Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:03:26.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the morphology and affinities of cornulitids from the Ordovician of Anticosti Island and the Silurian of Gotland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2017

Olev Vinn  and
Harry Mutvei
Olev Vinn
Affiliation:
Institute of Geology, University of Tartu, 51014 Tartu, Estonia,
Harry Mutvei
Affiliation:
Department of Palaeozoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The following differences were found between the members of the cornulitids, Cornulites and Conchicolites. Both genera have egg-shaped embryonic shells, which presumably calcified after the settling of Iarva to the substrate, but the embryonic shells in Cornulites are larger than in Conchicolites. Cornulites has a regularly foliated shell ultrastructure and pseudopuncta, whereas the shell ultrastructure in Conchicolites is prismatic. In Cornulites the outer part of the shell contains numerous vesicular cavities that were never observed to cross the interspaces of the surface annulae, indicating cyclic shell secretion. In several species the vesicles are internally coated by calcitic lamellae that are oriented subparallel to the shell surface. In Conchicolites the vesicular shell structure is absent and the calcitic prisms are deposited at the shell aperture more or less at right angles to the longitudinal shell axis. The function of the surface annulae in Cornulites and transverse ridges in Conchicolites may have been to strengthen the shell wall and protect it against longitudinally developing cracks. Vesicular structure in Cornulites seems to have provided a stronger shell for less material and smaller cost of energy. Differences between Cornulites and Conchicolites indicate that the two taxa were probably unrelated and that cornulitids may be a polyphyletic taxon. Cornulites shares the most characters with the lophoporates and tentaculitids. Biological affinities of Conchicolites are controversial, and its morphologic features need further revision to affiliate this group with certainty to any extant animal phylum.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , July 2005 , pp. 726 - 737
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

Bather, F. A. 1923. The shell of Cornulites . Geological Magazine, 60:542–545.Google Scholar
Blind, W. 1972. The systematic position of cornulitids based on investigations of the structure of the shell. 24th International Geological Congress, Section 7, Montreal, Canada, p. 5–7.Google Scholar
Bouček, B. 1964. The Tentaculites of Bohemia. Publication of Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences, Prague, 125 p.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G., Bandel, K., de Buffrėnil, V., Carlson, S. J., Castanet, J., Crenshaw, M. A., Dalingwater, J. E., Francillion-Vieillot, H., Gradie, J., Meunier, F. J., Mutvei, H., de Riqls, A., Sire, J. Y., Smith, A. B., Wendt, J., Williams, A., and Zylberberg, L. 1990. Glossary of skeletal biomineralization, p. 609–671. In Carter, J. G. (ed.), Skeletal Biomineralization: Patterns, Processes and Evolutionary Trends. Volume I. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Carthew, R. 1988. Palaeoecology of encrusting faunas from the Silurian of Gotland, Sweden. , , p. 94.Google Scholar
Dzik, J. 1991. Possible solitary bryozoan ancestor from the early Palaeozoic and the affinities of the Tentaculita, p. 121–131. In Bigey, F. P. and d'Hondt, J.-L. (eds.), Bryozoaires actuels et fossiles: Bryozoa Living and Fossil. Societe des Sciences Naturelles de l'Ouest de la France, Memoire hors, serie 1.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. W. 1962. Small conoidal shells of uncertain affinities, p. 130–143. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. W. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Gnoli, M. 1992. The problematic organism Kolihaia sardiniensis new sp. of the latest Wenlock–earliest Ludlow of Southwest Sardinia. Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 31:383–395.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Paleontology of New York. Volume 1. C. van Benthysen, Albany, p. 92.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1888. Tubicolar Annelida. Natural History of New York; Palaeontology. Volume 7. Geological Survey, Albany, New York, 278 p.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., and Dattilo, B. F. 2001. The detection and importance of subtle biofacies within a single lithofacies: the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios, 16:205–217.Google Scholar
Kayser, E. 1881. Mittheilungen über die Fauna des chinesischen Kohlenkalks von Lo-Ping. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 33:351–352.Google Scholar
Kriz, J., Fryda, J., and Galle, A. 2001. The epiplanktic anthozoan, Kolihaia eremita Prantl, 1946 (Cnidaria), from the Silurian of the Prague Basin (Bohemia). Journal of the Czech Geological Society, 46:239–245.Google Scholar
Larsson, K. 1979a. Cornulitids, p. 208–210. In Jaanusson, V. et al. (eds.), Lower Wenlock faunal and floral dynamics. Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, serie C762.Google Scholar
Larsson, K. 1979b. Silurian tentaculitids from Gotland and Scania. Fossil and Strata, 11:1–180.Google Scholar
Lebold, J. G. 2000. Quantitative analysis of epizoans on Silurian stromatoporoids within the Brassfield Formation. Journal of Paleontology, 74:394–403.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1874. Description of new species of fossils. Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science, 1:234–235.Google Scholar
Morris, R. W., and Felton, S. H. 2003. Paleoecologic Associations and Secondary Tiering of Cornulites on Crinoids and Bivalves in the Upper Ordovician (Cincinnatian) of southwestern Ohio, southeastern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. Palaios, 18:546–558.Google Scholar
Morris, R. W., and Rollins, H. B. 1971. The distribution and paleoecological interpretation of Cornulites in the Waynesville Formation (Upper Ordovician) of southern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, 71:159–170.Google Scholar
Muir-Wood, H., and Williams, A. 1965. Strophomenida, p. H462. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, Brachiopoda. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Murchison, R. I. 1839. The Silurian System. London, John Murray, Albemarle Street, 768 p.Google Scholar
Neff, J. M. 1971. Ultrastructural studies of the secretion of calcium carbonate by the serpulid polychaete worm, Pomatoceras caeruleus . Zeitschrift Zellforschung, 120:160–186.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. 1872a. On the genera Cornulites and Tentaculites and a new genus Conchicolites . American Journal of Science, 3:202–206.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. 1872b. Ortonia, a new genus of fossil tubicolar annelides. Geological Magazine, 9:446–449.Google Scholar
Nott, J. A., and Parkes, K. R. 1975. Calcium accumulation and secretion in the serpulid polychaete Spirorbis spirorbis L. at settlement. Journal Marine Biological Association (U.K.), 55:911–923.Google Scholar
Okoshi, K., and Sato-Okoshi, W. 1996. Biomineralisation in molluscan aquaculture Growth and disease. Bulletin de l'Institut ocėanographique, Monaco no spėcial 14, 4:151–169.Google Scholar
Pillet, J. 1956. Sur deux especes d'Annelides tubicolese du Devonien armoricain. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France, 6:839–846.Google Scholar
Prantl, F. 1944. Kolihaia eremita n.gen. n.sp., a new tubicolar annelid from the Silurian of Bohemia. Vestnik Kralovska Ceska Spolecnost Nauk, 24.Google Scholar
Richards, P. R. 1974. Ecology of the Cornulitidae. Journal of Paleontology, 48:514–523.Google Scholar
Robison, R. A. (ed.). 1983. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. G, Bryozoa. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 625 p.Google Scholar
Ross, J. P. 1967. Fossil problematica from the Upper Ordovician, Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 41:37–42.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B. 1984. Crystallography of the foliated calcite shell layers of bivalve molluscs. Alcheringa, 8:273–290.Google Scholar
Schlotheim, E. F. von. 1820. Die Petrefakten-Kunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch die Beshreibung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler Ueberreste des their-und Planzenreichs der Vorwelt erlaeutert. Gotha, 437 p.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. 1858. Untersuchungen über die Silurische Formation von Ehstland, Nord-Livland und Oesel. Archiv für die Naturkunde Liv-, Ehst- und Kurlands, erster serie, Bd. II, p. 1–248.Google Scholar
Schumann, D. 1967. Die lebenweise von Mucrospirifer Grabau, 1931 (Brachiopoda). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 4:29–285.Google Scholar
Simkiss, K., and Wilbur, K. M. 1989. Biomineralization: Cell Biology and Mineral Deposition. Academic Press, San Diego, p. 190–204.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1971. Oysters, p. N986–N989. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, Mollusca 6, Volume 3 (of 3) Bivalvia. The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Towe, K. M. 1978. Tentaculites: evidence for brachiopod affinity? Science, 201:626–628.Google Scholar
Twenhofel, W. H. 1927. Geology of Anticosti Island. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir, 154:141–142.Google Scholar
Vine, G. R. 1882. Notes on the Annelida Tubicola of the Wenlock Shales, from the washings of Mr. George Maw. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 39:377–393.Google Scholar
Watkins, R., and McGee, P. E. 1997. Secondary tiering among Silurian epibionts in the Waldron Shale, Indiana, USA. PaleoBios, 18:1–4.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Brunton, C. H. C., and MacKinnon, D. I. 1997. Morphology, p. 321–422. In Kaesler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, Brachiopoda. Volume 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Witmer, L. M. 1979. Host preference by the Mid-Devonian (Moscow Shale) epizoans Hederella filiformis, Aulopora elleri, Spirorbis sp., and Cornulites sp. Cornell Journal of Biological Science, 79:21–28.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D. 1981. The external surface of Dictyonella and of other pitted brachiopods. Palaeontology, 24:443–481.Google Scholar