Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:36:37.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paleoautecology and systematic re-evaluation of Camptocrinus alabamensis (Mississippian: Chesterian) from northern Alabama

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Christopher G. Maples  and
Johnny A. Waters
Christopher G. Maples
Affiliation:
Kansas Geological Survey, 1930 Constant Ave., Lawrence 66047
Johnny A. Waters
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, West Georgia College, Carrollton 30118
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Camptocrinus alabamensis Strimple and Moore, from the Gasperian (Mississippian: Chesterian) part of the Monteagle Limestone and overlying Bangor Limestone in northern Alabama, is the only species of Camptocrinus known to have more than 10 arms. Camptocrinus alabamensis exhibits morphological features (basals that are taller on their posterior ends than on their anterior ends, flattened primanal, shorter posteriormost secundibrachs on C ray and D ray) indicative of a tightly coiled life position, with most of the stem lying along the sediment. Unlike other coiled crinoids, Camptocrinus alabamensis had a double-folded stem and more than 10 arms, which we interpret to have been compromise solutions to the problems of protection from high current energy and predation pressure coupled with the need to lift the animal into a feeding posture. In addition, C. alabamensis is the only dichocrinid exhibiting highly modified pinnules, which may have been used as rheo/chemosensory organs. Camptocrinus alabamensis was a leeward passive suspension feeder that, in times of danger, could fold in its arms and coil tightly against the sediment.

Camptocrinus alabamensis is removed from synonymy with C. cirrifer and the diagnosis of Camptocrinus is modified. Species of the genera Camptocrinus and Neocamptocrinus should be used only for specimens in which calyces are known; therefore, the plethora of stem-species erected over the years should all be assigned to stem genera unless adequate calyx descriptions are available.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , March 1995 , pp. 367 - 375
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

Ausich, W. I. 1986. Palaeoecology and history of the Calceocrinidae (Palaeozoic Crinoidea). Palaeontology, 29:85–99.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Bottjer, D. J. 1982. Tiering in suspension feeding communities on soft substrata throughout the Phanerozoic. Science, 216:173–174.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1990. Physical modeling of the batocrinid anal tube: functional analysis and multiple hypothesis testing. Lethaia, 23:399–408.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1992. Importance of hydrodynamic lift to crinoid autecology, or, could crinoids function as kites? Journal of Paleontology, 66:658–665.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Crinoid stalks as cantilever beams and the nature of stalk ligament. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 190:279–297.Google Scholar
Broadhead, T. W. 1981. Carboniferous camerate crinoid subfamily Dichocrininae. Palaeontographica Abt. A, 176:81–157.Google Scholar
Broadhead, T. W. 1985. Evolution of Carboniferous Hexacrinitacea (Crinoidea, Camerata). Neuvième Congrès International de Stratigraphie et de Géologie du Carbonifère, Compte Rendu, 5:205–215.Google Scholar
Burdick, D. W., and Strimple, H. L. 1982. Genevievian and Chesterian crinoids of Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin, 121:1–277.Google Scholar
Chestnut, D. R. Jr., and Ettensohn, F. R. 1988. Hombergian (Chesterian) echinoderm paleontology and paleoecology, south-central Kentucky. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 95(330), 102 p.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1990. Functional morphology of synostosial articulations in the crinoid column. Lethaia, 23:291–296.Google Scholar
Haugh, B. N. 1978. Biodynamic and phyletic paradigms for sensory organs in camerate crinoids. Lethaia, 11:145–173.Google Scholar
Horowitz, A. S., and Waters, J. A. 1972. A Mississippian echinoderm site in Alabama. Journal of Paleontology, 46:660–665.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und system der Pelmatozoen. Palaeontologische Zeitschrifte, 3:1–128.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V., and Sigler, J. A. 1969. Cunctocrinus, a new Middle Devonian calceocrinid crinoid from the Silica Shale of Ohio. Paleontological Contributions, University of Michigan Museum, 22:339–360.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1978. Family Dichocrinidae S. A. Miller, 1889, p. T477–T479. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Sevastopulo, G. D. 1982. Growth and systematic revision of Kallimorphocrinus astrus, a Pennsylvanian microcrinoid. Journal of Paleontology, 56:244–259.Google Scholar
Maples, C. G., and Waters, J. A. 1987. Redefinition of the Meramecian/Chesterian boundary (Mississippian). Geology, 15:647–651.Google Scholar
Maples, C. G., and Walsh, H. T. 1990. Harmostocrinus jonesi n. sp. (Crinoidea): an evolutionary intermediate between Abrotocrinus and Harmostocrinus. Journal of Paleontology, 64:141–146.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A Natural History of the Crinoidea or Lily-Shaped Animals, with Observation on the Genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites. Bryan & Co., Bristol, England, 150 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology for the use of amateurs, students, and scientists. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, Ohio, 664 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Jeffords, R. M. 1968. Classification and nomenclature of fossil crinoids based on studies of dissociated parts of their columns. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 9, 46:1–86.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America, Special Paper, 46:1–153.Google Scholar
Sieverts-Doreck, H. 1942. Crinoiden aus dem Perm Tasmaniens. Zentralblat für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. Abteilung B:221–231.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926. Unusual forms of fossil crinoids. U. S. National Museum Proceedings, 67(9):1–137.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L., and Moore, R. C. 1973. Tegmen of Camptocrinus. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper, 66:33–38.Google Scholar
Stukalina, G. A. 1973. Pozdnepaleozoiskie morskie lilii Zabaikalya i Mongolii [Late Paleozoic crinoids of Transbaikal and Mongolia], p. 16–57. In Pormnov, A. G. and Suzukov, A. I. (eds.), Stratigrafiya i Paleontologiya Osadochnkh Geologicheskikh Formatsii Zabaikalya [Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Sedimentary Geological Formations of Transbaikal]. Geograficheskoi Obshchistvo SSSR, Sapiski Zabaikalskogo Filiala, 94.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978a. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978b. Camerata, p. T408–T519. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Pt. 3, sec. 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusions of the generic descriptions. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, Proceedings, 1884:223–364(1–162).Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1897. North American Crinoidea Camerata. Memoirs of the Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology, 20–21:1–837.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., and Maples, C. G. 1991. Mississippian pelmatozoan community reorganization: a predation-mediated faunal change. Paleobiology, 17:400–410.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., and Horowitz, A. S. 1993. Mississippian echinoderms from Alabama—an overview, p. 41–50. In Pashin, J. (ed.), New Perspectives on the Mississippian System of Alabama. Alabama Geological Society Field Trip Guidebook, 1993, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1977. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, 1969–1973. Geological Society of America, Microform Publication 8, 235 p., 3 cards.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1987. Permian crinoids from the type-section of the Callytharra Formation, Callytharra Springs, Western Australia. Alcheringa, 11:95–135.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1988. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids and coronate echinoderms 1981–1985. Geological Society of America, Microform Publication 18, 235 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1990. New Permian crinoids from Australia. Palaeontology, 33:49–74.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., and Jell, P. A. 1992. Permian echinoderms from Western Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 32:311–373.Google Scholar
Willink, R. J. 1980. A new coiled-stemmed camerate crinoid from the Permian of eastern Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 54:15–34.Google Scholar
Wright, J. 1937. Scottish Carboniferous crinoids. Geological Magazine, 74:385–411.Google Scholar