Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:57:07.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plating and pectinirhombs of the Ordovician rhombiferan Plethoschisma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Colin D. Sumrall  and
James Sprinkle
Colin D. Sumrall
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin 78712
James Sprinkle
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin 78712
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When first described, Plethoschisma grandis was thought to have an unusual plating arrangement compared to other pleurocystitids, although the ventral surface was largely unknown. New specimens showing more of the ventral surface indicate that Plethoschisma has very similar ventral plating to Deltacystis and that four of the original dorsal plate designations of Plethoschisma were incorrect. A new subfamily, Deltacystinae, is erected to receive the two similarly plated genera. The pectinirhombs of Plethoschisma are reinterpreted as confluent and in the B2/IL2 and IL3/L4 positions, and one of the new specimens has the largest pectinirhomb and greatest number of dichopores of any known glyptocystitid. A phylogenetic analysis of the Pleurocystitidae reveals that the Deltacystinae, new subfamily, is the sister group to the Pleurocystitinae, new subfamily, and that pectinirhombs apparently evolved independently in the Pleurocystitidae and the Cheirocrinidae.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , July 1995 , pp. 772 - 778
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. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science, Report for 1898:916–923.Google Scholar
Broadhead, T. W., and Strimple, H. L. 1975. Respiration in a vagrant Ordovician cystoid, Amecystis . Paleobiology, 1:312–319.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M. 1991. Discriminating between phylogenetic signal and random noise in DNA sequences, p. 278–294. In Miyamoto, M. M. and Cracraft, J. (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences. Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillis, D. M., and Bull, J. J. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology, 42:182–192.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1991. Tree-length distribution skewness: an indicator of phylogenetic information. Systematic Zoology, 40:257–270.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1899. Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen. I. Thecoidea und Cystoidea. Julius Springer, Berlin, 442 p.Google Scholar
Johns, R. A. 1994. Ordovician lithistid sponges of the Great Basin. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 94–1, 199 p.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P., Donoghue, M. J., and Maddison, D. R. 1984. Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Systematic Zoology, 33:83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsley, R. L. 1970. Revision of the North American Pleurocystitidae (Rhombifera-Cystoidea). Bulletins of American Paleontology, 58:135–213.Google Scholar
Parsley, R. L. 1982. Pleurocystitids, p. 274–279. In Sprinkle, J. (ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contribution, Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1967. The functional morphology and mode of life of the cystoid Pleurocystites E. Billings, 1854, p. 105–123. In Milot, E. (ed.), Echinoderm Biology, Symposium of the Zoological Society of London, Number 20.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1968. Morphology and function of dichoporite pore-structures in cystoids. Palaeontology, 11:697–730.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1984. British Ordovician Cystoids, part 2. Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, London, p. 65–152.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1974. New rhombiferan cystoids from the Middle Ordovician of Nevada. Journal of Paleontology, 48:1174–1201.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1989. Origin of the echinoderm class Rhombifera based on new Early Ordovician discoveries from the Rocky Mountains. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 21(6):A114.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., and Wahlman, G. P. 1994. New echinoderms from the Early Ordovician of west Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 68:324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1990. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.0. Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O., and Kirk, E. 1921. Amecystis, a new genus of Ordovician Cystidea. Biological Society of Washington, Proceedings, 34:147–148.Google Scholar
Zittel, K. A. 1879. Protozoa, Coelenterata, Echinodermata, and Molluscoidea. Handbuch der Paläontologie, Band 1, Paläozoologie. Munich and Leipzig, 765 p.Google Scholar