Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:31:43.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphology, taxonomy, and classification of the order Eurypterida Burmeister, 1843

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

V. P. Tollerton Jr.
V. P. Tollerton Jr.*
Affiliation:
Geology Department, Utica College of Syracuse University, Utica, New York 13502
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Standards have been empirically developed to describe various morphological characters of eurypterids. The standards pertain to the following characters: 1) shape of the prosoma; 2) shape of the metastoma; 3) shape of the eyes; 4) position of the eyes; 5) types of prosomal appendages; 6) types of swimming leg paddles; 7) structure of the doublure; 8) differentiation of the opisthosoma; 9) structure of the genital appendages; 10) shape of the telson; and 11) types of ornamentation.

For the first time, a uniform, standardized taxonomy is proposed for classification and identification of most genera. The taxonomy is based on the observation that most higher taxonomic levels for arthropods are based on the structure and arrangement of the appendages. Details of the taxonomy rely on the morphological standards proposed here.

The order Eurypterida Burmeister, 1843, is here defined by the presence of only six pairs of prosomal appendages, the first pair being the chelicera, the next five pairs being the gnathobasic, uniramus legs. Suborders are characterized by the gross morphology of the chelicera. Superfamilies and families are characterized by the use of a single character complex, specifically the structure and arrangement of the second through sixth pairs of prosomal appendages. Genera are recognized by more specific standards.

A new classification of the order Eurypterida is proposed. Three new superfamilies, Kokomopteroidea, Megalograptoidea, and Brachyopterelloidea, and five new families, Brachyopterellidae, Adelophthalmidae, Lanarkopteridae, Erieopteridae, and Hardieopteridae, are proposed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 63 , Issue 5 , September 1989 , pp. 642 - 657
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

Agassiz, L. 1844. Monographic des poissons fossils du Vieux Gres Rouge ou Systeme Devonian. Neufchatel, folio, 171 p.Google Scholar
Andrews, H. E., Brower, J. C., Gould, S. J., and Reyment, R. A. 1974. Growth and variation in Eurypterus remipes De Kay. Bulletin of the Geological Institutions of the University of Uppsala, N.S., 4:81–114.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1978. Multivariate analysis of allometry using point coordinates. Journal of Paleontology, 52:1037–1053.Google Scholar
Burmeister, H. 1843. Die Organisation der Trilobiten, aus ihren lebenden Verwandten entwickelt; nebst systematischen Uebersicht aller zeither beschriben Arten. G. Reimer, Berlin, 148 p.Google Scholar
Caster, K. E., and Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1953. Melbournopterus, a new Silurian eurypterid from Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 27:153–156.Google Scholar
Caster, K. E., and Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1955. (Untitled contributions). In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. P, Arthropoda 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Caster, K. E., and Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1964. Upper Ordovician eurypterids of Ohio. Palaeontographica Americana, 4(32):301–358.Google Scholar
Chernyshev, B. F. 1948. New representative of Merostomata from the Lower Carboniferous. State University of Kiev, Geological Collections, 2:119–130.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M., and Ruedemann, R. 1912. The Eurypterida of New York. New York State Museum Memoir No. 14, 439 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claypole, E. W. 1890. Carcinosoma newlini. American Geologist, 6:400.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1886. An interesting connecting genus of Chordata. American Naturalist, 20:1027–1031.Google Scholar
De Kay, J. E. 1825. Observations on a fossil crustaceous animal of the order Branchiopoda. Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural History, 1:375–377.Google Scholar
Diener, C. 1924. Fossilium Catalogus, I; Pars 25, Eurypterida. Berlin, 29 p.Google Scholar
Eichwald, E. 1860. Lethaea Rossica ou Paleontologie de la Russie; Volume 1, Seconde section de l'ancienne periode. Stuttgart, 681 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1859. Paleontology of New York, Volume 3, Containing descriptions and figures of the organic remains of the Lower Helderberg Group and the Oriskany Sandstones. Albany, New York, 532 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J., and Clarke, J. M. 1888. Paleontology of New York, Volume 7, Descriptions of the trilobites and other Crustacea of the Oriskany, Upper Helderberg, Hamilton, Portage, Chemung, and Catskill Groups. Albany, New York, 236 p.Google Scholar
Hammen, L. van der. 1977. A new classification of Chelicerata. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 51:307–319.Google Scholar
Holm, G. 1898. Ueber die organisation des Eurypterus fischeri Eichwald. Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, 8(2):1–57.Google Scholar
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (3rd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley, 338 p.Google Scholar
Jordan, H., and von Meyer, H. 1854. Ueber die Crustacean der Steinkohlen formation von Saarbrucken. Palaeontographica, 4:1–15.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1948. The Mazon Creek eurypterid; a revision of the genus Lepidoderma. Illinois State Museum, Science Papers, 3(4), 48 p.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1951. Downtonian (Silurian) Eurypterida from Perton, near Stoke Edith, Herefordshire. Geological Magazine, 88:1–24.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1955. Dorfopterus, a new genus of Eurypterida from the Devonian of Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology, 29:696–697.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1958a. Some previously unknown morphological structures of Carcinosoma newlini (Claypole). Journal of Paleontology, 32:295–303.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1958b. The genera, species and subspecies of the family Eurypteridae, Burmeister, 1845. Journal of Paleontology, 32:1107–1148.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1959. A taxonomic review of some late Paleozoic Eurypterida. Journal of Paleontology, 33:251–256.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1961a. Eurypterida of the Devonian Holland Quarry Shale of Ohio. Fieldiana, Geology, 14(5):79–98.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1961b. The Silurian Eurypterida of the Welsh Borderland. Journal of Paleontology, 35:789–835.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1963a. Revision of some Upper Devonian Stylonuridae (Eurypterida) from New York and Pennsylvania. Journal of Paleontology, 37:490–495.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1963b. Pennsylvanian invertebrates of the Mazon Creek area, Illinois, Eurypterida. Fieldiana, Geology, 12(6):85–106.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1964. A synopsis of the family Pterygotidae Clarke and Ruedemann, 1912 (Eurypterida). Journal of Paleontology, 38:331–361.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1966. A revision of the families and genera of the Stylonuracea (Eurypterida). Fieldiana, Geology, 14(9):169–197.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1971. A new Downtonian stylonurid from central England (Silurian, Eurypterida). Journal of Paleontology, 45:538–539.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1979a. Eurypterida, p. 121–136. In Jaanusson, V., Laufeld, S., and Skoglund, R. (eds.), Lower Wenlock faunal and floral dynamics, Vattenfallet section, Gotland. Sverige Geologiska Undersokning, Serie C NR 762, Arsbok 73 NR 3.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1979b. Eurypterida, p. 290–295. In Fairbridge, R. and Jablonski, D. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Paleontology. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., and Heubusch, C. A. 1962. Some Eurypterida from the Ordovician and Silurian of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 36:211–221.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., and Leutze, W. P. 1966. Eurypterida from the Silurian of West Virginia. Journal of Paleontology, 40:1109–1122.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., and Størmer, L. 1952. The Dolichopterus–Strobilopterus group in the Eurypterida. Journal of Paleontology, 26:659–661.Google Scholar
Latreille, P. A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, Generale et Particuliere des Crustaces et des Insectes; Volume 3, Families Naturelles et Genres. Dufart, Paris, 467 p.Google Scholar
Laurie, M. 1892. On some eurypterid remains from the Upper Silurian rocks of the Pentland Hills. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 37:151–162.Google Scholar
Leutze, W. P. 1961. Arthropods from the Syracuse Formation, Silurian of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 35:49–64.Google Scholar
Manton, S. M. 1969. Introduction to classification of Arthropoda, p. 3–15. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. R, Arthropoda 4(1). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Manton, S. M. 1977. The Arthropoda; Habits, Functional Morphology, and Evolution. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 527 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1874. Notes and description of Cincinnatian group fossils. Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science, 1:343–351.Google Scholar
Novojilov, N. I. 1959. Merostomates du devonien inferieur et moyen de Siberie. Annals Societie Geologie du Nord, 78:243–258.Google Scholar
Novojilov, N. I. 1962. Eurypterida, p. 404–423. In Fundamentals of Paleontology. Moscow.Google Scholar
Page, D. 1856. Advanced Text-book of Geology. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh, 326 p.Google Scholar
Plotnick, R. E. 1983. Patterns in the evolution of the eurypterids. Unpubl. , The University of Chicago, 411 p.Google Scholar
Ritchie, A. 1968. Lanarkopterus dolichoschelus (Størmer) gen nov., a mixopterid eurypterid from the Upper Silurian of the Lesmahagow and Hagshaw Hills inliers, Scotland. Scottish Journal of Geology, 4:317–338.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1921. A recurrent Pittsford (Salina) fauna. New York State Museum Bulletin, Nos. 219, 220, p. 205–215.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1935a. The eurypterids of Beartooth Butte, Wyoming. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 75:129–141.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R. 1935b. A review of the eurypterid rami of the genus Pterygotus, with the description of two new Devonian species. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 24:69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, J. W. 1859. On some species of Eurypterus; with notes on the distribution of the species. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 15:229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarle, C. J. 1903. A new eurypterid fauna from the base of the Salina in western New York. New York State Museum Bulletin, No. 69, p. 1080–1108.Google Scholar
Seldon, P. A. 1981. Functional morphology of the prosoma of Baltoeurypterus tetragonophthalmus (Fischer) (Chelicerata; Eurypterida). Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, 72:9–48.Google Scholar
Snell, W. H., and Dick, E. A. 1971. A Glossary of Mycology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 181 p.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1934a. Merostomata from the Downtonian Sandstones of Ringerike, Norway. Skrifter utgitt au Det Norske, Viddenskaps—Akademie i Oslo, I. Matem.-Naturvid, Klasse 1933, No. 10, 125 p.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1934b. Uber den neuen von W. Gross beschriben Eurypteriden aus dem Unterdevon von Overath im Rheinland. Jahrbuch der Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, 55:284–291.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1936. Eurypteriden aus dem Rheinland Unterdevon. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, Neue Folge, 175, 74 p.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1944. On the relationships and phylogeny of fossils and Recent Arachnomorpha; a comparative study of Arachnida, Xiphosura, Eurypterida, Trilobita, and other fossil Arthropoda. Skrifter utgitt au Det Norske, Videnskaps—Akademie i Oslo, I. Matem.-Naturvid, Klasse 1944, No. 5, 158 p.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1951. A new eurypterid from the Ordovician of Montgomeryshire, Wales. Geological Magazine, 88:409–422.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1955. Merostomata, p. 4–41. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. P, Arthropoda 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1959. Arthropoda—general features, p. 3–16. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. O, Arthropoda 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1969. Eurypterids from the Lower Devonian of Willwerath, Eifel. Senckenbergiana lethaea, 50:21–35.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1972. Arthropods from the Lower Devonian (Lower Emsian) of Aiken an der Mosel, Germany; Part 2, Xiphosura. Senckenbergiana lethaea, 52:1–29.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1973. Arthropods from the Lower Devonian (Lower Emsian) of Aiken an der Mosel, Germany; Part 3, Eurypterida, Hughmilleriidae. Senckenbergiana lethaea, 54:119–205.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1974. Arthropods from the Lower Devonian (Lower Emsian) of Alken an der Mosel, Germany; Part 4, Eurypterida, Drepanopteridae, and other groups. Senckenbergiana lethaea, 54:359–451.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. and Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1969. Sexual dimorphism in eurypterids, p. 201–214. In Westermann, G. E. G. (ed.), Sexual Dimorphism in Fossil Metazoa and Taxonomic Implications. International Union of Geological Sciences, Series A, No. 1.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., and Waterston, C. D. 1968. Cyrtoctenus gen nov., a large late Paleozoic arthropod with pectinate appendages. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 68:63–101.Google Scholar
Tollerton, V. P. Jr. 1987a. Taxonomy and classification of eurypterids; paradoxes and solutions. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 19(1):63.Google Scholar
Tollerton, V. P. Jr. 1987b. Distortion in eurypterids; criteria for recognition and its taxonomic significance. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 19(1):63.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1882. Description of a new genus of the order Eurypterida from the Utica Slate. American Journal of Science, 3rd Series, 23:213–216.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1957. The Scottish Carboniferous Eurypterida. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 63:265–288.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1960. The median abdominal appendage of the Silurian eurypterid Slimonia acuminata (Salter). Palaeontology, 3:245–259.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1962. Pagea sturrocki gen. et sp. nov., a new eurypterid from the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland. Palaeontology, 5:137–148.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1964. Observations on pterygotid eurypterids. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 66:2–33.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1968. Further observations on the Scottish Carboniferous eurypterids. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 68:1–20.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D. 1979. Problems of functional morphology and classification in stylonurid eurypterids (Chelicerata, Merostomata), with observations on the Scottish Stylonuroidea. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 70:251–322.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D., Oelofsen, B. W., and Oosthuizen, R. D. F. 1985. Cyrtoctenus wittebergensis sp. nov. (Chelicerata: Eurypterida), a large sweep-feeder from the Carboniferous of South Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 76:339–358.Google Scholar
White, D. 1908. Fossil flora of the Coal Measures of Brazil. Comm de Estudos des Mines de Caruao de Pedra do Brazil (Final Report by I. C. White), p. 337–617.Google Scholar
Wills, L. J. 1964. The ventral anatomy of the Upper Carboniferous eurypterid Anthraconectes Meek and Worthen. Palaeontology, 7:474–507.Google Scholar