Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T12:34:03.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Ordovician nectocaridid hints at an endocochleate origin of Cephalopoda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2019

Martin R. Smith Open the ORCID record for Martin R. Smith [Opens in a new window]
Martin R. Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nectocaridids are soft-bodied Cambrian organisms that have been controversially interpreted as primitive cephalopods, at odds with the long-held belief that these mollusks evolved from a shell-bearing ancestor. Here, I document a new nectocaridid from the Whetstone Gulf Formation, extending the group's range into the Late Ordovician. Nectocotis rusmithi n. gen. n. sp. possesses a robust internal element that resembles a non-mineralized phragmocone or gladius. Nectocaridids can be accommodated in the cephalopod total group if the earliest cephalopods (1) inherited a non-mineralized shell field from the ancestral mollusk; and (2) internalized this shell field. This evolutionary scenario would overturn the traditional ectocochleate, Nautilus-like reconstruction of the ancestral cephalopod, and indicate a trend towards increased metabolic efficiency through the course of Cambrian–Ordovician evolution.

UUID: http://zoobank.org/ed594200-37b9-4642-bd8f-4fb72dc544eb

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 64 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © 2019, 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

Bambach, R.K., 1993, Seafood through time: changes in biomass, energetics, and productivity in the marine ecosystem: Paleobiology, v. 19, p. 372–397.Google Scholar
Bandel, K., 1989, Cephalopod shell structure and general mechanisms of shell formation, in Carter, J.G., ed., Skeletal Biomineralization: Patterns, Processes and Evolutionary Trends, v. 5: New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 97–115.Google Scholar
Boutilier, R.G., West, T.G., Pogson, G.H., Mesa, K.A., Wells, J., and Wells, M.J., 1996, Nautilus and the art of metabolic maintenance: Nature, v. 382, p. 534–536.Google Scholar
Brayard, A., Krumenacker, L.J., Botting, J.P., Jenks, J.F., Bylund, K.G., Fara, E., Vennin, E., Olivier, N., Goudemand, N., Saucède, T., Charbonnier, S., Romano, C., Doguzhaeva, L., Thuy, B., Hautmann, M., Stephen, D.A., Thomazo, C., and Escarguel, G., 2017, Unexpected Early Triassic marine ecosystem and the rise of the Modern evolutionary fauna: Science Advances, v. 3, p. e1602159.Google Scholar
Brock, G.A., and Paterson, J.R., 2004, A new species of Tannuella (Helcionellida, Mollusca) from the Early Cambrian of South Australia: Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, v. 30, p. 133–143.Google Scholar
Brown, J.H., Gillooly, J.F., Allen, A.P., Savage, V.M., and West, G.B., 2004, Toward a metabolic theory of ecology: Ecology, v. 85, p. 1771–1789.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N.J., 2005, Probable Proterozoic fungi: Paleobiology, v. 31, p. 165–182.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N.J., Balthasar, U., and Wilson, L.A., 2007, Fossil diagenesis in the Burgess Shale: Palaeontology, v. 50, p. 537–543.Google Scholar
Caron, J.-B., Scheltema, A.H., Schander, C., and Rudkin, D., 2006, A soft-bodied mollusc with radula from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale: Nature, v. 442, p. 159–163.Google Scholar
Checa, A.G., Cartwright, J.H.E., Sánchez-Almazo, I., Andrade, J.P., and Ruiz-Raya, F., 2015, The cuttlefish Sepia officinalis (Sepiidae, Cephalopoda) constructs cuttlebone from a liquid-crystal precursor: Scientific Reports, v. 5, p. 11513.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S., 1976, Nectocaris pteryx, a new organism from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia: Neues Jahrbuch Für Geologie Und Paläontologie, Monatshefte, v. 12, p. 703–713.Google Scholar
De Laet, J.E., 2005, Parsimony and the problem of inapplicables in sequence data, in Albert, V.A., ed., Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics: Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 81–116.Google Scholar
Doguzhaeva, L.A., and Mapes, R.H., 2015, Arm hooks and structural features in the Early Permian Glochinomorpha Gordon 1971, indicative of its coleoid affiliation: Lethaia, v. 48, p. 100–114.Google Scholar
Doguzhaeva, L.A., and Mutvei, H., 2015, The additional external shell layers indicative of “endocochleate experiments” in some ammonoids, in Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R.H., eds., Topics in Geobiology 43: Ammonoid Paleobiology: from Anatomy to Ecology: Dordrecht, Springer, p. 585–609.Google Scholar
Doguzhaeva, L.A., Summesberger, H., Mutvei, H., and Brandstaetter, F., 2007, The mantle, ink sac, ink, arm hooks and soft body debris associated with the shells in Late Triassic coleoid cephalopod Phragmoteuthis from the Austrian Alps: Palaeoworld, v. 16, p. 272–284.Google Scholar
Farrell, Ú.C., Martin, M.J., Hagadorn, J.W., Whiteley, T., and Briggs, D.E.G., 2009, Beyond Beecher's Trilobite Bed: widespread pyritization of soft tissues in the Late Ordovician Taconic foreland basin: Geology, v. 37, p. 907–910.Google Scholar
Fretter, V., and Graham, A., 1978, The prosobranch molluscs of Britain and Denmark part 45—marine Rissoacea: Journal of Molluscan Studies, v. S6, p. 154–241.Google Scholar
Gabbott, S.E., 1999, Orthoconic cephalopods and associated fauna from the late Ordovician Soom Shale Lagerstätte, South Africa: Palaeontology, v. 42, p. 123–148.Google Scholar
Hennig, W., 1953, Kritische Bemerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten: Beiträge Zur Entomologie, v. 6, p. 1–85.Google Scholar
Hohagen, J., and Jackson, D.J., 2013, An ancient process in a modern mollusc: early development of the shell in Lymnaea stagnalis: BMC Developmental Biology, v. 13, p. 27.Google Scholar
Holland, C.H., 1987, The nautiloid cephalopods: a strange success: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 144, p. 1–14.Google Scholar
House, M.R., 1985, The ammonoid time-scale and ammonoid evolution: Geological Society, London, Memoirs, v. 10, p. 273–283.Google Scholar
Kear, A.J., Briggs, D.E.G., and Donovan, D.T., 1995, Decay and fossilization of non-mineralized tissue in coleoid cephalopods: Palaeontology, v. 38, p. 105–132.Google Scholar
Klug, C., and Lehmann, J., 2015, Soft part anatomy of ammonoids: reconstructing the animal based on exceptionally preserved specimens and actualistic comparisons in Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R.H., eds., Topics in Geobiology 43: Ammonoid Paleobiology: from Anatomy to Ecology: Dordrecht, Springer, p. 507–529.Google Scholar
Klug, C., Kröger, B., Vinther, J., and Fuchs, D., 2015, Ancestry, origin and early evolution of ammonoids, in Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R.H., eds., Topics in Geobiology 44: Ammonoid Paleobiology: from Macroevolution to Paleogeography: Dordrecht, Springer, p. 3–24.Google Scholar
Kniprath, E., 1981, Ontogeny of the molluscan shell field: a review: Zoologica Scripta, v. 10, p. 61–79.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., 2013, Cambrian–Ordovician cephalopod palaeogeography and diversity: Geological Society, London, Memoirs, v. 38, p. 429–448.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., Servais, T., and Zhang, Y.-B., 2009, The origin and initial rise of pelagic cephalopods in the Ordovician: PLoS ONE, v. 4, p. e7262.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., Vinther, J., and Fuchs, D., 2011, Cephalopod origin and evolution: a congruent picture emerging from fossils, development and molecules: BioEssays, v. 33, p. 602–613.Google Scholar
Maeda, H., and Seilacher, A., 1996, Ammonoid taphonomy, in Landman, N.H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R., eds., Ammonoid Paleobiology: New York, Plenum Press, p. 543–578.Google Scholar
Mazurek, D., and Zatoń, M., 2011, Is Nectocaris pteryx a cephalopod?: Lethaia, v. 44, p. 2–4.Google Scholar
Mooi, R.D., and Gill, A.C., 2016, Hennig's auxiliary principle and reciprocal illumination revisited, in Williams, D. Schmitt, M., and Wheeler, Q., eds., The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 258–285.Google Scholar
Mutvei, H., and Mapes, R.H., 2018, Carboniferous coleoids with mixed coleoid-orthocerid characteristics: a new light on cephalopod evolution: GFF, v. 140, p. 11–24.Google Scholar
O'Dor, R.K., and Webber, D.M., 1991, Invertebrate athletes: trade-offs between transport efficiency and power density in cephalopod evolution: Journal of Experimental Biology, v. 160, p. 93–112.Google Scholar
O'Dor, R.K., Forsythe, J., Webber, D.M., Wells, J., and Wells, M.J., 1993, Activity levels of Nautilus in the wild: Nature, v. 362, p. 626–628.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B.N., 2011, Once again: is Nectocaris pteryx a stem-group cephalopod?: Lethaia, v. 44, p. 373.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B.N., and Pojeta, J., 1992, The earliest bivalves and their Ordovician descendants: American Malacological Bulletin, v. 9, p. 117–122.Google Scholar
Skovsted, C.B., Betts, M.J., Topper, T.P., and Brock, G.A., 2015, The early Cambrian tommotiid genus Dailyatia from South Australia: Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, v. 48, p. 1–117.Google Scholar
Skovsted, C.B., Pan, B., Topper, T.P., Betts, M.J., Li, G., and Brock, G.A., 2016, The operculum and mode of life of the lower Cambrian hyolith Cupitheca from South Australia and North China: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 443, p. 123–130.Google Scholar
Smith, M.R., 2013, Nectocaridid ecology, diversity and affinity: early origin of a cephalopod-like body plan: Paleobiology, v. 39, p. 297–321.Google Scholar
Smith, M.R., 2019, High resolution images of Nectocotis rusmithi: FigShare, doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3953191.Google Scholar
Smith, M.R., and Caron, J.-B., 2010, Primitive soft-bodied cephalopods from the Cambrian: Nature, v. 465, p. 469–472.Google Scholar
Smith, M.R., and Caron, J.-B., 2011, Nectocaris and early cephalopod evolution: reply to Mazurek & Zatoń: Lethaia, v. 44, p. 369–372.Google Scholar
Sun, H.-J., Smith, M.R., Zeng, H., Zhao, F.-C., Li, G.-X., and Zhu, M.-Y., 2018, Hyoliths with pedicles illuminate the origin of the brachiopod body plan: Proceedings of the Royal Society B, v. 285, p. 20181780.Google Scholar
Sutton, M.D., Perales-Raya, C., and Gilbert, I., 2016, A phylogeny of fossil and living neocoleoid cephalopods: Cladistics, v. 32, p. 297–307.Google Scholar
Teichert, C., 1986, Times of crisis in the evolution of the Cephalopoda: Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 60, p. 227–243.Google Scholar
Turek, V., and Manda, Š., 2012, “An endocochleate experiment” in the Silurian straight-shelled cephalopod Sphooceras: Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 87, p. 767–813.Google Scholar
Webers, G.F., and Yochelson, E.L., 1989, Late Cambrian molluscan faunas and the origin of the Cephalopoda: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 47, p. 29–42.Google Scholar
Weedon, M.J., 1990, Shell structure and affinity of vermiform ‘gastropods’: Lethaia, v. 23, p. 297–309.Google Scholar
Yancey, T.E., Garvie, C.L., and Wicksten, M., 2010, The middle Eocene Belosaepia ungula (Cephalopoda: Coleoida) from Texas: structure, ontogeny and function: Journal of Paleontology, v. 84, p. 267–287.Google Scholar
Yochelson, E.L., Flower, R.H., and Webers, G.F., 1973, The bearing of new Late Cambrian monoplacophoran genus Knightoconus upon the origin of Cephalopoda: Lethaia, v. 6, p. 275–309.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z.-F., Smith, M.R., and Shu, D.-G., 2015, New reconstruction of the Wiwaxia scleritome, with data from Chengjiang juveniles: Scientific Reports, v. 5, p. 14810.Google Scholar