Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:16:41.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating internal versus external characters: Phylogenetic analyses of the Echinoconchidae, Buxtoniinae, and Juresaniinae (phylum Brachiopoda)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Lindsey R. Leighton  and
Christopher G. Maples
Lindsey R. Leighton
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405
Christopher G. Maples
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evolutionary relationships between the Echinoconchidae, Productidae, Buxtoniinae, and Juresaniinae (Phylum Brachiopoda, Order Productida) have been the subject of debate for the better part of a century. The original (Muir-Wood and Williams, 1965) and revised (Brunton et al., 2000) Brachiopoda volumes of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology use markedly different classifications and emphasize different characters. The 1965 Treatise classification for these taxa primarily was based on internal features, especially the cardinal process; the revised Treatise (2000) relied on external ornament and shell shape. Multiple phylogenetic analyses (global parsimony, stratocladistics, nearest-neighbor) of 14 genera, representing all of the relevant subfamilies and outgroups, are in strong agreement that 1) the subfamily Buxtoniinae belongs in the family Echinoconchidae, not to the Productidae; 2) the subfamily Juresaniinae is more closely related to the Echinoconchinae than to the Buxtoniinae; and 3) that internal characters, such as a shafted cardinal process and anterio-medial position of the brachial valve adductor field, provide the best phylogenetic signal, and are synapomorphic for the Echinoconchidae. Jackknifing and Bremer Support corroborate these results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , July 2002 , pp. 659 - 671
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.)

Footnotes

1

Current address: Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182, <[email protected]>

References

Balinsky, A. 1979. Brachiopods and conodonts from the Frasnian of the Debnic anticline, southern Poland. Paleontologica Polonica, 39.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1990. Late Palaeozoic provinciality in the marine realm, p. 307–323. In McKerrow, W. S. and Scotese, C. R. (eds.), Palaeozoic Palaeogeography and Biogeography. Geological Society Memoir 12.Google Scholar
Bodenbender, B. E., and Fisher, D. C. 2001. Stratocladistic analysis of blastoid phylogeny. Journal of Paleontology, 75:351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics, 10:295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, D. R., and McLennan, D. A. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 434 p.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C. 1966. Silicified productoids from the Visean of County Fermanagh. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, 12:173–243.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C. 1985. Growth and shell shape in productacean brachiopods. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, 28:273–281.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C., and Mundy, D. J. C. 1993. Productellid and plicatiferid (productoid) brachiopods from the Lower Carboniferous of the Craven Reef Belt, North Yorkshire. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London, 49:99–119.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C., Alvarez, F., and MacKinnon, D. I. 1996. Morphological terms used to describe the cardinalia of articulate brachiopods: homologies and recommendations. Historical Biology, 11:9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C., Lazarev, S. S., and Grant, R. E. 1995. A review and new classification of the brachiopod Order Productida. Palaeontology, 38:915–936.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C., Lazarev, S. S., and Grant, R. E. 2000. Productida, p. H350–H643. In Kaesler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H., Brachiopoda 2, 3. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Carter, J. L. 1990. Subdivision of the Lower Carboniferous in North America by means of articulate brachiopod generic ranges. Courier Forschreift, Instituten Senckenberg, 130:145–155.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. T. 1928. Productidae of China, Pt. 2, Chonetinae, Productinae, Richtofeninae. Palaeontologica Sinica, series B, 5(3), 81 p.Google Scholar
Coddington, J. A. 1988. Cladistic tests of adaptational hypotheses. Cladistics, 4:3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, G. A. 1956. Generic characters of brachiopods. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention, C:194–263.Google Scholar
Deleporte, P. 1993. Characters, attributes, and tests of evolutionary scenarios. Cladistics, 9:427–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeQueiroz, K. 1996. Including the characters of interest during tree reconstruction, and the problems of circularity and bias in studies of character evolution. American Naturalist, 148:700–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, C. O., and Condra, G. E. 1932. Brachiopoda of the Pennsylvanian System in Nebraska. Nebraska Geological Survey, Series 2, Bulletin 5, 370 p.Google Scholar
Fagerstrom, J. A., and Boellstorff, J. D. 1964. Taxonomic criteria in the classification of the Pennsylvanian productoid Juresania nebrascensis . Palaeontology, 7:23–28.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1992. Stratigraphic parsimony, p. 124–129. In Maddison, W. P. and Maddison, D. R. (eds.), MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, version 3. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Sepkoski, J. J. 1999. Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil record. Nature, 398:415–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, D. L., Fisher, D. C., and Leighton, L. R. 1999. Reconstructing phylogeny with and without temporal data. Science, 284:1816–1819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fredericks, G. 1928. Contributions to the classification of the genus Productus . Commissar of Geology Leningrad Bulletin, 48(3):773–792.Google Scholar
Grant, R. E. 1968. Structural adaptations in two Permian brachiopod genera, Salt Range, West Pakistan. Journal of Paleontology, 42:1–32.Google Scholar
Gray, J. E. 1840. Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum (42nd edition). British Museum, London, 370 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1867. Descriptions and figures of the fossil Brachiopoda of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton, Portage, and Chemung Groups. New York Geological Survey, Paleontology, 4:1–428.Google Scholar
Huang, T. K. 1932. Late Permian Brachiopoda of southwestern China. Palaeontologica Sinica, series B, 9(1), 107 p.Google Scholar
Lazarev, S. S. 1982. On some brachiopods of the family Buxtoniidae. Palaeontological Journal, 16(1):65–73.Google Scholar
Lazarev, S. S. 1985. Brachiopods of the families Echinoconchidae and Buxtoniidae. Palaeontological Journal, 19(1):62–72.Google Scholar
Lazarev, S. S. 1986. Productacea with and without hinge teeth; evolutionary phenomenon of the Late Devonian. Paleontological Journal, 20(1):41–49.Google Scholar
Lazarev, S. S. 1987. The origin and systematic position of the main groups of productids (Brachiopods). Paleontological Journal, 21(4):39–49.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 2000. Environmental distribution of spinose brachiopods from the Devonian of New York: test of the soft-substrate hypothesis. Palaios, 15:184–193.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, B. S. 1998. Cladistic analysis of the Early Cambrian olenelloid trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 72:59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddison, W. P., and Maddison, D. R. 1999. MacClade, version 3. 08. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Martinez-Chacon, M. L. 1979. Braquiopodos carboniferos de la Cordillera Cantabrica (Orthida, Strophomenida y Rhynchonellida). Memorias del Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana, 96, 291 p.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. 1980. Shell form in the biconvex articulate Brachiopoda: a geometric analysis. Paleobiology, 6:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKellar, R. G. 1970. The Devonian productoid brachiopod faunas of Queensland. Geological Survey of Queensland (Paleontological Paper), 342:1–40.Google Scholar
Miloradovich, B. V. 1945. Some data on the morphology of the shells of Productidae. Academy of Sciences of the USSR Bulletin, Biology series, 4:485–500.Google Scholar
Muir-Wood, H. M. 1930. The classification of the British Carboniferous Brachiopod subfamily Productinae. Annual Magazine of Natural History, series 10, 5(25):100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir-Wood, H. M., and Cooper, G. A. 1960. Morphology, classification and life habits of the Productoidea (Brachiopoda). Geological Society of America Memoir 81, 447 p.Google Scholar
Muir-Wood, H. M., and Williams, A. 1965. Strophomenida, p. H361–H521. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H., Brachiopoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology, 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Reed, F. R. C. 1943. Note on certain Upper Devonian brachiopods figured by Whidborne, Pt. 1 and 2. Geological Magazine, 80:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rong, J., and Cocks, L. R. M. 1994. True Strophomena and a revision of the classification and evolution of strophomenoid and ‘strophodontoid’ brachiopods. Palaeontology, 37:651–694.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil Brachiopods. Hutchinson, London, 199 p.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Villagra, M. R., and Williams, B. A. 1998. Levels of homoplasy in the evolution of the mammalian skeleton. Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 5:113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokolskaya, A. N. 1948. Evolution of the genus Productella Hall and related forms in the Paleozoic of the Moscow region. Paleontology Institute, Academy of Sciences of Moscow Transactions, 14(3), 168 p. (In Russian).Google Scholar
Stainbrook, M. A. 1947. Brachiopoda of the Percha shale of New Mexico and Arizona. Journey of Paleontology, 21:297–328.Google Scholar
Stehli, F. G. 1954. Lower Leonardian Brachiopoda of the Sierra Diablo. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 105:257–358.Google Scholar
Sutton, A. H., and Summerson, C. H. 1943. Cardinal process of the Productidae. Journal of Paleontology, 17:323–330.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 2000. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), version 4.0b4a. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Szalay, F. S. 1985. Rodent and lagomorph morphotype adaptations, origins, and relationships; some postcranial attributes analyzed. NATO ASI Series, Series A, Life Sciences, 92:83–132.Google Scholar
Thomas, I. 1914. The British Carboniferous Producti, I. Geological Survey of Great Britain (Palaeontology) Memoir, 1(4):197–366.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. M. 1993. Serial homology: the crests and cusps of mammalian teeth. Acta Palaeontologica-Polonica, 38:145–158.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., and Carlson, S. J. 2000. The muricid gastropod subfamily Rapaninae: phylogeny and ecological history. Paleobiology, 26:19–46.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waagen, W. 1883. Salt Range fossils, Volume 1, Pt. 4; Productus Limestone fossils, Brachiopoda. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, Palaeontologia Indica (series 13), fasc. 2:391–546.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Carlson, S. J., Brunton, C. H. C., Holmer, L. E., and Popov, L. 1996. A supra-ordinal classification of the Brachiopoda. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Pt. B, Biological Sciences, 351(1344):1171–1193.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., and Heckel, P. H. 1989. Paleoclimatic indicators and inferred Devonian paleolatitudes of Euramerica, p. 49–66. In McMillan, N. J., Embry, A. F., and Glass, D. J. (eds.), Devonian of the World. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, Volume 14 (1).Google Scholar