Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:34:25.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fenestrate graptolite theoretical morphology: Geometric constraints on lophophore shape and arrangement in extinct hemichordates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Robert W. Starcher  and
George R. McGhee Jr.
Robert W. Starcher
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Wright-Rieman Laboratories, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
George R. McGhee Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Wright-Rieman Laboratories, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A geometric analysis of lophophore shape and arrangement in the fenestrate dendroid graptolite genus Dictyonema reveals that the shape of the zooid domain in the majority of Dictyonema species colonies is highly elliptical, with the long axis of the ellipse perpendicular to the proximodistal axis of the stipe. A complex lophophore, bilaterally symmetrical and consisting of two tentaculated arms that are laterally directed and perpendicular to the stipe axis, provides the best geometric solution to completely filling the elliptical zooid domain seen in the majority of Dictyonema species.

Working under the assumption that fenestrate graptolites, like fenestrate bryozoans, needed to form a continuous filtering surface with contact between adjacent lophophores, two optimum close-parking models exist for lophophores with elliptical zooid domains: either a proximodistal-row arrangement or a lateral-row arrangement of the lophophores. Of the two possible geometries, the most probable close-packing arrangement of hypothetical biplumed lophophores within the fenestrate graptolite meshwork is in proximodistal rows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , March 2003 , pp. 360 - 367
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

Boardman, R. S., McKinney, F. K., and Taylor, P. D. 1992. Morphology, anatomy, and systematics of the Cinctiporidae, new family (Bryozoa: Stenolaemata). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 70:1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulman, O. M. B. 1970. Graptolithina, p. 1–163. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. V, Graptolithina. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Cook, P. L. 1977. Colony-wide water currents in living Bryozoa. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 18:31–47.Google Scholar
Crowther, P. R., and Rickards, R. B. 1977. Cortical bandages and the graptolite zooid. Geologica et Palaeontologia, 11:9–46.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Bell, A. 1987. Branching geometry and function of multiramous graptoloids. Paleobiology, 13:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, R. 1949. Les graptolithes et quelques nouveaux groupes d'animaux du Tremadoc de la Pologne. Palaeontologica Polonica, 3:1–235.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr. 1999. Theoretical Morphology. Columbia University Press, New York, 316 p.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr. 2001. Exploring the spectrum of existent, nonexistent and impossible biological form. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16:172–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr., and McKinney, F. K. 2000. A theoretical morphologic analysis of convergently evolved erect helical colony form in the Bryozoa. Paleobiology, 26:556–577.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1977. Functional interpretation of the lyre-shaped Bryozoa. Paleobiology, 3:90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1980. The Devonian fenestrate bryozoan Utropora Pocta. Journal of Paleontology, 54:241–252.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1981. Planar branch systems in colonial suspension feeders. Paleobiology, 7:344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1991. Phylogeny limits function. National Geographic Research and Exploration, 7:432–441.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Jackson, J. B. C. 1989. Bryozoan Evolution. Unwin Hyman, Boston, 238 p.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and McGhee, G. R. Jr. 2002. Ecological implications of theoretical morphologic distributions of Archimedes colony morphologies. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 34(2):A14.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Raup, D. M. 1982. A turn in the right direction: simulation of erect spiral growth in the bryozoans Archimedes and Bugula . Paleobiology, 8:101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchin, M. J., and Doucet, K. M. 1996. Modelling flow patterns in conical dendroid graptolites. Lethaia, 29:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, R. B. 1975. Palaeoecology of the Graptolithina, an extinct class of the phylum Hemichordata. Biological Reviews, 50:397–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, R. B., and Rigby, S. 1999. The functional morphology of graptolites, p. 609–621. In Savazzi, E. (ed.), Functional Morphology of the Invertebrate Skeleton. Wiley, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
Rigby, S., and Sudbury, M. 1995. Graptolite ontogeny and the size of the graptolite zooid. Geological Magazine, 132:427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1947. Graptolites of North America. Geological Society of America Memoir, 19:1–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starcher, R. W., and McGhee, G. R. Jr. 2000. Fenestrate theoretical morphology: geometric constraints on lophophore shape and arrangement in extinct Bryozoa. Paleobiology, 26:116–136.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starcher, R. W., and McGhee, G. R. Jr. 2002. Theoretical morphology of modular organisms: geometric constraints of branch and dissepiment width and spacing in fenestrate bryozoans. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 223:79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D., and Gordon, D. P. 1997. Fenestulipora, gen. nov., an unusual cyclostome bryozoan from New Zealand and Indonesia. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 11:689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1977. Feeding in marine bryozoans, p. 233–271. In Woolacott, R. M. and Zimmer, R. L. (eds.), Biology of Bryozoans. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1978. Polypide morphology and feeding behavior in marine ectoprocts. Bulletin of Marine Science, 28:1–31.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1979. Current related morphology and behaviour in some Pacific Coast bryozoans, p. 247–267. In Larwood, G. P. and Abbot, M. B. (eds.), Advances in Bryozoology. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1981. Feeding behavior of modern bryozoans, p. 1–21. In Broadhead, T. W. (ed.), Lophophorates: Notes for a Short Course, Studies in Geology, 5. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar