Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:58:11.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical taxonomy of fenestrate bryozoans: evaluation of methodologies and recognition of intraspecific variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

E. J. Holdener
E. J. Holdener*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Species-level taxonomy of fenestrate cryptostome bryozoans has been greatly advanced by a recent study of the fenestrate fauna of the Warsaw Formation (Osage–Meramecian) of the Mississippi Valley; subsequent quantitative analysis placed the earlier research on a sound statistical basis. Reproducibility of these results is tested here, and it is demonstrated that subsequent researchers can duplicate earlier data collection and results. The methodology is then extended in space and time to a second fenestrate faunule (Virgilian of east-central Kansas); morphs within two traditionally defined fenestrate species are successfully distinguished.

Lithologic characteristics of the two Virgilian study units suggest differences in depositional environments between the horizons and therefore simple ecophenotypy and intraspecific variation cannot be dismissed. However, chamber dimensions, which provide the most sensitive characters for taxonomic discrimination, change in parallel for the two species, whereas exterior skeletal dimensions, which would presumably respond more readily to microenvironmental fluctuations, vary nonsystematically between populations. These results provide a starting point for the evaluation of morphologic change within fenestrates through stratigraphic and paleoenvironmental sequences. Cumulative data sets spanning long time intervals would allow evaluations of evolutionary histories among members of this important Paleozoic clade.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 68 , Issue 6 , November 1994 , pp. 1201 - 1214
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

Astrova, G. G., and Morozova, I. P. 1956. Systematics of Bryozoa of the order Cryptostomata. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 110:661–664.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B. 1983. The order Cryptostomata, p. 440–452. In Robison, R. A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. G Revised. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1926. Studies on recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zoologiska Bidrag från Uppsala, 10:181–504.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1986. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: rates of morphologic change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology, 12:190–202.Google Scholar
Cisne, J. L., Molenock, J., and Rube, B. D. 1980. Evolution in a cline: the trilobite Triarthrus along an Ordovician depth gradient. Lethaia, 13:47–59.Google Scholar
Condra, G. E. 1903. The Coal Measure Bryozoa of Nebraska. Nebraska Geological Survey, 2:11–163.Google Scholar
Crockford, J. M. 1944. Bryozoa from the Wandagee and Noonkanbah Series (Permian) of western Australia. Journal of Proceedings from the Royal Society of West Australia, 28:165–185.Google Scholar
Cuffey, R. J. 1967. Bryozoan Tabulipora carbonaria in Wreford Megacyclothem (Lower Permian) of Kansas. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions 1, 96 p.Google Scholar
Cuffey, R. J., and Pachut, J. F. 1990. Clinal morphological variation along a depth gradient in the living scleractinian reef coral Favia pallida: effects on perceived evolutionary tempos in the fossil record. Palios, 5:580–588.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1831. Symbolae Physicae, seu lcones et descriptones Corporum Naturalium vovorum aut minus cognitorum, quae ex itineribus per Libyam, Aegyptum, Nubiam, Dongalam, Syriam, Arabiam et Habessimiam … studio annis 1820–1825 rederunt …. Pars Zoologica, 11:306–334.Google Scholar
Elias, M. K. 1937. Stratigraphic significance of some late Paleozoic fenestrate bryozoans. Journal of Paleontology, 11:306–334.Google Scholar
Elias, M. K., and Condra, G. E. 1957. Fenestella from the Permian of West Texas. Geological Society of America, Memoir 70, 158 p.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1887. Flint Ridge Bryozoa. Denison University Scientific Laboratories Bulletin, 2:71–88.Google Scholar
Hageman, S. J. 1987. Concepts and methods for taxonomic analysis of fenestrate Bryozoa. Unpubl. . University of Illinois, Urbana, 189 p.Google Scholar
Hageman, S. J. 1988. Image processing and analysis with microcomputers. Journal of Paleontology, 62:474–477.Google Scholar
Hageman, S. J. 1991. Approaches to systematics and evolutionary studies of perplexing groups: an example using fenestrate Bryozoa. Journal of Paleontology, 65:630–647.Google Scholar
Heckel, P. H. 1986. Sea-level curve for Pennsylvanian eustatic marine transgressive-regressive depositional cycles along Midcontinent outcrop belt, North America. Geology, 4:330–334.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H. 1990. Evolutionary significance of morphospecies: a test with cheilostome Bryozoa. Science, 248:579–583.Google Scholar
King, W. 1850. The Permian Fossils of England. Palaeontographical Society, London, 258 p.Google Scholar
Lazarus, D. B. 1983. Speciation in pelagic Protista and its study in the planktonic microfossil record: a review. Paleobiology, 9:327–340.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. 1839. Corals, p. 675–694. In Murchison, R. I. (ed.), The Silurian System, Part II—Organic Remains. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Kriz, J. 1986. Lower Devonian Fenestrata (Bryozoa) of the Prague Basin, Barrandian area, Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Fieldiana, Geology New Series No. 15, 90 p.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Boardman, R. S. 1985. Zooidal biometry of Stenolaemata, p. 193–203. In Nielsen, C. and Larwood, G. P. (eds.), Bryozoa: Ordovician to Recent. Olsen and Olsen, Fredensborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1930. New species of bryozoans from the Pennsylvanian of Texas. Denison University Scientific Laboratories Bulletin, 25:147–163.Google Scholar
Morozova, I. P. 1974. Revision of the bryozoan genus Fenestella. Paleontologichesky Zhurnal, 3:54–67.Google Scholar
Newton, G. B. 1971. Rhabdomesoid bryozoans of the Wreford Megacyclothem (Wolfcampian, Permian) of Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 56 (Bryozoa, 2):1–71.Google Scholar
Nickles, J. M., and Bassler, R. S. 1900. A synopsis of American fossil Bryozoa. U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 173, 663 p.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. D. d' 1848–1852. Prodrome de paleontologie stratigraphique: Paleozoic–Triassic–Jurassic (1849), p. 1–394; Jurassic–Cretaceous–Tertiary (1852), p. 1–427; Tertiary (1852), p. 1–196. Victor Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Ozawa, T. 1975. Evolution of Lepidolina multiseptata (Permian foraminifer) in East Asia. Memoir of Faculty of Science of Kyusha University, Series D Geology, 23:117–164.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F., and Cuffey, R. J. 1991. Clinal variation, intraspecific heterochrony, and microevolution in the Permian bryozoan Tabulipora carbonaria. Lethaia, 24:165–185.Google Scholar
Shulga-Nesterenko, M. I. 1951. Carboniferous fenestellids of the Russian Platform. Akademiya Nauk SSSR Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, 32:3–156.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. M. 1984. Taxonomy, functional morphology, and paleoecology of the Fenestellidae and Polyporidae (Fenestelloidea, Bryozoa) of the Warsaw Formation (Valmeyeran, Mississippian) of the Mississippi Valley. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana, 802 p.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. M. 1991. Revised taxonomic procedures and paleoecological applications for some North American Mississippian Fenestellidae and Polyproidae (Bryozoa). Palaeontographica Americana, 57.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., and Yang, X. 1987. Approximate evolutionary stasis for bivalve morphology over millions of years: a multivariate, multilineage study. Paleobiology, 13:113–139.Google Scholar
Vine, R. G. 1884. Fourth report of the committee consisting of Dr. H. C. Sorby and Mr. G. R. Vine, appointed for the purpose of reporting on fossil Bryozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science, 53d Meeting (Southport, 1883):161–209, John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1977. Feeding in marine bryozoans, p. 233–271. In Woollacott, R. M. and Zimmer, R. L. (eds.), Biology of Bryozoans. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar