Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:56:08.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The growth and function of skeletal diaphragms in the colony life of lower Paleozoic Trepostomata (Bryozoa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Richard S. Boardman
Richard S. Boardman*
Affiliation:
Curator emeritus, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many species of lower Paleozoic trepostomes (Bryozoa; class Stenolaemata) transverse partitions called skeletal diaphragms differentiated feeding from non-feeding regions of colonies. It has been thought that each diaphragm floored the living chamber of a feeding polypide. However, analysis of skeletal growth patterns has shown that many diaphragms were too close to colony surfaces or too closely spaced in ontogenetic sequences to have accommodated feeding polypides at any given life horizon. Apparently colonies were capable of maintenance and even robust growth with reduced numbers of active polypides, an interpretation supported by comparison with living stenolaemates.

A synthesis of the inferred functions of colonies of the extinct trepostomes with post-Triassic fossil and living stenolaemates suggests that walls of trepostome autozooids grew continuously outward so that living chambers starting from their basal diaphragms ranged from shallow to full-sized on colony surfaces. Under-sized polypides apparently grew with their under-sized living chambers and fed as they regenerated to full size, as in living stenolaemates. Actively feeding colony surfaces included autozooids either having polypides at similar or different stages of polypide regeneration, or fully regenerated. Nonfeeding colony surfaces included autozooids either having degenerated polypides, autozooids with diaphragms too closely spaced to skeletal apertures to have housed polypides, or possibly, autozooids that stopped skeletal growth in proximal regions of some large colonies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , March 2001 , pp. 225 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 2001

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.)

Footnotes

*

Present address 3612 East Forest Lake Drive, Sarasota, Florida 34232

References

Bassler, R. S. 1903. The structural features of the bryozoan genus Homotrypa, with descriptions of species from the Cincinnatian Group. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 26:565–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1911. The early Paleozoic Bryozoa of the Baltic Provinces. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, 77,382.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1960. Trepostomatous Bryozoa of the Hamilton Group of New York State. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 340,87.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1971. Mode of growth and functional morphology of autozooids in some Recent and Paleozoic tubular Bryozoa. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 8,51.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1983. General features of the class Stenolaemata, p. G50–G137. In Robinson, R. A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, P. G, Bryozoa, Revised. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 625 p.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1984. Origin of the Post-Triassic Stenolaemata (Bryozoa): a taxonomic oversight. Journal of Paleontology, 58:19–39.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1998. Reflections on the morphology, anatomy, evolution, and classification of the class Stenolaemata (Bryozoa). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 86,60.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1999. Indications of polypides in feeding zooids and polymorphs in lower Paleozoic Trepostomata (Bryozoa). Journal of Paleontology, 63:803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boardman, R. S., McKinney, F. K., and Taylor., P. D. 1992. Morphology, anatomy, and systematics of the Cinctiporidae, new family (Bryozoa, Stenolaemata). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 70,81.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1926. Studies on Recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zoologiska Bidrag Fran Uppsala, 10:181–507.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R., and Galloway., J. J. 1913. The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Tanner's Creek section of the Cincinnati Series of Indiana. Department of Geology and Natural Resources of Indiana, 37th Annual Report, 127 p.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R. and Galloway., J. J. 1915. Studies of the morphology and histology of the Trepostomata or monticuliporoids. Geological Society of America, 26:349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. P. 1977. The aging process in bryozoans, p. 335–376. In Woollacott, R. M. and Zimmer, R. L. (eds.), Biology of bryozoans. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, and London, 566 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. 1877. Illustrations of Devonian fossils: corals of the upper helderberg and hamilton groups. New York State Geological Survey, pl. 37, fig. 5.Google Scholar
Karklins, O. L. 1984. Trepostome and Cystoporate Bryozoans from the Lexington Limestone and the Clays Ferry Formation (Middle and Upper Ordovician) of Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1066-I, 105 p.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. 1942. Bryozoa from the Ordovician Bromide Formation, Oklahoma. Journal of Paleontology, 16:413–436.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Jaklin, Andrej. 1993. Living populations of free-lying bryozoans: implications for post-Paleozoic decline of the growth habit. Lethaia, 26:171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. 1881. On the structure and affinities of the genus Monticulipora and its subgenera, with critical descriptions of illustrative species. William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, Scotland, 240 p.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A., and Etheridge., R. 1877. On Prasopora Grayae, a new Genus and Species of Silurian Corals. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, fourth series, 20:388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Orbigny, A. D. 1850. Prodrome de paleontologie stratigraphique. universalle des animaux mollusques et rayonnes, Paris, 1, 394 p.Google Scholar
Rominger, C. 1866. Observations on Chaetetes and some related genera, in regard to their systematic position; with an appended description of some new species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 18:113–123.Google Scholar
Ross, J. P. 1967. Champlainian Ectoprocta (Bryozoa), New York State. Journal of Paleontology, 41:632–648.Google Scholar
Schafer, Prisca, and Grant-Mackie, Jack. 1994. Triassic Bryozoa from the Murihiku and Torlesse Supergroups, New Zealand. Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, Mem., 16, 52 p.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1879. Descriptions of new genera and species of fossils from the Lower Silurian about Cincinnati. Journal of Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 2:8–30.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1882. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. Journal of Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 5:121–175; 232–257.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1886. Report on the Lower Silurian Bryozoa with preliminary description of some new species. Minnesota Geology Natural History Survey Annual Report, 14:57–103.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1890. Paleozoic Bryozoa. Illinois Geological Survey, 8:283–688.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1893 (1895). On Lower Silurian Bryozoa of Minnesota. Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, Final Report, 3, pt. 1:99–332.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O., and Bassler., R. S. 1904. A Revision of the Paleozoic Bryozoa. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 47:15–55.Google Scholar
Vinassa de Regny, P. E. 1921. Sulla classificazione dei Treptostomidi. Atti. dedella Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 59:212–231.Google Scholar