Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:25:13.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The clymeniid dilemma: functional implications of the dorsal siphuncle in clymeniid ammonoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

William E. Gottobrio  and
W. Bruce Saunders
William E. Gottobrio
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010. E-mail: [email protected], E-mail: [email protected]
W. Bruce Saunders
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010. E-mail: [email protected], E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clymeniid ammonoids appeared during the Late Devonian (Mid-Famennian) and quickly radiated before becoming extinct at the Devonian/Carboniferous boundary. Outwardly indistinguishable from other ammonoids, clymeniids are distinguished internally by their dorsal siphuncle, contrasted to a ventral siphuncle in almost all other ammonoids. Comparisons of a sample of Clymeniida (n = 22 genera), Goniatitida (n = 33), Prolecanitida (n = 12), and Anarcestida (n = 13) indicate that clymeniids fall within the range of other ammonoids in terms of shell geometry and suture complexity, but their siphuncles average two to three times larger and clymeniid shells are approximately 33% thicker than those of other ammonoids. Although a dorsal siphuncle would be about 50% smaller in surface area and volume than if located in a ventral position, the enlarged clymeniid siphuncle partially and, in some cases, fully compensated for this loss. Hydrostatic simulations of 15 clymeniid genera indicate that their thicker (therefore heavier) shells would have resulted in relatively short body chambers (≈280°) and high aperture orientations (≈90°). In static life-position, these orientations would have placed the dorsal clymeniid siphuncle at or near the bottom of the most recently formed chambers, seemingly an ideal location for draining liquid from the chamber. Migration of the siphuncle to the dorsal side of the shell occurs suddenly during early ontogeny (within the first two or three chambers), and mutation of homeotic gene expression is offered as a possible explanation for the sudden shift. A dorsal siphuncle may have resulted in selection for enlarged siphuncles, but this may have incurred loss of strength against hydrostatic pressure (thereby reducing depth limits) and thus rendered the clade more susceptible to the multiple eustatic and anoxic events that marked the end of the Devonian.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , Spring 2005 , pp. 233 - 252
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

Averof, M., and Patel, N. H. 1997. Crustacean appendage evolution associated with changes in Hox gene expression. Nature 288:682–686.Google Scholar
Becker, R. T. 1993. Anoxia, eustatic changes, and Upper Devonian to lowermost Carboniferous global ammonoid diversity. In House, M. R., ed. The Ammonoidea: environment, ecology, and evolutionary change. Systematics Association Special Volume 47:115–163. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Becker, R. T., and House, M. R. 1994. Kellwasser Events and goniatite successions in the Devonian of the Montagne Noire with comments on possible causations. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 169:45–77.Google Scholar
Bogoslovsky, B. I. 1962. Systematic section, Devonian Ammonoidea. Pp. 334–347in Ruzhencev, 1962.Google Scholar
Bogoslovsky, B. I. 1969. Devonskie Ammonoidei. I. Agoniatity. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy 124:1–341.Google Scholar
Bogoslovsky, B. I. 1971. Devonskie Ammonoidei. II. Goniatity. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy 127:1–228.Google Scholar
Bogoslovsky, B. I. 1976. Early ontogeny and origin of clymeniid ammonoids. Paleontological Journal 1976:150–158. (Translated by the American Geological Institute.)Google Scholar
Bogoslovsky, B. I. 1981. Devonskie Ammonoidei. III. Klimeny. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy 191:1–122.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. A. Jr., and Moore, W. A. Jr. 1982. Rupture strength and flow rate of Nautilus siphuncular tube. Paleobiology 8:408–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarnocki, J. 1989. Klimenie Gór Świętokrzyskich. Wyndawnictwa Geologiczne, Warsaw.Google Scholar
Denton, E., and Gilpin-Brown, J. 1966. On the buoyancy of the pearly Nautilus. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 46:723–759.Google Scholar
Doguzhaeva, L. 1988. Siphuncular tube and septal necks in ammonoid evolution. Pp. 291–301in Wiedmann, J. and Kullmann, J., eds. Cephalopods present and past. E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
House, M. R. 1980. On the origin, classification and evolution of the early Ammonoidea. In House, M. R. and Senior, J. R., eds. The Ammonoidea: the evolution, classification, mode of life, and geological usefulness of a major fossil group. Systematics Association Special Volume 18:3–36. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
House, M. R. 1985. Correlation of mid-Paleozoic ammonoid evolutionary events with global sedimentary perturbations. Nature 313:17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, M. R. 1996. Juvenile goniatite survival strategies following Devonian extinction events. In Hart, M. B., ed. Biotic recovery from mass extinction events. Geological Society of London Special Publication 102:163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, D. K. 1996. Chambered cephalopod shells, buoyancy, structure, and decoupling: history and red herrings. Palaios 11:610–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JMP. 2002. Version 5. Statistics and graphics guide. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C. (www.jmpdiscovery.com)Google Scholar
Korn, D. 1992. Relationship between shell form, septal construction and suture line in clymeniid cephalopods (Ammonoidea; Upper Devonian). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 185:115–130.Google Scholar
Korn, D., and Klug, C. 2002. Ammoneae Devonicae. Pp. 1–375in Riegraf, W., ed. Fossilium Catalogus, Animalia I. Backhuys, Leiden.Google Scholar
Korn, D., and Klug, C. 2003. Morphological pathways in the evolution of Early and Middle Devonian ammonoids. Paleobiology 29:329–348.Google Scholar
Kullmann, J., Korn, D., and Peterson, M. S. 2001. GONIAT database system, Version 3.0. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Lee, P. N., Callaerts, P., de Couet, H. G., and Martindale, M. Q. 2003. Cephalopod Hox genes and the origin of morphological novelties. Nature 424:1061–1065.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R., Orrs, H. A., and Patel, N. H. 1999. Morphological innovation and developmental genetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96:9995–9996.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Unklesbay, A. G. 1943. The siphuncle of late Paleozoic ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 17:1–25.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., Furnish, W. M., and Schindewolf, O. H. 1957. Paleozoic Ammonoidea. Pp. L11–L79in Arkell, W. J. et al. Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea. Part L ofMoore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, New York, and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, S. V., and Bogoslovsky, B. I.In press. Late Devonian ammonoids of the South Urals and Middle Asia. Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41:43–65.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Chamberlain, J. A. 1967. Equations for volume and center of gravity in ammonoid shells. Journal of Paleontology 41:566–574.Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1962. Superorder Ammonoidea. Pp. 243–424in Orlov, Yu. A., ed. Fundamentals of paleontology, Vol. 5. Mollusca-Cephalopoda 1. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Moscow. (Translated by the Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1974.)Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B. 1995. The ammonoid suture problem: relationships between shell and septum thickness and suture complexity in Paleozoic ammonoids. Paleobiology 21:343–355.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Shapiro, E. A. 1986. Calculation and simulation of ammonoid hydrostatics. Paleobiology 12:64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1997. Evolution of shell morphology and suture complexity in Paleozoic prolecanitids, the rootstock of Mesozoic ammonoids. Paleobiology 23:301–325.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., Work, D. M., and Nikolaeva, S. V. 1999. Evolution of complexity in Paleozoic ammonoid sutures. Science 286:760–763.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., Work, D. M., and Nikolaeva, S. V. 2004. The evolutionary history of shell geometry in Paleozoic ammonoids. Paleobiology 30:19–43.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3d ed.W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Swan, A. R. H., and Saunders, W. B. 1987. Function and shape in late Paleozoic (mid-Carboniferous) ammonoids. Paleobiology 13:297–311.Google Scholar
Tanabe, K., and Landman, N. H. 1996. Septal neck-siphuncular complex of ammonoids. In Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Topics in Geobiology 13:129–165. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Tanabe, K., Mapes, R. H., Sasaki, T., and Landman, N. H. 2000. Soft-part anatomy of the siphuncle in Permian prolecanitid ammonoids. Lethaia 33:83–91.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1987. The natural history of Nautilus. Allen and Unwin, Boston.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1971. Form, structure, and function of shell and siphuncle in coiled Mesozoic ammonoids. Life Sciences Contributions Royal Ontario Museum 78:1–39.Google Scholar