Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:59:51.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asexual colony multiplication by fragmentation: an important mode of genet longevity in the Carboniferous bryozoan Archimedes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Frank K. McKinney
Frank K. McKinney*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28608, and Research Associate, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bases of attachment of Archimedes colonies are very rare, but many colonies show evidence of origination from a pre-existing set of branches. The evidence consists of spiralled supports (axial screws) originating from fragments of pre-existing sets of branches, proximal taper of colonies or axial screws to a diameter smaller than that of bases of attachment, early stages of new colonies originating from the whorl margins of older colonies, and sets of laterally fused colonies. In the most favorable environments Archimedes populations were dominated by a few genets that consisted of hundreds to perhaps thousands of genetically identical colonies.

The ability to reproduce by colony fragmentation was probably an important cause of Archimedes' abundance in the Chesterian seas of eastern North America, especially where it occurred in dense populations in the lee of submarine carbonate shoals. Colony fragmentation, the importance of which is becoming increasingly recognized in modern corals and bryozoans, was also of importance in Paleozoic seas.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Winter 1983 , pp. 35 - 43
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

Bak, P. R. M. and Engel, M. S. 1979. Distribution, abundance and survival of juvenile hermatypic corals (Scleractinia) and the importance of life history strategies in the parent coral community. Mar. Biol. 54:341–352.Google Scholar
Banta, W. C. 1973. Evolution of avicularia in cheilostome Bryozoa. Pp. 295–303. In: Boardman, R. S.; Cheetham, A. H. and Oliver, W. A. Jr., eds. Animal Colonies, Development and Function Through Time. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross; Stroudsburg, Pa.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1926. Studies on recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zool. Bidr. Uppsala. 10:181–507.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1933. A revision of the Heteroporidae (Bryozoa). Zool. Bidr. Uppsala. 14:254–394.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1969. Evolution of zooecial asymmetry and origin of poricellariid cheilostomes. Atti Soc. It. Nat. e Museo Civ. St. Nat. Milano. 108:185–194.Google Scholar
Condra, G. E. and Elias, M. K. 1944. Study and revision of Archimedes (Hall). Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 53:1–243.Google Scholar
Conkin, J. E. and Fuson, M. L. 1970. Archimedes kentuckiensis, a new fenestrate bryozoan from the Floyds Knob Formation (Upper Osagean) of Kentucky. J. Paleontol. 44:669–672.Google Scholar
Gerodette, T. 1981. Dispersal of the solitary coral Balanophyllia elegans by demersal planular larvae. Ecology. 62:611–619.Google Scholar
Gilmore, M. D. and Hall, B. R. 1976. Life history, growth habits and constructional roles of Acropora cervicornis in the patch reef environment. J. Sed. Petrol. 46:519–522.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1857. Observations on the genus Archimedes, or Fenestella, with descriptions of species, etc. Proc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 10:176–180.Google Scholar
Harmelin, J. G. 1974. Les bryozoaires cyclostomes de Méditerranée, Écologie et systématique. These Univ. d'Aix-Marseille. 365 pp. 38 pls.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. and Bell, A. D. 1979. The population dynamics of growth form in organisms with modular construction. Pp. 29–52. In: Anderson, R. M., Turner, B. D. and Taylor, L. R., eds. Population Dynamics. Blackwell Sci. Publ.; Oxford.Google Scholar
Highsmith, R. C. 1982. Reproduction by fragmentation in corals. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 7:207–226.Google Scholar
Highsmith, R. C, Riggs, A. C., and d'Antonio, C. M. 1980. Survival of hurricane-generated coral fragments and a disturbance model of reef calcification/growth rates. Oecologia (Berl.) 46:322–329.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. P. and Jackson, J. B. C. 1980. Do corals lie about their age? Some demographic consequences of partial mortality, fission and fusion. Science. 209:713–715.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. and Winston, J. E. 1981. Modular growth and longevity in bryozoans. Pp. 121–126. In: Larwood, G. P. and Nielsen, C., eds. Recent and Fossil Bryozoa. Olsen & Olsen; Fredensborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
Knowlton, N., Lang, J. C., Roone, M. C., and Clifford, P. 1981. Evidence for delayed mortality in hurricane-damaged Jamaican staghorn coral. Nature. 294:351–352.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1979. Some paleoenvironments of the coiled fenestrate bryozoan Archimedes. Pp. 321–336. In: Larwood, G. P. and Abbott, M. B., eds. Advances in Bryozoology. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1980. Erect spiral growth in some living and fossil bryozoans. J. Paleontol. 54:597–613.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1981. Intercolony fusion suggests polyembryony in Paleozoic fenestrate bryozoans. Paleobiology. 7:247–251.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. and Gault, H. W. 1980. Paleoenvironment of Late Mississippian fenestrate bryozoans, eastern United States. Lethaia. 13:127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. and Raup, D. M. 1982. A turn in the right direction: simulation of erect spiral growth in the bryozoans Archimedes and Bugula. Paleobiology. 8:101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, E. and Marcus, E. 1962. On some lunulitiform Bryozoa. Sao Paulo, Brazil, Univ. Fac. Filos., Cien. Letr., Bol. Zool. 24:281–324.Google Scholar
Perry, T. G. and Horowitz, A. S. 1963. Bryozoans form the Glen Dean Limestone (Middle Chester) of southern Indiana and Kentucky. Indiana Geol. Surv. Bull. 26:1–51.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. S., Suchanek, T. H., and Pecora, F. A. 1982. Effects of hurricanes David and Frederic (1979) on shallow Acropora palmata reef communities: St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32:532–548.Google Scholar
Ryland, J. S. 1974. Behaviour, settlement and metamorphosis of bryozoan larvae. A review. Thalassia Jugoslavica. 10:239–262.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. J. Geol. 89:569–584.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1980. Microstratigraphic sampling and the limits of paleontologic resolution. Paleobiology. 6:408–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, E. 1976. Coral reef recovery in Florida and the Persian Gulf. Environ. Geol. 1:241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silén, L. 1977. Polymorphism. Pp. 183–231. In: Woollacott, R. M. and Zimmer, R. L., eds. Biology of Bryozoans. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
Strathmann, R. R. 1978. The evolution and loss of feeding larval stages of marine invertebrates. Evolution. 32:894–906.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1980. Palaeozoic Bryozoa. Geol. Surv. Illinois. 8:283–688.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A. 1978. The paleontology and paleoecology of the lower Bangor Limestone (Chesterian, Mississippian) in northwestern Alabama. , . 211 pp.Google Scholar
Wells, J. W. 1966. Evolutionary development in the scleractinian family Fungiidae. Pp. 223–246. In: Rees, W. J., ed. The Cnidaria and their Evolution. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. 1975. Sex and Evolution. Princeton Univ. Press; Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1981. Life histories of colonial invertebrates. Paleobiology. 7:151–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar