Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:44:02.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A combined morphometric and phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician brachiopod genera Eochonetes and Thaerodonta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2016

Jennifer E. Bauer  and
Alycia L. Stigall
Jennifer E. Bauer
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 1412 Circle Drive, 306 EPS, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996-1410, USA 〈[email protected]〉
Alycia L. Stigall
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences and Ohio Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Studies, 316 Clippinger Laboratories, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 45701-2979, USA 〈[email protected]〉
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systematic revision of the Late Ordovician brachiopod genera Eochonetes Reed, 1917 and Thaerodonta Wang, 1949 was conducted utilizing specimen-based morphometric and species-level phylogenetic analyses. Previous studies had recognized Thaerodonta and Eochonetes as either distinct taxonomic entities or synonyms. New multivariate and phylogenetic analyses confirm the synonymy of Thaerodonta with Eochonetes and provide a framework to assess evolutionary and ecological patterns within the clade. Multivariate analyses were employed to delineate species in morphospace and provided information on potential species relationships. Phylogenetic analysis was used to produce an evolutionary framework for taxonomic revision and identify character evolution within the clade. Most species previously assigned to Thaerodonta are transferred to Eochonetes, and three others are excluded from Eochonetes and provisionally referred to other sowerbyellid genera. Three new species (Eochonetes maearum new species, E. voldemortus new species, E. minerva new species) are described, one species (Leptaena saxea Sardeson, 1892) is synonymized with E. recedens Sardeson, 1892, and one subspecies (Thaerodonta mucronata scabra Howe, 1965) is rejected. This study demonstrates that a combination of complementary approaches and data types has the potential to advance interpretations beyond analyses confined to single analytical tools. Specifically, multivariate analyses provide constraints on species boundaries, whereas species-level phylogenetic analyses provide frameworks to examine morphological, ecological, and biogeographic evolution within a clade.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 90 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 888 - 909
Copyright
Copyright © 2016, 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

Allmon, W., and Yaccobucci, M.M., 2016, Species in the Fossil Record: Chicago, University of Chicago Press (in press).Google Scholar
Amsden, T.W., 1974, Late Ordovician and Early Silurian articulate brachiopods from Oklahoma, southwestern Illinois, and eastern Missouri: Oklahoma Geological Survey, Bulletin, v. 119, p. 1–154.Google Scholar
Amsden, T.W., and Miller, A.K., 1942, Ordovician conodonts from the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming: Journal of Paleontology, v. 16, p. 301–306.Google Scholar
Archie, J.W., 1985, Methods for coding variable morphological features for numerical taxonomic analysis: Systematic Zoology, v. 34, p. 326–345.Google Scholar
Bassler, R.S., 1932, The stratigraphy of the central basin of Tennessee: Division of Geology, State of Tennessee Bulletin, 38, 268 p., 49 pls.Google Scholar
Bauer, J.E., and Stigall, A.L., 2014, Phylogenetic paleobiogeography of Late Ordovician Laurentian brachiopods: Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 63, p. 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candela, Y., 2002, Constraints on the age of the Bardahessiagh Formation, Pomeroy, County Tyrone: Scottish Journal of Geology, v. 38, p. 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candela, Y., 2003, Late Ordovician brachiopods from the Bardahessiagh Formation of Pomeroy, Ireland: Palaeontographical Society Monograph, p. 1–95, pls. 1–12.Google Scholar
Cocks, L.R.M., 1970, Silurian brachiopods of the superfamily Plectambonitacea: Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History, Geology, v. 19, p. 141–203.Google Scholar
Cocks, L.R.M., 2005, Strophomenate brachiopods from the Late Ordovician Boda Limestone of Sweden: Their systematic and implications for paleogeography: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 3, p. 243–282.Google Scholar
Cocks, L.R.M., 2013, Generic identities and relationships within the brachiopod family Sowerbyellidae: Palaeontology, v. 56, p. 167–181.Google Scholar
Cocks, L.R.M., and Rong, J.-Y., 1989, Classification and review of the brachiopod superfamily Plectambonitacea: Bulletin British Museum Natural History (Geology), v. 45, p. 77–163.Google Scholar
Cocks, L.R.M., and Rong, J.-Y., 2000, Strophomenida, in Kaesler, R.L., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, Brachiopoda (revised), Volume 2: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, and Lawrence, Kansas, University of Kansas Press, p. 216–349.Google Scholar
Cocks, L.R.M., and Torsvik, T.H., 2011, The Palaeozoic geography of Laurentia and western Laurussia: A stable craton with mobile margins: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 106, p. 1–51.Google Scholar
Cohen, K.M., Finney, S.C., Gibbard, P.L., and Fan, J.X., 2014, International Chronostratigraphic Chart 2013: International Commission on Stratigraphy, http://www.stratigraphy.org/icschart/chronostratchart2013-01.pdf.Google Scholar
Cooper, G.A., 1956, Chazyan and related brachiopods: Journal of Paleontology, v. 30, p. 521–530.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J., 2001, Avian evolution, Gondwana biogeography and the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, v. 268, p. 459–469.Google Scholar
Dewing, K., 1999, Late Ordovician and Early Silurian strophomenid brachiopods of Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada: Palaeontographica Canadiana, v. 17, p. 1–143.Google Scholar
Donovan, S.K., Lewis, D.N., and Harper, D.A.T., 2002, Fossils explained 40: The Lady Burn Starfish Beds: Geology Today, v. 18, p. 151–157.Google Scholar
Dunteman, G.H., 1989, Principal components analysis: London, Sage, 96 p.Google Scholar
Etter, W., 1999, Community analysis, in Harper, D.A.T., ed., Numerical Palaeobiology: Computer-Based Modeling and Analysis of Fossils and Their Distributions: Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, p. 287–360.Google Scholar
Fischer de Waldheim., G., 1830, Oryctographie du Gouvernement de Moscou: Moscow, Russia, A. Semen, 202 p.Google Scholar
Foerste, A.F., 1912, The Arnheim Formation within the areas traverse by the Cincinnati Geanticline: The Ohio Naturalist, v. 12, p. 429–456.Google Scholar
Friis, E.M., Pedersen, K.P., and Crane, P.R., 2010, Diversity in obscurity: Fossil flowers and the early history of angiosperms: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 365, p. 369–382.Google Scholar
Gao, K., and Norell, M.A., 1998, Taxonomic revision of Carusia (Reptilia: Squamata) from the Late Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert and phylogenetic relationships of anguimophan lizards: American Museum Novitates, v. 3230, p. 1–51.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., 1986, Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds: Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, v. 8, p. 1–47.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., and Ryan, P.D., 2001, PAST: Palaeontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis: Palaeontologia Electronica, v. 4, p. 1–9, http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm.Google Scholar
Havliček, V., 1967, Brachiopoda of the suborder Strophomenidina in Czechoslovakia: Rozpravy Ústredního Ústavu Geologického, v. 33, p. 1–235.Google Scholar
Hillis, D.M., and Huelsenbeck, J.P., 1992, Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses: The Journal of Heredity, v. 83, p. 189–195.Google Scholar
Hopkins, M.J., 2011, Species-level phylogenetic analysis of pterocephaliids (Trilobita, Cambrian) from the Great Basin, western USA: Journal of Paleontology, v. 85, p. 1128–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, H.J., 1959, Montoya Group stratigraphy (Ordovician) of Trans-Pecos Texas: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 43, p. 2285–2332.Google Scholar
Howe, H.J., 1965, Plectambonitacea, Strophomenacea, and Atrypacea from the Montoya Group (Ordovician) of Trans-Pecos Texas: Journal of Paleontology, v. 39, p. 647–656.Google Scholar
Howe, H. J., 1972, Morphology of the brachiopod genus Thaerodonta : Journal of Paleontology, v. 46, p. 440–446.Google Scholar
Howe, H.J., 1979, Middle and Late Ordovician plectambonitacean, rhynchoellacean, syntrophiacean, trimerellacean, and atrypacean brachiopods: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1066-C, p. 1–18.Google Scholar
Howe, H.J., 1988, Articulate brachiopods from the Richmondian of Tennessee: Journal of Paleontology, v. 62, p. 204–218.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J.P., and Ronquist, F., 2001, MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees: Bioinformatics, v. 17, p. 754–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, G., 2007, Morphology, ontogeny, and phylogenetics of the genus Poseidonamicus (Ostracoda: Thaerocytherinae): Journal of Paleontology, v. 81, p. 607–631.Google Scholar
Hurst, J.M., 1975, The function of the brachial valve septa in plectambonitacean brachiopods: Lethaia, v. 8, p. 63–67.Google Scholar
James, F.C., and McCulloch, C.E., 1990, Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?: Annual Review Ecology and Systematics, v. 21, p. 129–166.Google Scholar
Jin, J., and Zhan, R.-B., 2001, Late Ordovician articulate brachiopods from the Red River and Stony Mountain formations, southern Manitoba, Ottawa, Canada, NRC Research Press, 117 p.Google Scholar
Jin, J., Caldwell, W.G.E., and Norford, B.S., 1997, Late Ordovician brachiopods and biostratigraphy of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, northern Manitoba and Ontario: Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 513, 115 p.Google Scholar
Jones, O.T., 1928, Plectambonites and some allied genera: Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, Palaeontology, v. 1, p. 367–527.Google Scholar
Klassen, G.J., Mooi, R.D., and Locke, A., 1991, Consistency indices and random data: Systematic Zoology, v. 40, p. 446–457.Google Scholar
Kolaczkowski, B., and Thorton, J.W., 2004, Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous: Nature, v. 431, p. 980–984.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, R., 1929, Les brachiopodes gothlandiens de la Podolie Polonaise: Palaeontologia Polonica, v. 1, 254 p.Google Scholar
Leighton, L.R., and Maples, C.G., 2002, Evaluating internal versus external characters: Phylogenetic analyses of Echinoconchidae, Bruxotoniinae, and Juresaniinae (phylum Brachiopoda): Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 659–671.Google Scholar
Lieberman, B.S., 2000, Paleobiogeography: Using fossils to study global change, plate tectonics, and evolution: Topics in Geobiology, v. 16, p. 1–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macomber, R.W., 1970, Articulate brachiopods from the Upper Bighorn Formation (Late Ordovician) of Wyoming: Journal of Paleontology, v. 44, p. 416–450.Google Scholar
Maddison, W.P., and Maddison, D.R., 2003, MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, 4.06: Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer, 503 p.Google Scholar
Meek, F.B., 1873, Section I, Descriptions of invertebrate fossils of the Silurian and Devonian systems: Ohio Geological Survey, Palaeontology, v. 1, p. 1–243.Google Scholar
Mickevich, M.F., and Johnson, M.S., 1976, Congruence between morphological and allozyme data in evolutionary inference and character evolution: Systematic Biology, v. 25, p. 260–270.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.I., 1977, The Ordovician Brachiopoda from Pomeroy, Co. Tyrone: Palaeontographical Society Monographs, v. 130, p. 1–138.Google Scholar
Morton, C.M., and Kincaid, D.T., 1995, A model for coding pollen size in reference to phylogeny using examples from the Ebenaceae: American Journal of Botany, v. 82, p. 1173–1178.Google Scholar
Muir-Wood, H., and Williams, A., 1965, Strophomenida, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, Brachiopoda, Volume 1, Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, and Lawrence, Kansas, University of Kansas Press, p. 360–521.Google Scholar
Novacek, M.J., 1992, Fossils, topologies, missing data, and the higher level phylogeny of eutherian mammals: Systematic Biology, v. 41, p. 58–73.Google Scholar
Öpik, A.A., 1930, Brachiopoda Protremata der Estlӓndischen Ordovizischen Kukruse-Stufe: Universitatis Tartuensis (Dorpatensis) Acta et Commentationes (series A), v. 1, p. 1–252.Google Scholar
Pol, D., and Siddall, M.E., 2001, Biases in maximum likelihood and parsimony: A simulation approach to a 10-taxon case: Cladistics, v. 17, p. 266–281.Google Scholar
Pope, M.C., 2004, Cherty carbonate facies of the Montoya Group, southern New Mexico and western Texas and its regional correlatives: A record of Late Ordovician paleoceanography on southern Laurentia: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 210, p. 367–384.Google Scholar
Popov, L.E., Cocks, L.R.M., and Nikitin, I.F., 2002, Upper Ordovician brachiopods from the Anderken Formation, Kazakhstan: Their ecology and systematics: Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Geology), v. 58, p. 13–79.Google Scholar
Racheboeuf, P.R., 2000, Chonetidina, in Moore, R.C., and Kaesler, R.L. eds., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, Brachiopoda (revised), Volume 2: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, and Lawrence, Kansas, University of Kansas Press, p. 392–395.Google Scholar
Reed, F.R.C., 1917, The Ordovician and Silurian Brachiopoda of the Girvan District: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, v. 51, p. 795–998.Google Scholar
Rindal, E., and Brower, A.V.Z., 2011, Do model-based phylogenetic analyses perform better than parsimony? A test with empirical data: Cladistics, v. 27, p. 331–334.Google Scholar
Rõõmusoks, A., 1981, Ordovician and Silurian Strophomenida of Estonia, III: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised, Geoloogia, v. 30, p. 61–71.Google Scholar
Ross, R.J., 1957, Ordovician fossils from wells in the Williston Basin eastern Montana: Geological Survey Bulletin 1021-M, p. 439–507.Google Scholar
Ross, R.J., 1959, Brachiopod fauna of Saturday Mountain Formation Southern Lemhi Range Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 294-L, p. 441–461.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M.J.S., 1970, Fossil and Living Brachiopods: London, Humanities Press, 199 p.Google Scholar
Sardeson, F.W., 1892, The range and distribution of the Lower Silurian faunas of Minnesota with descriptions of some new species: Bulletin of the Minnesota Academy of Natural Sciences, v. 3, p. 326–343.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, 2009, JMP®8 User Guide, 2nd ed: Cary, North Carolina, SAS Institute, 513 p.Google Scholar
Savage, T.E., 1913, Stratigraphy and paleontology of the Alexandrian Series in Illinois and Missouri: Urbana, Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey, 144 p.Google Scholar
Sloan, R.E., 2005, Minnesota Fossils and Fossiliferous Rocks: Winona, Minnesota, Robert E. Sloan, 218 p.Google Scholar
Sohrabi, A., and Jin, J., 2013, Evolution of the Rhynchotrema-Hiscobeccus lineage: Implications for the diversification of the Late Ordovician epicontinental brachiopod fauna of Laurentia: Lethaia, v. 46, p. 188–210.Google Scholar
Sowerby, J., 1839, Shells of the Lower Silurian rocks, in Murchison, R.E., ed., The Silurian System, v. 2: London, John Murray, p. 634–644.Google Scholar
Spencer, M.R., and Wilberg, E.W., 2013, Efficacy or convenience? Model-based approaches to phylogeny estimation using morphological data: Cladistics, v. 29, p. 663–671.Google Scholar
Sproat, C.D., and Jin, J., 2013, Evolution of the Late Ordovician plaesiomyid brachiopod lineage in Laurentia: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 50, p. 872–894.Google Scholar
Stigall Rode, A.L., 2005, Systematic revision of the Devonian brachiopods Schizophoria (Schizophoria) and “Schuchertella” from North America: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 3, p. 133–167.Google Scholar
Swiderski, D.L., Zelditch, M.L., and Fink, W.L., 1998, Why morphometrics is not special: Coding quantitative data for phylogenetic analysis: Systematic Biology, v. 47, p. 508–519.Google Scholar
Swofford, D.L., 2002, PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods): Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer Associates, http://paup.sc.fsu.edu.Google Scholar
Thiele, K., 1993, The holy grail of the perfect character: The cladistics treatment of morphometric data: Cladistics, v. 9, p. 275–304.Google Scholar
Thomsen, E., Jin, J., and Harper, D.A.T., 2006, Early Silurian brachiopods (Rhynchonellata) from the Sælabonn Formation of the Ringerike district, Norway: Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, v. 53, p. 111–126.Google Scholar
Torsvik, T.H., and Cocks, L.R.M., 2013, New global palaeogeographical reconstructions for the early Palaeozoic and their generation, in Harper, D.A.T., and Servais, T., eds., Early Palaeozoic Biogeography and Palaeogeography: Geological Society, London, Memoirs, v. 38, p. 5–24.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., 1949, Maquoketa Brachiopoda of Iowa: The Geological Society of America, Memoir 42, p. 1–55.Google Scholar
White, T.D., Asfaw, B., Degusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G.D., Suwa, G., and Howell, F.C., 2003, Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature: v. 423, p. 742–747.Google Scholar
Wiens, J.J., 1998, Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy?: Systematic Biology, v. 47, p. 625–640.Google Scholar
Wiens, J.J., 2003, Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy: Systematic Biology, v. 52, p. 528–538.Google Scholar
Wiens, J.J., 2006, Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analysis: Journal of Biomedical Informatics, v. 36, p. 34–42.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O., and Lieberman, B.S., 2011, Phylogenetics: Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, 2nd ed.: Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 432 p.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M., and Benton, M.J., 1995, Missing data and rhynchosaur phylogeny: History of Biology, v. 10, p. 137–150.Google Scholar
Wright, A.M., and Hillis, D.M., 2014, Bayesian analysis using a simple likelihood model outperforms parsimony for estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data: PLOS ONE, v. 9, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109210.Google Scholar
Wright, D.F., and Stigall, A.L., 2013, Phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician orthid brachiopod genera Plaesiomys and Hebertella from Laurentia: Journal of Paleontology, v. 87, p. 1107–1128.Google Scholar
Wright, D.F., and Stigall, A.L., 2014, Species-level phylogenetic revision of the Ordovician orthide brachiopod Glyptorthis from North America: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 12, doi:10.1080/14772019.2013.839584.Google Scholar
Xu, X., and Pol, D., 2014, Archaeopteryx, paravian phylogenetic analyses, and the use of probability-based methods for palaeontological datasets: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 12, p. 323–334.Google Scholar