Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:42:19.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phylogeny of calceocrinid crinoids (Paleozoic: Echinodermata): Biogeography and mosaic evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Erik W. Harvey  and
William I. Ausich
Erik W. Harvey
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, 125 South Oval Mall, Columbus, 43210
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, 125 South Oval Mall, Columbus, 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A structured evolutionary pattern emerges from cladistic and stratocladistic analyses of the Calceocrinidae (Echinodermata). These Paleozoic disparid crinoids were dominated by three long-ranging genera, and other genera were derived during endemic radiations in North America and in Europe. Calceocrinid evolution was highly mosaic, including the repetition of morphological transitions, numerous character reversals, and evolutionary independence of characters.

As a family, the calceocrinids make up a highly derived, unique family because the crown is bilaterally symmetrical, is reflexed onto the stem by a hinge between the radial and basal circlets, and was normally situated just above the substratum. The analysis included 23 genera with 17 characters; three were coded as ordered based on previously observed evolutionary trends. Standard cladistic analysis yielded a total of 17,000 equally parsimonious trees. The addition of stratigraphic data through the use of stratocladistic methodology reduced this number to 16 equally parsimonious trees.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , March 1997 , pp. 299 - 305
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

Angelin, N. P. 1878. Iconographia crinoideum in stratis Sueciae Siluricis fossilium. Samson and Wallin, Stockholm, 62 p.Google Scholar
Arendt, YU A. 1965. K poznaniyu morskikh lilii kaltseokrinid (Contributions to the knowledge of crinoids from the family Calceocrinidae). Paleontologichekii Zhurnal, 1:89–96.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1984. Calceocrinids from the Early Silurian (Llandoverian) Brassfield Formation of southwestern Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 58:1341–1346.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1987. Paleoecology and history of the Calceocrinidae (Paleozoic: Crinoidea). Palaeontology, 29:85–99.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Kammer, T. W. 1990. Systematics and phylogeny of the late Osagean and Meramecian crinoids Platycrinites and Eucladocrinus from the Mississippian stratotype region. Journal of Paleontology, 64:759–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenbender, B. E. 1994. Stratocladistic reconstruction of blastoid evolutionary history. Geological Society of America, Program with Abstracts, 26(7):427 Google Scholar
Breimer, A., and Webster, G. D. 1975. A further contribution to the paleoecology of fossil stalked crinoids. Processen Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B, 78:149–167.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1981. Systematics and paleoecology of Late Silurian (Wenlockian) calceocrinid crinoids from New York and Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 55:145–175.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1984. Autecology of Silurian pelmetozoan echinoderms, p. 87–120. In Lassett, M. G., and Lawson, J. D. (eds.), Autecology of Silurian Organisms. Palaeontology Special Paper, 32.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1966. Functional morphology of Calceocrinidae with descriptions of some new species. Journal of Paleontology, 40:613–634.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1977. Calceocrinids from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of southern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular, 78, 18 p.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D. 1984. Early Llandovery crinoids and stelleroids from the Cataract Group (Lower Silurian), southeastern Ontario, Canada. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Contributions, 141, 15 p.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1988. Stratocladistics: integrating stratigraphic and morphologic data in phylogenetic inference. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 20(7):A186.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis and its application in evolutionary paleobiology, p. 103–122. In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W. (eds.), Analytical Paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology, 4, Paleontological Society.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1992. Stratigraphic Parsimony, p. 124–129. In Maddison, W. P. and Maddison, D. R., MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution. Version 3.01 Sinauer Associates, Suderland Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1994. Stratocladistics: morphological and temporal patterns and their relation to phylogenetic process, p. 133–171. In Grande, L. and Rieppel, O. (eds.), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature: from Systematic Patterns to Evolutionary Process Theories. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1852. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower middle division of the New York system. Palaeontology of New York, 2:1–362.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmetozoen. Paläontologische Zeitschift, 3:1–128.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V., and Sigler, J. P. 1969. Cunctocrinus, a new Middle Devonian calceocrinid crinoid from the Silica Shale of Ohio. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology The University of Michigan, 22:339–360.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P., and Maddison, D. R. 1992. MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution. Version 3.01 Sinauer Associates, Suderland Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962. Revision of Calceocrinidae. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata Article, 4, 40 p.Google Scholar
Prick, R. 1983. Inadunate Crinoiden aus dem Mittel Devon der Eifel. Senckerbergiana Lethaea, 64:227–235.Google Scholar
Prokop, R. J. 1970. Family Calceocrinidae Meek and Worthen, 1869 (Crinoidea) in the Silurian and Devonian of Bohemia. Sborník Geologických ved Paleontologie, rada P sv, 12:79–134.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, W. H. C. 1960. A monograph on British Ordovician Crinoidea. Palaeontographical Society, 114:1–37.Google Scholar
Rowell, A. J. 1969. Numerical methods and phylogeny of the Calceocrinidae. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, 1:229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, W. E. 1934. Die Crinoideen des rheinischen Devons, Teil 1, Die Crinoideen des Hunsrückschiefers. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Geologischen Landersanstalt, Neue Folge, Heft 163, 149 p.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1963. Crinoids of the Hunton Group. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin, 100, 169 p.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1993. PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony. Version 3.1.1. Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Ill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1886. Remarks upon the names Cheirocrinus and Calceocrinus, with descriptions of three new generic terms and one new species. Minnesota Geology and Natural History Survey Annual Report, 14:104–113.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1976. A new genus of calceocrinid from Spain with comments on mosaic evolution. Palaeontology, 19:481–688.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O., Siegel-Causey, D., Brooks, D. R., and Funk, V. A. 1991. The Complete Cladist: a Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication, 19, Lawrence, Kansas, 158 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar