Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:23:24.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The articulate brachiopod hinge mechanism: morphological and functional variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Sandra J. Carlson
Sandra J. Carlson*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Functional consequences of the variation in geometry and morphology of the articulate brachiopod hinge mechanism are poorly understood, despite the fact that hinge structures have considerable importance in brachiopod taxonomy. Jaanusson (1971) proposed that the ability to resorb shell material during growth, particularly in the hinge structures, can be used to distinguish two groups within the articulates, the deltidiodonts and the cyrtomatodonts. He considered the two groups to be morphologically distinct, “natural” phylogenetic groups, separated by a “functional discontinuity.” In order to test the morphological, functional, and phylogenetic implications of shell resorption, comparisons of the hinge-system geometry and diductor muscle moment are made here between deltidiodont and cyrtomatodont brachiopods. A truss network composed of landmarks relevant to the valve opening mechanism is constructed to characterize hinge-system geometry. The function of the hinge mechanism is analyzed in the context of valve opening, and diductor muscle force, effort lever arm, and moment are compared between deltidiodonts and cyrtomatodonts. The distribution of resorption among brachiopods is investigated with respect to a phylogenetic hypothesis proposed by Williams and Rowell (1965a).

Deltidiodont brachiopods are morphologically more variable than cyrtomatodonts, and a greater proportion of the variability is correlated with size. Deltidiodonts and cyrtomatodonts employ different strategies to open the valves; deltidiodont lever arms are relatively longer, whereas cyrtomatodont diductor muscles have relatively larger cross-sectional areas. The greatest muscle moment in deltidiodont hinge systems is realized in the maintenance of a gape angle; in the cyrtomatodont system, it is achieved at the initiation of a gape. Although they are morphologically and functionally distinct, it is doubtful that the two groups are separated by a “functional discontinuity.” Because the phylogenetic relationships among brachiopod orders are not yet resolved, the status of shell resorption as a homologue is still unclear. Resorption is manifest in at least some members of each major group of articulates (except the pentameraceans); it is likely that resorption has evolved independently several times in brachiopod evolution, in part because of the increased morphological flexibility it confers.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Fall 1989 , pp. 364 - 386
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

Literature Cited

Alexander, R. M. 1985. Body support, scaling, and allometry. Pp. 26–37. In Hildebrand, M., et al. (eds.), Functional Vertebrate Morphology. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. 1968. Analysis of the function of the diductor muscles in articulate brachiopods. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 11:641–654.Google Scholar
Beecher, C. E. 1891. Development of the Brachiopoda, Part I, Introduction. American Journal of Science 41:343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, W. J., and von Wahlert, G. 1965. Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution 19:269–299.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G., and Strauss, R. 1985. Morphometrics in Evolutionary Biology. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Special Publication 15.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R. 1972. Observations on removal of spines by muricid gastropods during shell growth. Veliger 15:69–74.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1985. Evolutionary morphology: beyond the analogous, the anecdotal, and the ad hoc. Paleobiology 11:120–138.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1986. Progress in organismal design. Pp. 99–117. In Raup, D. M., and Jablonski, D. (eds.), Patterns and Processes in the History of Life. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, H. J. 1988. Articulate brachiopods from the Richmondian of Tennessee. Journal of Paleontology 62:204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaanusson, V. J. 1971. Evolution of the brachiopod hinge. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 3:33–46.Google Scholar
Jaanusson, V. J. 1981. Functional thresholds in evolutionary progress. Lethaia 14:251–260.Google Scholar
Jaanusson, V. J., and Neuhaus, H. 1965. Mechanism of the diductor muscles in articulate brachiopods. Stockholm Contributions to Geology 13:1–8.Google Scholar
Jones, B. J. 1978. Rossella: a new Silurian pentamerid brachiopod from the Canadian Arctic. Journal of Paleontology 52:545–560.Google Scholar
LaBarbera, M. 1978. Brachiopod orientation to water movement: functional morphology. Lethaia 11:67–79.Google Scholar
Lauder, G. V. 1981. Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology 7:430–442.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. 1980. Shell geometry and stability strategies in the biconvex Brachiopoda. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 3:155–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, T. A. 1984. Muscles, Reflexes, and Locomotion. Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. Pp. 21–74. In Joysey, K. A., and Friday, A. E. (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 21. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Pimentel, R. A. 1979. Morphometrics. Kendall/Hunt; Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
Rieger, R., and Tyler, S. 1979. The homology theorem in ultrastructural research. American Zoologist 19:655–664.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1961. ‘Quick’ and ‘catch’ adductor muscles in brachiopods. Nature 191:1021.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1964. The inference of function from structure in fossils. British Journal for the Philosophical Sciences 15:27–40.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil Brachiopods. Hutchinson University Library; London.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. A Compendium of Fossil Marine Families. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions to Biology and Geology 51. Unpublished updates 1983, 1986, 1988.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. Second Edition. W. H. Freeman and Company; New York.Google Scholar
Strauss, R. E., and Bookstein, F. L. 1982. The truss: body form reconstructions in morphometrics. Systematic Zoology 31:113–135.Google Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1981. Ecology of living brachiopods. Pp. 110–126. In Broadhead, T. W. (ed.), Lophophorates, Notes for a Short Course. University of Tennessee Department of Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology 5; Knoxville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1970. Adaptive versatility and skeleton construction. The American Naturalist 104:253–260.Google Scholar
Wilkens, J. L. 1978. Diductor muscles of brachiopods: activation and very slow contraction. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:324–332.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J. 1965a. Evolution and phylogeny. Pp. H164–H199. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda (1). The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas; Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J. 1965b. Classification. Pp. H214–H237. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda (1). The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas; Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J. 1965c. Morphology. Pp. H57–H138. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda (1). The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas; Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1972. Teleology and the logical structure of function statements. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 3:1–80.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D. 1979. The origin of the spiriferidine brachipods. Lethaia 12:29–33.Google Scholar
Zeigler, A. M., Boucot, A. J., and Sheldon, R. P. 1966. Silurian pentameroid brachiopods preserved in position of growth. Journal of Paleontology 40:1032–1036.Google Scholar
Zeigler, A. M., Cocks, L. R. M., and Bambach, R. K. 1968. The composition and structure of Lower Silurian marine communities. Lethaia 1:1–27.Google Scholar