Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:29:29.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The systematics of postibullinid edrioasteroids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Colin D. Sumrall ,
Jon Garbisch  and
John Paul Pope
Colin D. Sumrall
Affiliation:
Frederick and Amey Geier Collections and Research Center, Cincinnati Museum Center, 1720 Gilbert Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45202
Jon Garbisch
Affiliation:
UGA Marine Institute, Sapelo Island, GA 31327
John Paul Pope
Affiliation:
Geology Department, 121 Trowbridge Hall, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 52242
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An examination of Devonian through Pennsylvanian postibullinid edrioasteroids indicates the presence of two clades in the monophyletic subfamily Postibullinae, new subfamily. Postibulla is characterized by the presence of a posterior oral protuberance and a cover plate pattern with three primary plates and includes Postibulla legrandensis, P. lukei, P. keslingi, P. neglecta, and P. alabamaensis new species. Parapostibulla new genus is characterized by double biserial cover plates, the lack of the posterior oral protuberance, and an unusual hydro-gonopore, and includes Parapostibulla hybolopus (Fraunfelter and Utgaard, 1970), P. murphyi new species and Parapostibulla species A. Additional poorly-preserved edrioasteroids are illustrated from the Missourian and Virgilian of Kansas and Iowa that are the youngest known from North America.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 72 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 2000

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

Arendt, Yu. A. 1983. About some echinoderms. Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists, Geology, 58:135–136. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Bell, B. M. 1976a. A study of North American Edrioasteroidea. New York State Museum Memoir 21, 446 p.Google Scholar
Bell, B. M. 1976b. Phylogenetic implications of ontogenetic development in the class Edrioasteroidea. Journal of Paleontology, 50:1001–1019.Google Scholar
Bell, B. M., and Peterson, M. S. 1976. An edrioasteroid from the Guilmette Formation at Wendover, Utah–Nevada. Journal of Paleontology, 50:577–589.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1858. On the Asteriadae of the Lower Silurian Rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains. Decade, 3:75–85.Google Scholar
Boardman, D. R. II, and Heckel, P. H. 1989. Glacial-eustatic sea-level curve for early Late Pennsylvanian sequences in north-central Texas and biostratigraphic correlation with curve from midcontinent North America. Geology, 17:802–805.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, K. 1988. The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution, 42:795–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, E. J. 1860. On a new species of Agelacrinites and on the structural relations of that genus. Canadian Journal of Industry, Science, and Art, 5:358–365.Google Scholar
Cornell, S. R., Brett, C. E., and Whiteley, T. E. 1999. Paleoecology and Paleoenvironmental Analysis of an Early Devonian (Lochkovian) Edrioasteroid Encrusted Tentaculitid Hardground from Eastern New York State. Geological Society of America, North Central Section. Abstracts with Programs, Volume 31:All.Google Scholar
Donoghue, M. J., Olmstead, R. G., Smith, J. F., and Palmer, J. D. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of Dipsacales based on rbcL Sequences. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 79:333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies; an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution, 39:783–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraunfelter, G. H., and Utgaard, J. 1970. Middle Pennsylvanian edrioasteroid from southern Illinois. Journal of Paleontology, 44:297–303.Google Scholar
Garbisch, J., and Sumrall, C. D. 1997. New diversity in Pennsylvanian edrioasteroids from North America. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 29:A-99.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M. 1991. Discriminating between phylogenetic signal and random noise in DNA sequences, p. 278–294. In Miyamoto, M. M. and Cracraft, J. (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M., and Bull, J. J. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology, 42:182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillis, D. M., and Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1992. Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. Journal of Heredity, 83:189–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horowitz, A. S., and Waters, J. A. 1972. A Mississippian echinoderm site in Alabama. Journal of Paleontology, 46:660–665.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1991. Tree-length distribution skewness: an indicator of phylogenetic information. Systematic Zoology, 40:257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallers, J. O. M., Farris, J. S., Kluge, A. G., and Bult, C. 1992. Skewness and permutation. Cladistics, 8:275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Tissue, E. C., and Wilson, M. A. 1987. Neoisorophusella, a new edrioasteroid genus from the Upper Mississippian of the eastern United States. Journal of Paleontology, 61:1033–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1960. Hydropores in edrioasteroids. University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology Contributions, 15:139–179.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P., Donoghue, M. J., and Maddison, D. R. 1984. Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Systematic Zoology, 33:83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1983. British Carboniferous Edrioasteroidea (Echinodermata). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History. 37:113–138.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. 1992. Spiraclavus nacoensis, a new species of clavate agelacrinitid edrioasteroid from central Arizona. Journal of Paleontology, 66:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. 1994 (1993). Basic designs in isorophinid edrioasteroids. Lethaia, 26:289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. 1996. Late Paleozoic edrioasteroids (Echinodermata) from the North American Midcontinent. Journal of Paleontology, 70:969–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumrall, C. D., and Bowsher, A. L. 1996. Giganticlavus, a new genus of Pennsylvanian edrioasteroid from North America. Journal of Paleontology, 70:986–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1990. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.0. Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Warme, J. E. and Olson, R. W. 1971. Stop 5: Lake Brownwood spillway, p. 27–43. In Perkins, B. F. (ed.), Trace Fossils: A Field Guide to Selected Localities in Pennsylvanian, Permian, Cretaceous, and Tertiary Rocks of Texas and Related Papers. School of Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Miscellaneous Publication 71-1, Baton Rouge, 147 p.Google Scholar