Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:19:56.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scanning electron microscopy study of Cretaceous brachiopods of the new family Praeargyrothecidae: Implications for megathyroid systematics and terebratulide phylogeny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

D. I. Mackinnon  and
T. N. Smirnova
D. I. Mackinnon
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
T. N. Smirnova
Affiliation:
Paleontology Department, Geological Faculty, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory, 117234 Moscow, Russia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four species of megathyrid brachiopods from the Lower Cretaceous (Berriasian) of Crimea, Ukraine, and one species of megathyrid from the lower Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian) of England are reinvestigated using scanning electron microscopy. The species are variously assigned to one existing genus, Praeargyrotheca Smirnova (P. hexaplicata (Smirnova) and P. megatrema (J. de C. Sowerby)) and two new genera, Krimargyrotheca (K. concinna (Smirnova) and K. balkii n. gen. and n. sp.) and Evargyrotheca (E. alta (Smirnova)). Taxa are distinguished principally on differences in shell shape, plication, and, in particular, surface microornament. The shell microstructure of all five species is investigated with particular emphasis on endopunctation and microornament. Dental plates are present briefly early in ontogeny. Based on the possession of transient dental plates, a septalium, and conspicuous microornament, Praeargyrotheca is removed from the family Megathyrididae and assigned, along with the two new genera, to a new family Praeargyrothecidae. Scanning electron microscopy study of loop development in both fossil and Recent terebratelloids and megathyrids supports a recent immunological study of living taxa from both groups that suggests that the two groups are not as closely linked phylogenetically as previously maintained. The family Megathyrididae is thus removed from the superfamily Terebratelloidea and assigned, along with the new family Praeargyrothecidae, to a new superfamily Megathyridoidea.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , July 1995 , pp. 670 - 685
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

Beecher, C. E. 1893. Revision of the families of loop-bearing Brachiopoda. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 9:376–391.Google Scholar
Benigni, C. 1987. Shell microstructure of Mediterranean terebratulid from Pliocene to Recent and its diagnostic significance. Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali-Torino, 5:1–26.Google Scholar
Bitner, M. A. 1990. Middle Miocene (Badenian) brachiopods from the Roztocze Hills, south-eastern Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica, 40:129–157.Google Scholar
Collins, M. J., Curry, G. B., Muyzer, G., Quinn, R., Xu, S., Westbroek, P., and Ewing, S. 1991. Immunological investigations of relationships within the terebratulid brachiopods. Palaeontology, 34:785–796.Google Scholar
Crickmay, CH. 1933. Attempt to zone the North American Jurassic on the basis of its brachiopods. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 44:871–894.Google Scholar
Curry, G. B., Quinn, R., Collins, M. J., Endo, K., Ewing, S., Muyzer, G., and Westbroek, P. 1991. Immunological responses from brachiopod skeletal macromolecules; a new technique for assessing taxonomic relationships using shells. Lethaia, 24:399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dall, W. H. 1870. A revision of the Terebratulidae and Lingulidae, with remarks on and descriptions of some Recent forms. American Journal of Conchology, 6:88–168.Google Scholar
Davidson, T. 1852. A monograph of the British Fossil Brachiopoda (Volume 1, Part 2: The Cretaceous Brachiopoda). Palaeontographical Society (London), Monograph, 1852–1855:1–117.Google Scholar
Davidson, T. 1876. A monograph of the British Fossil Brachiopoda (Volume 4, Part 2(1): Supplement to the Jurassic and Triassic species). Palaeontographical Society (London), Monograph, 1876:73–144.Google Scholar
Deslongchamps, E. 1853. Notes sur quelques brachiopods nouveaux du Lias. Annuaire de l'Institut des Provinces (Caen), 1853:3–7.Google Scholar
Elliott, G. F. 1959. Six new genera of Mesozoic Brachiopoda. Geological Magazine, 96:146–148.Google Scholar
Elliott, G. F., and Hatai, K. M. 1965. Superfamily Terebratellacea King, 1850, p. H830–H855. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, Brachiopoda. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Endo, K., Curry, G. B., and Quinn, R. 1992. Sero-taxonomy of Recent and Pleistocene brachiopods. 29th International Geological Congress, Kyoto, Abstracts, 2:347.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. V. 1842. Monographie der Rügen'schen Kreide-Versteinungen, Pt. 3, Mollusken. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, 1842:528–579.Google Scholar
Johansen, M. B. 1987. Brachiopods from the Maastrichtian–Danian boundary sequence at Nye Kløv, Jylland, Denmark. Fossils and Strata, 20:1–57.Google Scholar
Johansen, M. B., and Surlyk, F. 1990. Brachiopods and the stratigraphy of the Upper Campanian and Lower Maastrichtian Chalk of Norfolk, England. Palaeontology, 33:823–872.Google Scholar
Logan, A. 1979. The Recent Brachiopoda of the Mediterranean Sea. Bulletin de l'Institut océanographique de Monaco, 72(1434):1–112.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. I. 1971. Perforate canopies to canals in the shells of fossil Brachiopoda. Lethaia, 4:321–325.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. I. 1993. Loop ontogeny and ultrastructure in brachiopods of the family Terebratellidae, p. 31–40. In Kobayashi, I., Mutvei, H., and Sahni, A. (eds.), Structure, Formation and Evolution of Fossil Hard Tissues. Tokai University Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Moore, C. 1854. On new Brachiopoda from the Inferior Oolite of Dundry. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 5:107–128.Google Scholar
Nekvasilova, O. 1983. The genus Argyrotheca (Brachiopoda) from the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin (Czechoslovakia). Casopis pro Mineralogii a Geologii, 28:23–30.Google Scholar
Nekvasilova, O. 1985. Smirnovaena gen. nov. (Brachiopoda, Terebratellidina) from the Lower Cretaceous of Stramberk (Czechoslovakia). Ustredni Ustav Geologicky, Vestnik, 60:101–103.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. B. 1928. Argiope-arterne i danske aflejringer. Meddelelser Dansk Geologisk Forening, 7:215–226.Google Scholar
Owen, E. F. 1988. Cenomanian brachiopods from the Lower Chalk of Britain and Northern Europe. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), (Geology), 44:65–175.Google Scholar
Pictet, F. J. 1872. Description des fossiles du terrain crétacé des environs de Sainte-croix. Materiaux pour la Paléontologie Suisse, Serie 6, 5:1–158.Google Scholar
Popiel-Barczyk, E. 1968. Upper Cretaceous terebratulids (Brachiopoda) from the Middle Vistula Gorge. Prace Muzeum Ziemi, 12:3–86.Google Scholar
Popiel-Barczyk, E., and Smirnova, T. N. 1978. Novyi rod megatirid (Brachiopoda) iz verkhnego mela Pol'shi [A new megathyrid genus (Brachiopoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Poland]. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 1978 (no. 3):134–137.Google Scholar
Simon, E. 1992. New Lower Maastrichtian megathyridid brachiopods from the Phosphatic Chalk of Ciply (Mons, Belgium). Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bulletin (Science Terre), 62:121–138.Google Scholar
Smirnova, T. N. 1972. Rannemelovye brakhiopody Kryma i Severnogo Kavkaza [Brachiopods of the Lower Cretaceous of The Crimea and Northern Caucasus]. Nauka, Moscow, 143 p.Google Scholar
Smirnova, T. N. 1990. Sistema Rannemelovykh Brakhiopod [Systematics of Lower Cretaceous Brachiopods]. Nauka, Moscow, 239 p.Google Scholar
Smirnova, T. N., Zezina, O. N., and Popiel-Barczyk, E. 1983. O strukture rakoviny, morfogeneze i rasprostranenii megatiridid (Brakhiopody) [On the shell structure, morphogenesis, and distribution of the Megathyrididae (Brachiopoda)]. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 1983 (no. 2):45–53.Google Scholar
Sowerby, J. de C. 1836. In Fitton, W. H., Observations on some of the strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite in the south-east of England. Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 4:103–389.Google Scholar
Steinich, G. 1965. Die artikulaten brachiopoden der Ruegener Schreibkreide (Unter-Maastricht). Paleontologische Abhandlungen, Abteilung A, 2(1):1–220.Google Scholar
Waagen, W. 1883. Salt Range Fossils. I. Productus-Limestone Fossils. Geological Survey of India, Memoirs, Palaeontologia Indica (Calcutta), Series 13, 4:391–546.Google Scholar