from the Witteberg Series of Cape Colony. GEOL MAG (5) 6, 482–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S. 1970. Notes on Zoophycos and Spirophyton. In Crimes, T. P. & Harper, J. C. (eds) Trace Fossils, 505–14. Liverpool: Seel House.Google Scholar
Spencer, W. K. 1950. A new Brittlestar and an Eurypterid from the Bokkeveld strata. S AFR J SCI, June 1950, p. 300.Google Scholar
Stapleton, R. P. 1977a. Carboniferous unconformity in southern Africa. NATURE LONDON 268, 222–3.Google Scholar
Stapleton, R. P. 1977b. Carbonised Devonian spores from South Africa. POLLEN SPORES 19, 427–40.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1934. Merostomata from the Downtonian Sandstone of Ringerike, Norway. SKR NOR VIDENSK-AKAD MAT-NATURVIDENSK KL 1933, 10, 1–125.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1936. Eurypteriden aus dem Rheinischen Unterdevon. ABH PREUSS GEOL LANDESANST 175, 1–74.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1951. A New Eurypterid from the Ordovician of Montgomeryshire, Wales. GEOL MAG 88, 409–22.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1969. Eurypterids from the Lower Devonian of Willwerath, Eifel. SENCKENBERGIANA LETHAEA 50, 21–35.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1974. Arthropods from the Lower Devonian (Lower Emsian) of Alken an der Mosel, Germany. Part 4: Eurypterida, Drepanopteridae and other groups. SENCKENBERGIANA LETHAEA 54, 359–451.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. & Waterston, C. D. 1968. Cyrtoctenus gen. nov., a large late Palaeozoic Arthropod with pectinate Appendages. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 68, 63–104.Google Scholar
Strand, E. 1928. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica et paleontologica I–II. ARCH NATURGESCH 92A, H 8, 30–75.Google Scholar
Tankard, A. J., Jackson, M. P. A., Eriksson, K. A., Hobday, P. K., Hunter, D. R. & Minter, W. E. L. 1982. Curstal evolution in South Africa. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Theron, J. N. 1962. An analysis of the Cape folding in the district of Willowmore, Cape Province. UNIV STELLENBOSCH ANN A37, 247–419.Google Scholar
Vonk, H. J. 1960. Digestion and Metabolism. In Waterman, T. H. (ed.) The Physiology of Crustacea, vol. 1: Metabolism and Growth. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1957. The Scottish Carboniferous Eurypterida. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 63, 265–88.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1964. Observations on Pterygotid Eurypterids. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 66, 9–33.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1968. Further Observations on the Scottish Carboniferous Eurypterids. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 68, 1–20.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1975. Gill structures in the Lower Devonian eurypterid Tarsopterella scotica. FOSSILS STRATA 4, 241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1979. Problems of functional morphology and classification in stylonurid eurypterids (Chelicerata, Merostomata), with observations on the Scottish Silurian Stylonuridae. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 70, 251–322.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1985. Chelicerata from the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH EARTH SCI 76, 25–33.Google Scholar
White, D. 1908. Report on the fossil flora of the coal measures of Brazil. In White, J. C. (ed.) Final report on the coal measures and associated rocks of South Brazil, 377–607. Rio de Janeiro: National Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1975. Trilobites with appendages from the Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. FOSSILS STRATA 4, 97–136.Google Scholar
Williams, M. E. 1972. The Origin of ‘Spiral Coprolites’. UNIV KANSAS PALEONTOL CONTRIB Paper 59, 1–19.Google Scholar
Wills, L. J. 1959. The External Anatomy of some Carboniferous ‘Scorpions’ Part I. PALAEONTOLOGY 1, 261–82.Google Scholar
Wills, L. J. 1960. The External Anatomy of some Carboniferous ‘Scorpions’ Part II. PALAEONTOLOGY 3, 276–332.Google Scholar
Wood, S. P. & Rolfe, W. D. I. 1985. Introduction to the palaeontology of the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire, Scotland. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH EARTH SCI 76, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, H. 1909. Note on the genus Hastimima from Brazil and the Cape. GEOL MAG (5) 6, 485–8.Google Scholar
Zidek, J. 1980. Acanthodes lundi, new species (Acanthodii), and associated coprolites from Uppermost Mississippian Heath Formation of Central Montana. ANN CARNEGIE MUS 49, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar