Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:42:27.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fusion or hypertrophy?: the unusual arms of the Petalocrinidae (Ordovician-Devonian: Crinoidea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2019

William I. Ausich ,
Yingyan Mao  and
Yue Li
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Yingyan Mao*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
Yue Li
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
*
*corresponding author
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using polarized light microscopy, the large, triangular or cylindrical second brachial plate of the Petalocrinidae is demonstrated to be a compound brachial formed through fusion of brachial plates along the distal margin of the growing arms. Based on the number of ambulacral bifurcations, brachials from the primibrachitaxis through at least the quintibrachitaxis may have been fused to form this large plate. In Petalocrinus, fused brachials form a second brachial that assumed the same crystallographic orientation, but in Spirocrinus, multidirectional extinctions preserve some of the original multiplate arrangement.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 93 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 966 - 970
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

Ausich, W.I., and Wood, T.E., 2012, Ontogeny in Hypselocrinus hoveyi, Mississippian cladid crinoid from Indiana: Journal of Paleontology, v. 86, p. 1017–1020.Google Scholar
Bather, F.A., 1898, Petalocrinus (Weller and Davidson): Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 54, p. 401–441.Google Scholar
Bodenbender, B.E., 1996, Patterns of crystallographic axis orientation in blastoid skeletal elements: Journal of Paleontology, v. 70, p. 466–484.Google Scholar
Bodenbender, B.E., 1997, Echinoderm skeletal crystallography and paleobiological applications: Paleontological Society Papers, v. 3, p. 191–204.Google Scholar
Bodenbender, B.E., and Ausich, W.I., 2000, Skeletal crystallography and crinoid calyx architecture: Journal of Paleontology, v. 74, p. 52–66.Google Scholar
Bodenbender, B.E., and Hiemstra, E.J., 1998, Preliminary investigation of cystoid skeletal crystallography: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 30, p. 7.Google Scholar
Brower, J.C., 1973, Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician): Palaeontographica Americana, v. 7, no. 46, p. 263–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J.C., 1974, Ontogeny of camerate crinoids: The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 72, 53 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J.C., 1978, Camerates, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, K., eds., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata: Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, v. 2, p. T244–T263.Google Scholar
Emlet, R.B., 1985, Crystal axes in Recent and fossil echinoids indicate trophic mode in larval development: Science, v. 230, p. 937–940.Google Scholar
Emlet, R.B., 1989, Apical skeletons of sea urchins (Echinodermata: Echinoidea): two methods for inferring mode of larval development: Paleobiology, v. 15, p. 223–254.Google Scholar
Gao, F., Thompson, J.R., Petsios, E., Erkenbrack, E., Moats, R.A., Bottjer, D.J., and Davidson, E.H., 2015, Juvenile skeletogenesis in anciently diverged sea urchin clades: Developmental Biology, v. 400, p. 148–158. doi: 10.1016/j.dbio.2015.01.107.Google Scholar
Gorzelack, P., Stolarski, J., Dubois, P., Kopp, C., and Meibom, A., 2011, 26Mg labeling of the sea urchin regenerating spine: insights into echinoderm biomineralizaiton process: Journal of Structural Biology, v. 176, p. 119–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2011.07.008.Google Scholar
Gorzelack, P., Dery, A., Dubois, P., and Stolarski, J., 2017, Sea urchin growth dynamics at microstructural length scale revealed by Mn-labelling and cathodoluminescence: Frontiers in Zoology, v. 14:42, 17 p. doi: 10.1186/s12983-017-0227-8.Google Scholar
Grun, T.B., Mancosu, A., Belaústegui, Z., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2018, The taphonomy of Clypeaster: a paleontological tool to identify stable structures in natural shell systems: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, v. 289, p. 189–202.Google Scholar
Jackson, R.T., 1912, Phylogeny of the Echini, with a revision of Paleozoic species: Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History, v. 7, 491 p.Google Scholar
Lane, N.G., and Moore, R.C., 1978, Suborder Cyathocrinina, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, K. eds., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Echinodermata, Pt. T(2): Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder and Lawrence, p. T578–T607.Google Scholar
Li, L., 1993, Discovery of Eopetalocrinus (gen. nov.) in Lower Ordovician Dawan Formation at Liujiachang, Songzi, Hubei and its significance: Oil and Gas Geology, v. 14, p. 272–277. [in Chinese with English summary]Google Scholar
Mao, Y., Lin, J.-P., and Ausich, W.I., 2015, Chinese origin and radiation of the Palaeozoic crinoid family Petalocrinidae: Palaeoworld, v. 24, p. 445–453. doi: j.palwor.2-14.12.007.Google Scholar
Mao, Y., Ausich, W.I., Li, Y., Lin, J.-P., and Lin, C., 2017, New taxa and phyletic evolution of the Aeronian (Llandovery, Silurian) Petalocrinidae (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) in Guizhou, South China Block: Journal of Paleontology, v. 91, p. 477–492. http//dx.doi.org/10.1017/jpa.2016.156.Google Scholar
Macurda, D.B. Jr., and Meyer, D.L., 1975, The microstructure of the crinoid endoskeleton: University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 74, 22 p.Google Scholar
Märkel, K., 1986, Ultrastructural investigation of matix-mediated biomineralization in echinoids (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): Zoomorphology, v. 106, p. 232–243.Google Scholar
Mu, E.-Z., and Lin, C.-H., 1987, Petalocrinidae from the Silurian of Shiqian District, Guizhou: Bulletin of the Nanjing Institute Geology and Palaeontology, Academica Sinica, v. 12, p. 1–22. [in Chinese with English summary]Google Scholar
Mu, E.-Z., and Wu, Y.-R., 1974, Crinoid sections, in Nanking Institute of Geology and Paleontology, ed., A Handbook of the Stratigraphy and Paleontology in Southwest China: Beijing, Academia Sinica, 455 p. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
O'Malley, C.E., Ausich, W.I., and Chin, Y.-P., 2013, Isolation and characterization of the earliest taxon-specific organic molecules (Mississippian, Crinoidea): Geology, v. 41, p. 347–350. doi:10.1130/G33792.1.Google Scholar
O'Malley, C.E., Ausich, W.I., and Chin, Y.-P., 2016, Deep echinoderm phylogeny preserved in organic molecules from Paleozoic fossils: Geology, v. 4, p. 379–382. doi:10.1130/G37761.1.Google Scholar
Okazaki, K., 1960, Skeleton formation of sea urchin larvae. II. Organic matrix of the spicule: Embryologia, v. 5, p. 283–320.Google Scholar
Peter, M.E., 2019, Aberrations in the infrabasal circlet of the cladid crinoid Cupulocrinus (Echinodermata) and implications for the origin of the flexible crinoids: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 522, p. 52–61.Google Scholar
Prokop, R.J., 1983, Vadarocrinus vassa gen. et sp. n. (Crinoidea, Petalcrinidae) from the Lower Devonian of Bohemia: Casopis Národního Muzea, Rada Priródovedná, v. 152, p. 187–188.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1959, Crystallography of echinoid calcite: Journal of Geology, v. 67, p. 661–674.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1960, Ontogenetic variation in the crystallography of echinoid calcite: Journal of Paleontology, v. 34, p. 1041–1050.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1962, The phylogeny of calcite crystallography in echinoids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 36, p. 793–810.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1965, Crystal orientations in the echinoid apical system: Journal of Paleontology, v. 39, p. 934–951.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1966, Crystallographic data for echinoid coronal plates: Journal of Paleontology, v. 40, p. 555–568.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 2005, Growth and form in echinoids: the evolutionary interplay of plate accretion and plate addition, in Briggs, D.E., ed., Evolving Form and Function: Fossils and Development: Proceedings of a Symposium Honoring Adolf Seilacher for his Contributions to Paleontology, in Celebration of his 80th Birthday: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, p. 181–195.Google Scholar
Thomas, A.O., 1916, A new crinoid fauna from Monticello, Iowa: Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences, v. 22, p. 289–291.Google Scholar
Towe, K.M., 1967, Echinoderm calcite: single crystal or polycrystalline aggregate: Science, v. 157, p. 1048–1050.Google Scholar
Warn, J.M., and Strimple, H.L., 1977, The disparid inadunate superfamilies Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata. Crinoidea) Ordovician–Silurian, North America: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 72, p. 1–138.Google Scholar
Weller, S., and Davidson, A.D., 1896, Petalocrinus mirabilis (n. sp.) and a new American fauna: Journal of Geology, v. 4, p. 166–173.Google Scholar
Wilson, H.E., 1916, Evolution of the basal plates in monocyclic Crinoidea Camerata: Journal of Geology, v. 24, p. 488–510, 533–553, 665–684.Google Scholar