Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:57:57.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance to and repair of shell breakage induced by durophages in Late Ordovician brachiopods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

Richard R. Alexander
Richard R. Alexander*
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Rider College, P.O. Box 6400, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Repaired shell breakage in Late Ordovician brachiopods from the Cincinnatian Series in the tri-state area of Indiana-Kentucky-Ohio may be described in increasing order of severity as scalloped, divoted, cleft and embayed. Concavo-convex brachiopod taxa display disproportionately higher frequencies of shell repair assigned to each category, whereas inflated, biconvex, plicate, sulcate taxa display disproportionately lower frequencies of shell repair. Certain plicate biconvex taxa lack examples of cleft and embayed valves. Plano-convex and dorsi-biconvex, costate taxa showed intermediate frequencies of shell repair, but lack representatives of embayed valves. Selective pressure for evolution of morphologic characters resistant to shell breakage may have favored phyletic trends of increasing size, geniculation and progressive development of a commissural ridge around the lophophore platform of the interior of the concave brachial valve of Leptaena and Rafinesquina. Size-frequency distributions for repaired and undamaged valves provide equivocal evidence of a size refuge from predator-induced shell breakage in Rafinesquina. Among the contemporaneous, potentially durophagous predators, nautiloids probably inflicted the sublethal injuries sustained by the brachiopods. The incriminating evidence includes a fragment of a crushing element imbedded in a valve of Rafinesquina that bears a very striking resemblance to calcified rhyncholites of Mesozoic to Recent nautiloids.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , March 1986 , pp. 273 - 285
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

Alexander, R. R. 1975. Phenotypic lability of the brachiopod Rafinesquina alternata (Ordovician) and its correlation with the sedimentologic regime. Journal of Paleontology, 49:607–618.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. R. 1981. Predation scars preserved in Chesterian brachiopods: probable culprits and evolutionary consequences for the articulates. Journal of Paleontology, 55:192–203.Google Scholar
Beale, R. R., Kertes, R. S. and Alexander, R. R. 1983. Morphologic trends in the anterior profile and ornamentation of Carodocian through Famennian articulate brachiopods. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 15:524.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. W. and Newell, N. D. 1972. Taphonomy and diagenesis of a Permian fossil assemblage from Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology, 46:1–17.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C. 1966. Predation and shell damage in a Visean brachiopod fauna. Paleontology, 9:355–359.Google Scholar
Cadee, G. C. 1968. Molluscan biocoenoses and thanatocoenoses in the Mia de Arosa, Galica, Spain. Zoologische Verhandlungen, 95, 121 p.Google Scholar
Carter, R. M. 1968. On the biology and palaeontology of some predators of bivalved Mollusca. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 4:29–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caster, K. E., Dalve, E. A. and Pope, J. K. 1955. Elementary guide to the fossils and strata of the Ordovician in the vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, 47 p.Google Scholar
Caster, K. E. and Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N. 1964. Upper Ordovician eurypterids of Ohio. Palaeontographica Americana, 32:301–342.Google Scholar
Elner, R. W. and Raffaelli, D. G. 1980. Interactions between two marine snails, Littorina rudis Maton and Littorina nigrolineata Gray, a predator, Carcinus maenas (L.) and a parasite, Microphallus similis Jagerskiold. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 43:151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, L. E. 1900. The anatomy of Nautilus pompilius . Memoirs of the National Academy of Science, 8:100–230.Google Scholar
Harris, F. W. and Martin, W. D. 1979. Benthic community development in limestone beds of the Waynesville (Upper Dillsboro) Formation (Cincinnatian Series, Upper Ordovician) of southeastern Indiana. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 49:1295–1306.Google Scholar
Hewitt, R. A. and Watkins, R. 1980. Cephalopod ecology across a Late Silurian shelf tract. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 160:90–117.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. N. and Elner, R. W. 1979. Tactics of a predator, Carcinus maenas, and morphological responses of the prey, Nucella lapillus . Journal of Animal Ecology, 48:65–78.Google Scholar
Jones, B. 1982. Paleobiology of the Upper Silurian brachiopod Atrypoidea . Journal of Paleontology, 56:912–923.Google Scholar
Mauzey, K. P., Birkeland, C. and Dayton, P. K. 1968. Feeding behavior of asteroids and escape responses of their prey in the Puget Sound region. Ecology, 49:603–619.Google Scholar
Moodie, R. L. 1923. Paleopathology: An Introduction of the Study of Ancient Evidence of Disease. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 567 p.Google Scholar
Rhoads, D. C. and Pannella, G. 1970. The use of molluscan shell growth patterns in ecology and paleoecology. Lethaia, 3:143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R. P. 1972. Autecology of Richmondian brachiopods (Late Ordovician of Indiana and Ohio). Journal of Paleontology, 46:386–405.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, G. D. 1982. Growth rhythms in the brachiopod Rafinesquina alternata from the Late Ordovician of southeastern Indiana. Paleobiology, 8:389–401.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil Brachiopods. Hutchinson and Co., London, 199 p.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B. et al. 1978. The jaw apparatus of Recent Nautilus and its paleoecological significance. Palaeontology, 21:129–141.Google Scholar
Schindel, D., Vermeij, G. and Zipser, E. 1982. Frequencies of repaired shell fractures among the Pennsylvanian gastropods of north-central Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 56:729–740.Google Scholar
Spencer, W. K. and Wright, C. W. 1966. Asterozoans, p. U4–U107. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part U, Echinodermata 3. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Tasch, P. 1973. Paleobiology of the Invertebrates, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 975 p.Google Scholar
Turner, H. J. Jr., Ayers, J. C. and Wheeler, C. L. 1948. Appendix II. The horseshoe crab and boring snail as factors limiting the abundance of the soft-shell clam, p. 43–45. In Report on Investigation of the Propagation of the Soft-shell Clam Mya arenaria . Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Contribution 462.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology, 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. 1978. Biogeography and Adaptation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 332 p.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. 1982a. Gastropod shell form, breakage, and repair in relation to predation by the crab Calappa . Malacologia, 23:1–12.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. 1982b. Unsuccessful predation and evolution. American Naturalist, 120:701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P. and Wicksten, M. 1980. Food sources and feeding behavior of Nautilus macromphalus . Veliger, 23:119–124.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1964. Possible mechanical functions of shell plication in a Triassic brachiopod. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 1:99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar