Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T12:53:33.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Description and interpretation of Sanctum laurentiensis, new ichnogenus and ichnospecies, a domichnium mined into Late Ordovician (Cincinnatian) ramose bryozoan colonies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

J. Mark Erickson  and
Timothy D. Bouchard
J. Mark Erickson
Affiliation:
Geology Department, St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617,
Timothy D. Bouchard
Affiliation:
Geology Department, St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the Late Ordovician, arborescent and frondose trepostome, and cystoporate Bryozoa were frequently bored in a manner distinctly different from Trypanites, Palaeosabella, and Vermiforichnus, domichnia that are commonly associated with these organisms. Maysvillian and Richmondian bryozoan taxa on the Cincinnati Arch were particularly infested by an unidentified organism that used the interior of bryozoan branches as its domicile. The domichnial trace Sanctum laurentiensis is newly described. Dwelling openings range in size from 1.1 mm to 3.2 mm and are located singly on surfaces of colony branches, commonly in a somewhat protected position. The circular opening leads through the exozone into an elongate or saccate chamber representing a variably shaped excavation of the bryozoan endozone. Traces ranging from 3.0 mm to 8.8 mm wide and 9.7 mm to 53 mm long are documented. Thin sections demonstrate that chambers were unlined and had irregular interior walls resulting from organismal mining of zooecial tubes.

Cavity makers likely were multiple individuals of amphipod-like crustaceans (Arthropoda) that fed outside their domicile. Bryozoan colonies were occupied while upright, either entirely or partially live, or in some cases dead and overgrown by other bryozoans. Avoidance of predation and the ability to dwell and feed in a higher tier than that of infaunal tracemakers at the sediment-water interface were potential benefits of this domichnium. Presence of cavities reduced the strength of host branches, thus having a profound effect on colony morphology and growth over its lifetime. Unlike the many epizoans that used trepostomes as substrates with little long-term affect, Sanctum laurentiensis significantly impacted its bryozoan host.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 77 , Issue 5 , September 2003 , pp. 1002 - 1010
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., and Bottjer, D. J. 1982. Tiering in suspension-feeding communities on soft substrata throughout the Phanerozoic. Science, 216:173–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjerstedt, T. W., and Erickson, J. M. 1989. Trace fossils and bioturbation in peritidal facies of the Potsdam-Theresa Formations (Cambrian-Ordovician), northwest Adirondacks. Palaios, 4:203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottjer, D. J., and Droser, M. L. 1994. The history of Phanerozoic bioturbation, p. 155–176. In Donovan, S. K. (ed.), The Palaeobiology of Trace Fossils. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Bouchard, T. D., and Erickson, J. M. 2001. Boring morphology of a newly described domichnium in Ordovician, in situ, bryozoan colonies. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 33(6):10.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1972. On some ichnotaxa in hard substrates, with a redefinition of Trypanites Mägdefrau. Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 46:93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1992. Bioerosion: eating rocks for fun and profit. In Maples, C. G. and West, R. R. (eds.), Trace Fossils, Short Courses in Paleontology 5:121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brood, K. 1984. Bryozoan ecology in the Silurian of Gotland. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 32:211–224.Google Scholar
Cameron, B. 1969a. New name for Palaeosabella prisca (McCoy), a Devonian worm-boring, and its preserved probable borer. Journal of Paleontology, 43:189–192.Google Scholar
Cameron, B. 1969b. Paleozoic shell-boring annelids and their trace fossils. American Zoologist, 9:689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caster, K. E., Dalvé, E. A., and Pope, J. K. 1955. Elementary guide to the fossils and strata of the Ordovician in the vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, 47.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, C. K. 1975. Recent lebensspuren in non-marine aquatic environments, p. 431–458. In Frey, R. W. (ed.), The Study of Trace Fossils. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. M. 1908. The beginning of dependent life. New York State Museum Bulletin, 121:146–196.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M. 1921. Organic dependence and disease: their origin and significance. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin, 221–222:1–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. A., Diekmeyer, S. C., Goldman, L. I., Datillo, B. F., Holland, S. M., and Cuffey, R. J. 1998. Appendix A.—Type-Cincinnatian Localities, p. 152–166. In Davis, R. A. and Cuffey, R. J. (eds.), Sampling the Layer Cake that Isn't: The Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Type-Cincinnatian. Ohio Geological Survey, Guidebook 13.Google Scholar
Diekmeyer, S. C. 1998. Kope to Bellevue Formations: the Reidlin Road/Mason Road Site (Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati, Ohio, region, p. 10–29. In Davis, R. A. and Cuffey, R. J. (eds.), Sampling the Layer Cake that Isn't: The Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Type-Cincinnatian, Ohio Geological Survey Guidebook 13.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., and Bottjer, D. J. 1986. Metazoan radiation into the infaunal habitat; Evidence from the Cambrian record of bioturbation. Fourth North American Paleontological Convention Proceedings, North American Paleontological Convention, 4:A13.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., Fortey, R. A., and Li, Xing. 1996. The Ordovician radiation. American Scientist, 84:122–131.Google Scholar
Drummond, C., and Sheets, H. 2001. Taphonomic reworking and stratal organization of tempestite deposition: Ordovician Kope Formation, northern Kentucky, USA. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 71(4):621–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekdale, A. A., and Bromley, R. G. 2001. Bioerosional innovation for living in carbonate hardgrounds in the Early Ordovician of Sweden. Lethaia, 34:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1980. Borings in solitary rugose corals of the Selkirk Member, Red River Formation (late Middle or Upper Ordovician), southern Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 17:272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1982. Paleoecology and biostratinomy of solitary rugose corals in the Stony Mountain Formation (Upper Ordovician), Stony Mountain, Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 19:1582–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, J. M. 1983. Trichopterodomus leonardi, a new genus and species of psychomyiid caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) represented by retreats from the Paleocene of North Dakota. Journal of Paleontology, 57:560–567.Google Scholar
Erickson, J. M., and Waugh, D. A. 2002. Colony morphologies and missed opportunities during the Cincinnatian (Late Ordovician) bryozoan radiation: examples from Heterotrypa frondosa and Monticulipora mammulata , p. 101–107. In Jackson, P. N. Wyse, Buttler, C. J., and Jones, M. E. Spencer (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the International Bryozoology Association. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.Google Scholar
Hántzschel, W. 1975. Trace fossils and Problematica, p. W1–W269. In Teichert, C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. W, Miscellanea. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Hageman, S. J., Bock, P. E., Bone, Y., and Mcgowran, B. 1998. Bryozoan growth habits: classification and analysis. Journal of Paleontology, 72:418–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. D., and Elders, C. A. 1970. Burrowing patterns of haustoriid amphipods from Sapelo Island, Georgia, p. 243–262. In Crimes, T. P. and Harper, J. C. (eds.), Trace Fossils. Geological Journal Special Issue 3.Google Scholar
Key, M. M. Jr. 1991. How to build a ramose trepostome, p. 201–207. In Bigey, F. P. (ed.), Bryozoaires Actuels et Fossils. Bulletins Societé Science Nationale Ouest Frcaise, Memoire, HS 1.Google Scholar
Kobluk, D. R. 1981. Middle Ordovician (Chazy Group) cavity-dwelling boring sponges. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 18:1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobluk, D. R., and Nemcsok, S. 1982. The macroboring ichnofossil Trypanites in colonies of the Middle Ordovician bryozoan Prasopora; population behaviour and reaction to environmental influences. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 19:679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobluk, D. R., and Risk, M. J. 1976. Algal borings and framboidal pyrite in Upper Ordovician brachiopods. Lethaia, 10:135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobluk, D. R., James, N. P., and Pemberton, S. G. 1978. Initial diversification of macroboring ichnofossils and exploitation of the macroboring niche in the lower Paleozoic. Paleobiology, 4:163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Laubenfels, M. W. 1955. Porifera , E41. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. E. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
MacGinitie, G. E. 1939. The method of feeding of Chaetopteris . Biological Bulletin, 77:115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mägdefrau, K. 1932. Über einige Bohrgänge aus dem Untern Muschelkalk von Jena. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 14:150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, F. 1851–1855. A systematic description of the British Palaeozoic fossils in the Geological Museum of the University of Cambridge, p. 185–406, (1852). In Sedgwick, A. (ed.), A Synopsis of the Classification of the British Palaeozoic Rocks. J. W. Parker, London, Cambridge, 661 p.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. R. 1968. A bored ectoproct from the middle Mississippian of Tennessee. Southeastern Geology, 9:165–170.Google Scholar
Nicol, E. A. T. 1930. The feeding mechanism, formation of the tube, and physiology of digestion in Sabella pavonina . Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 56:537–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, R. G. Jr. 1970. Trace fossils of the Cincinnati area. Paleontographica Americana, 6:279–444.Google Scholar
Palmer, T. J. 1982. Cambrian to Cretaceous hardground communities. Lethaia 15:309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, T. J., and Palmer, C. D. 1977. Faunal distribution and colonization strategy in a Middle Ordovician hardground community. Lethaia, 10:179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, T. J., and Wilson, M. A. 1988. Parasitism of Ordovician bryozoans and the origin of pseudoborings. Palaeontology, 31:939–949.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P. 1974. A Devonian Immergentia (Ectoprocta: Ctenostomata) from Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 48:940–946.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P., and Shabica, C. W. 1969. Cylindrical living burrows in Ordovician dalmanelid brachiopod beds. Journal of Paleontology, 43:838–841.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. P., and Ross, C. A. 2002. Bryozoans in Ordovician depositional sequences, Cincinnati Arch region, USA. In Jackson, P. N. Wyse, Buttler, C. J., and Jones, M. E. Spencer (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the International Bryozoology Association, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D. 1990. Preservation of soft-bodied and other organisms by bioimmuration—a review. Palaeontology, 33:1–17.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D., and Wilson, M. A. 2002. A new terminology for marine organisms habiting hard substrates. Palaios, 17:522–525.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 527 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, D. A., and Erickson, J. M. 2002. Functional morphology of the anastomosing frondose growth form reported in Heterotrypa frondosa (d'Orbigny) (Bryozoa: Trepostomata) from the Cincinnatian (Late Ordovician) of Ohio, p. 331–338. In Jackson, P. N. Wyse, Buttler, C. J., and Jones, M. E. Spencer (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the International Bryozoology Association, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. A., and Palmer, T. J. 1992. Hardgrounds and hardground faunas. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Institute of Earth Studies Publications, 9:1–131.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. A., and Palmer, T. J. 2001a. Domiciles, not predatory borings: a simpler explanation of the holes in Ordovician shells analyzed by Kaplan and Baumiller, 2000. Palaios, 16:524–525.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. A., and Palmer, T. J. 2001b. The Ordovician bioerosion revolution. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 33(6):A248.Google Scholar