Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T04:06:51.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relations between allometry, phylogeny, and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Calceocrinids are unique crinoids with the crown movably hinged to a recumbent stem. The crown was raised for feeding by closing the hinge and bending the proximal stem. While resting, the crown lay parallel to the stem with the hinge opened. Allometric equations for four species reflect a combination of ontogeny, adult body size, phylogeny, habitat, and functional morphology. The hinge of most adult calceocrinids is extended into ear-like projections which made the crown more stable on the seafloor. For the hinge moment versus the effective weight of the crown, positive allometry characterized taxa that lived in agitated environments, whereas isometry was adequate for quiet-water species. The adult body size provides a secondary effect on the data for crinoids from the same type of environment. Here, the initial intercepts are transposed so that larger animals functioned like smaller ones. The equations are independent of phylogenetic position. All species exhibit positive allometry of the length and number of plates in the arms. The food-gathering capacity of a crinoid is estimated by the number of food-catching tube-feet multiplied by the width of the food grooves, whereas the soft parts that must be fed are proportional to the crown volume. The ratio of food-gathering capacity to crown volume is either fixed or decreases slightly in larger crinoids. Statistical tests reveal that all species follow a single developmental pattern for these two parameters. However, some of the evolutionary changes in the arms permitted calceocrinids to retain an adequate food-gathering capacity into larger adult body sizes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 61 , Issue 5 , September 1987 , pp. 999 - 1032
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

Alexander, R. M. 1982. Locomotion of Animals. Blackie, Glasgow and London, 162 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1984. Calceocrinids from the Early Silurian (Llandoverian) Brassfield Formation of southwestern Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 58:1167–1185.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1986. Palaeoecology and history of the Calceocrinidae (Palaeozoic Crinoidea). Palaeontology, 29:85–99.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., Kammer, T. W., and Lane, N. G. 1979. Fossil communities in Borden (Mississippian) Delta in Indiana and northern Kentucky. Journal of Paleontology, 53:1182–1196.Google Scholar
Breimer, A., and Webster, G. D. 1975. A further contribution to the paleoecology of fossil stalked crinoids. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B, 78:149–167.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1981. Systematics and paleoecology of the Late Silurian (Wenlockian) calceocrinid crinoids from New York and Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 55:145–175.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1984. Autecology of Silurian pelmatozoan echinoderms. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 32:87–120.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1966. Functional morphology of Calceocrinidae with description of some new species. Journal of Paleontology, 40:613–634.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1977. Calceocrinids from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of southern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular, 78:1–28.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1982. Phylogeny of primitive calceocrinids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1:90–110.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. and Veinus, J. 1978. Middle Ordovician crinoids from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 74:372–506.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D. 1984. Early Llandovery crinoids and stelleroids from the Cataract Group (Lower Silurian) in southern Ontario, Canada. Royal Ontario Museum, Life Sciences Contribution 137, 82 p.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41:587–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. 1971. Geometric similarity in allometric growth: a contribution to the problem of scaling in the evolution of size. American Naturalist, 105:113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 498 p.Google Scholar
Green, P. E. 1978. Analyzing Multivariate Data. Dryden Press, Hindsdale, Illinois, 519 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1860. Contributions to Palaeontology, 1858 & 1859: Observations upon a New Genus of Crinoidea, Cheirocrinus. New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report 13:121–124.Google Scholar
Hayami, I., and Matsukuma, A. 1970. Variation of bivariate characters from the standpoint of allometry. Palaeontology, 13:588–605.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London, 276 p.Google Scholar
Imbrie, J. 1956. Biometrical methods in the study of invertebrate fossils. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 108:211–252.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und system der Pelmatozoen. Palaeontologischen Zeitschrift, Band III, Heft, 1:1–128.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Palaeontology, 59:551–560.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. B., and Sigler, J. P. 1969. Cunctocrinus, a new Middle Devonian calceocrinid crinoid from the Silica Shale of Ohio. University of Michigan, Museum of Paleontology Contributions, 22:339–360.Google Scholar
Kuhry, B., and Marcus, L. F. 1977. Bivariate linear models in biometry. Systematic Zoology, 2:201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1957. Crinoids. Geological Society of America, Memoir 67, Vol. 2:961–971.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1973. Ecology of comatulid crinoids at Grand Bahama Island. Hydro-lab Journal (Bulletin of the Hydro-lab Underwater Research Program), 2:9–24.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr. and Meyer, D. L. 1974. Feeding posture of modern stalked crinoids. Nature, 247:394–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, D. B. E. 1967. Ecological and etiological studies and experiments on the echinoderms of the Red Sea. Studies in Tropical Oceanography, Miami, 5:633–664.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1873. Paleontology. Descriptions of invertebrates from Carboniferous System. Geological Survey of Illinois, Vol. 5, Geology and Palaeontology, p. 321–619.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1973. Distribution and living habits of comatulids near Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Marine Science Bulletin, 23:244–259.Google 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.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982a. Food composition and feeding behavior of sympatric species of comatulids from the Palau Islands (Western Pacific), p. 43–49. In Lawrence, J. M. (ed.), International Echinoderms Conference, Tampa Bay. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982b. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (ed.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1977. Adaptive radiation of comatulid crinoids. Paleobiology, 3:74–82.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1980. Ecology and distribution of the shallow-water crinoids of Palau and Guam. Micronesica, 16:59–99.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962. Revision of Calceocrinidae. University of Kansas, Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, article 4, 40 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Lane, N. G. 1978. Superfamily Calceocrinacea, p. T524–T533. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1983. Applied Linear Regression Models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 547 p.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 1960. The histology and activities of the tube-feet of Antedon bifida . Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society, 101:105–117.Google Scholar
Prokop, R.J. 1970. Family Calceocrinidae, Meek and Worthen, 1869 (Crinoidea) in the Silurian and Devonian of Bohemia. Sbornik Geologickych Ved Paleontologie Svak, 12:79–134.Google Scholar
Ringueberg, E. N. S. 1889. The Calceocrinidae; a revision of the family, with descriptions of some new species. New York Academy of Science, 4:388–408.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, D. I., and Koehl, M. A. R. 1977. The mechanisms of filter feeding: some theoretical considerations. American Naturalist, 111:981–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutman, J., and Fishelson, L. 1969. Food composition and feeding behavior of shallow-water crinoids at Eilat (Red Sea). Marine Biology, 3:46–57.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1969. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 776 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926. American Silurian crinoids. Smithsonian Institution, Publication 2871:1–143.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., and Longman, M. W. 1982. Echinoderm paleoecology. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1:68–75.Google Scholar
Warner, G. F. 1977. On the shapes of passive suspension feeders, p. 567–576. In Keegan, B. F., Ceidigh, P. O., and Boaden, P. J. S. (eds.), Biology of Benthic Organisms. Pergamon Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1976. A new genus of calceocrinid from Spain with comments on mosaic evolution. Palaeontology, 19:681–688.Google Scholar
White, J. F., and Gould, S. J. 1965. Interpretation of the coefficient in the allometric equation. American Naturalist, 99:5–18.Google Scholar
Worthen, A. H. 1890. Description of fossil invertebrates. Illinois Geological Survey, Vol. 8, Pt. 2, Sec. 1, p. 69–154.Google Scholar