Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T13:01:48.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

David L. Meyer ,
Arnold I. Miller ,
Steven M. Holland  and
Benjamin F. Dattilo
David L. Meyer
Affiliation:
1Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0013, ,
Arnold I. Miller
Affiliation:
1Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0013, ,
Steven M. Holland
Affiliation:
2Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-2501,
Benjamin F. Dattilo
Affiliation:
3Department of Geosciences, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah 84408,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crinoid columnals are major faunal components of interbedded shales and carbonates of the Upper Ordovician Kope to Fairview formations (Edenian-Maysvillian) of the Cincinnati Arch region. Six species can be identified on the basis of distinctive morphological characters of the columnals. Crinoid distribution was plotted from point-counted carbonate samples taken through a 68-m thick composite section of the Kope to Fairview formations in Campbell County, Kentucky. This section spans a shallowing-upward, third-order depositional sequence (C1), part of C2, and the Edenian-Maysvillian Stage boundary. The slender cladid crinoid Merocrinus occurs in the lowermost Kope below the base of this section. The slender disparids Cincinnaticrinus and Ectenocrinus occur throughout the section but are most abundant in the lower 25 m where the shale percentage is 60–90 percent. The larger, more robust disparid Iocrinus appears within the carbonate-rich Grand Avenue member of the Kope at 40–50 m, and the large, plated camerate Glyptocrinus first appears just above the Grand Avenue and becomes the dominant crinoid above the C1–C2 sequence boundary that lies just above the Kope-Fairview contact. The largest and most robust crinoid in this sequence, Anomalocrinus, occurs at the top of the Grand Avenue Member. Siliciclastic ratio and biofacies composition indicate that the occurrence of larger, more robust crinoid taxa is correlated with shallowing depth. Crinoid trophic niche differentiation is also correlated with decreasing depth and the concomitant increase in water movement caused by waves and currents. The deeper water disparids have a nonpinnulate filtration fan with low branch density and wider ambulacral grooves. The shallower water camerate Glyptocrinus has a pinnulate filtration fan with high branch density and narrower ambulacral grooves. These relationships are consistent with the predictions of aerosol filtration theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , July 2002 , pp. 725 - 732
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

Algeo, T. J., and Brett, C. E. (eds.). 1999. Sequence, Cycle and Event Stratigraphy of Upper Ordovician and Silurian Strata of the Cincinnati Arch Region, Field Trip Guidebook. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Cincinnati, Ohio, 144 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1996. Phylum Echinodermata, p. 242–261. In Feldman, R. M. and Hackathorn, M. (eds.), Fossils of Ohio, Bulletin 70. Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 19:304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1997. Crinoid functional morphology, p. 45–68. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, the Paleontological Society Papers, 3. The Paleontological Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992a. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovican (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992b. Hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:973–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1994. Camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 68:570–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. A. 1992. Cincinnati Fossils. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati, Ohio, 61 p.Google Scholar
Diekmeyer, S. S. L. 1998. Kope to Bellevue Formations: the Riedlin/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: The Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Type-Cincinnatian. Guidebook 13, Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Columbus.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1986. Pelmatozoan columnals from the Ordovician of the British Isles. Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society of London, Pt. 1, 68 p.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1993. Sequence stratigraphy of a carbonate-clastic ramp: The Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) in its type area. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 105:306–322.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 1996. Sequence stratigraphy and long-term lithologic change in the Middle and Upper Ordovician of the eastern United States, p. 117–130. In Witzke, B. J., Ludvigsen, G. A., and Day, J. E. (eds.), Paleozoic Sequence Stratigraphy: Views from the North American Craton. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 306.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Meyer, D. L., and Dattilo, B. F. 2001. The detection and importance of subtle biofacies in monotonous lithofacies: the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio, region. Palaios, 16:205–217.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Dattilo, B. F., Meyer, D. L., and Diekmeyer, S. L. 1997. Cycle anatomy and variability in the storm-dominated type Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician): coming to grips with cycle delineation and genesis. Journal of Geology, 105:135–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holterhoff, P. F. 1997a. Filtration models, guilds, and biofacies: crinoid paleoecology of the Stanton Formation (Upper Pennsylvanian), midcontinent, North America. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeolecology, 130:177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holterhoff, P. F. 1997b. Paleoecology and evolutionary ecology of Paleozoic crinoids, p. 69–106. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. The Paleontological Society Papers, 3. The Paleontological Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Jennette, D. C., and Pryor, W. A. 1993. Cyclic alternation of proximal and distal storm facies: Kope and Fairview Formations (Upper Ordovician), Ohio and Kentucky. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 63:183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 59:551–560.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for late Osagean crinoids. Paleobiology, 13:379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, S. M. 1978. Functional morphology and evolution of Iocrinus, an Ordovician disparid inadunate crinoid. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 78 p.Google Scholar
Kreisa, R. D. 1981. Storm-generated sedimentary structures in subtidal marine facies with examples from the Middle and Upper Ordovician of southwestern Virginia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51:823–848.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1973. Feeding behavior and ecology of shallow-water unstalked crinoids (Echinodermata) in the Caribbean Sea. Marine Biology, 22:105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Marine Biology, 51:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., Meyer, D. L., and Dattilo, B. F. 2001. The use of faunal gradient analysis for intraregional correlation and assessment of changes in seafloor topography in the type Cincinnatian. Journal of Geology 109:603–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Teichert, C. (eds.). 1978. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 1,027 p.Google Scholar
Tobin, R. C. 1982. A model for cyclic deposition in the Cincinnatian Series of southwestern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, 483 p.Google Scholar
Warn, J. M., and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate super-families Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata Crinoidea), Ordovician-Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72:1–138.Google Scholar