Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T05:18:31.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The paleobiology and ontogeny of Cincinnaticrinus varibrachialus Warn and Strimple, 1977 from the Middle Ordovician (Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The lichenocrinid holdfast of Cincinnaticrinus varibrachialus Warn and Strimple, 1977 was attached to a variety of hard objects, i.e., crinoid stems, twig-shaped and flat bryozoans, brachiopods, bivalves, cephalopod shells, trilobites, and phosphate nodules, throughout life. This represents an adaptation to a soft substrate and most individuals are found in carbonate or carbonate-clay muds that were deposited in moderately deep and quiet water. Evidence from living and fossil crinoids suggests that the cincinnaticrinid column either required little nourishment from the crown or it may even have been metabolically self sustaining. The food-gathering system mainly needs to supply the energy needs of the crown with little or no contribution to the stem. Very likely, this applies to many crinoids. Consequently, it is appropriate to analyze the food gathering system with respect to the crown volume as a size parameter.

The aboral cup grows slowly compared to the arms. Brachs and ramulars show little shape change. Length of the column is augmented by formation of new columnals and size increase of old ones at all growth stages. Virtually all new columnals form by intercalation between older plates rather than being initiated immediately below the aboral cup. Most size-related variables in the arms are characterized by positive allometry relative to crown volume. New arm branches develop continuously. Likewise, new brachs and ramulars appear at the distal tips of all arms. This plate supply rate along with deposition of calcite on old arm plates produces an exponentially increasing growth rate for total length of the arms. Food-gathering capacity equals the number of food-catching tubefeet times the average food groove width. Due to the positive allometry of the size of the arms, the ratio of food-gathering capacity:crown volume is constant regardless of size so the capacity of the food-gathering system keeps pace with the tissue that must be fed. However, the average food groove width only changes slightly so that youngsters and adults ate food particles of about the same size.

Variation in number of brachs in the arms of C. varibrachialus is comparable to that of many Ordovician cladids. Specimens of C. varibrachialus from the Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio, area possess more numerous primibrachs than animals from the Walcott-Rust Quarry, although the two populations overlap greatly. Intercalated brachs are known in the midcontinent crinoids but not in the New York specimens. The basic arm structure, cup and crown shapes, ornamentation, and the morphology of the columnals and the holdfast of all crinoids are identical and the midcontinent and New York suites of crinoids are considered conspecific.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 152 - 174
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

Amemiya, S., and Oji, T., 1992. Regeneration in sea lillies. Nature, 357:546–547.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1996. Crinoid plate circlet homologies. Journal of Paleontology, 70:955–964.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Column regeneration in an Ordovician crinoid (Echinodermata): paleobiologic implications. Journal of Paleontology, 67:1068–1070.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 19:304–321.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1997. Crinoid functional morphology. Paleontological Society Papers, 3:45–68.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1857. New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada. Canada Geological Survey Report of Progress 1853–1856, Report for the year 1856, p. 247–345.Google Scholar
Billings, W. R. 1887. A new genus and three new species of crinoids from the Trenton Formation with notes on a large specimen of Dendrocrinus proboscidiatus. The Ottawa Naturalist, 1:49–54.Google Scholar
Binyon, J. 1972. Physiology of echinoderms. International Series of Monographs in Pure and Applied Biology, 49. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 264 p.Google Scholar
Birenheide, R., and Motokawa, T. 1996. Contractile connective tissue in crinoids. Biological Bulletin, 191:1–4.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1999. Middle Ordovician Trenton Group of New York, USA, p. 63–67. In Hess, H., Ausich, W. I., Brett, C. E., and Simms, M. J. (eds.), Fossil Crinoids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Whiteley, T. E., Allison, P. A., and Yochelson, E. L. 1999. The Walcott-Rust Quarry: Middle Ordovician trilobite Konservat-Lagerstätten. Journal of Paleontology, 73:288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1978. Postlarval ontogeny of fossil crinoids, camerates, p. T244–T263. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992a. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992b. Hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:973–993.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1994. Camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 68:570–599.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1995. Eoparisocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 69:351–366.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2002a. Cupulocrinus angustatus (Meek and Worthen), a cladid crinoid from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the northern midcontinent. Journal of Paleontology, 76:109–122.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2002b. Quintuplexacrinus, a new cladid crinoid genus from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the northern midcontinent of the United States. Journal of Paleontology, 76:993–1006.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Kile, K. M. 1994. Paleoautecology and ontogeny of Cupulocrinus levorsoni Kolata, a Middle Ordovician crinoid from the Guttenberg Formation of Wisconsin, p. 25–44. In Landing, E. (ed.), Studies in Stratigraphy and Paleontology in Honor of Donald W. Fisher. New York State Museum Bulletin, 481.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1986. Pelmatozoan columnals from the Ordovician of the British Isles, Part 1. Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, 138(568):1–68.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K., and Schmidt, D. A. 2001. Survival of crinoid stems following decapitation: evidence from the Ordovician and palaeobiological implications. Lethaia, 34:263–270.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D., and Brett, C. E. 1985. Taxonomy and paleoecology of the Silurian myelodactylid crinoid Crinobrachiatus brachiatus (Hall). Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Contributions, 141, 15 p.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D., and Brett, C. E. 2001. Early Silurian (Llandovery) crinoids from the Lower Clinton Group, western New York State. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 360, 88 p.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41:587–640.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 498 p.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., and Sprinkle, J. 2003. The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician, Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 364, 43 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New York, Volume 1, containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower division of the New-York system (equivalent of the Lower Silurian rocks of Europe). Natural History of New York, Part 6. D. Appleton & Company and Wiley & Putnam, New York, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1852. Palaeontology of New York, Volume 2, containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower middle division of the New-York system. Natural History of New York, Part 6. D. Appleton & Company and Wiley and Putnam, New York, 362 p.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. H. 1918. Some structural features of a fossil embryo crinoid. New York State Museum Bulletin, 196:161–163.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. M., and Lane, J. M. 1982. The utilization of nutrients by post-metamorphic echinoderms, p. 331–371. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G. 1997. Living comatulids. Paleontological Society Papers, 3:3–30.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Marine Biology, 51:361–369.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1997. Implications of research on living stalked crinoids for paleobiology. Paleontological Society Papers, 3:31–43.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F. 2002. Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview Formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region. Journal of Paleontology, 76:725–732.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1880. Description of four new species and a new variety of Silurian fossils, and remarks upon others. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 3:232–236.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962. Ray structures of some inadunate crinoids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 5, 47 p.Google Scholar
Oji, T., and Amemiya, S. 1998. Survival of crinoid stalk fragments and its taphonomic implications. Paleontological Research, 2:67–70.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1997. Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment (fifth edition). Cambridge University Press, New York, 607 p.Google Scholar
Simms, M. J. 1993. Reinterpretation of thecal plate homology and phylogeny in the class Crinoidea. Lethaia, 26:303–312.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. 1977. A method for testing the distinctness of clusters: a test of the disjunction of two clusters in euclidean space as measured by their overlap. Mathematical Geology, 9:123–143.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical Methods (seventh edition). Iowa State University Press, Ames, 507 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton echinoderm fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario. Canada Geological Survey Memoir, 15-P, 50 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Institution Publication, 2501:1–486.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L., and Frest, T. J. 1979. Points of regeneration and partial regeneration of the column of Euonychocrinus simplex (Crinoidea: Flexibilia). Journal of Paleontology, 53:216–220.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L., and Moore, R. C. 1971. Crinoids of the LaSalle Limestone (Pennsylvanian) of Illinois. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Article 55 (Echinodermata 11), 48 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1969. Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs, n. gen., n. sp., le plus ancien crinoïde dicyclique connu. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, 38, 25 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1882. Description of two new species of crinoids. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 5:175–177.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1884. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Trenton Group of New York. New York State Museum of Natural History Annual Report, 35:207–214.Google Scholar
Warn, J. M. 1973. The Ordovician crinoid Heterocrinus, with reference to brachial variability in H. tenuis. . Journal of Paleontology, 47:10–18.Google Scholar
Warn, J. M., and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate super-families Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician-Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72:1–138.Google Scholar
Weaver, T. W. 1976. Adaptive strategies of disparid inadunate crinoids of the type Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician). Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 8:516–517.Google Scholar
White, C. A. 1880. Fossils of the Indiana rocks. Indiana Department of Statistics & Geology Annual Report, 2:471–522.Google Scholar