Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:19:23.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary significance of differential species longevity in Osagean–Meramecian (Mississippian) crinoid clades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Thomas W. Kammer ,
Tomasz K. Baumiller  and
William I. Ausich
Thomas W. Kammer
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506–6300. E-mail: [email protected]
Tomasz K. Baumiller
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The pattern of differential species longevities among five Osagean–Meramecian crinoid clades is analyzed for its evolutionary significance. Differences in mean species longevity between clades may have resulted from species sorting based on eurytopy (niche breadth). In order to test the relationship between longevity and eurytopy it was first necessary to recognize generalists (eurytopes) vs. specialists (stenotopes) objectively. Three different approaches were used: (1) the “Eurytopy Index” (EI), which is a measure of mean number of facies per species; (2) analysis of crinoid functional morphology; and (3) use of canonical discriminant analysis to analyze species distributions between facies in order to separate generalists from specialists. Mean species longevity for each clade was evaluated by four different approaches: (1) rarefaction was used to control for differences in sample size, including both species richness and number of occurrences, between clades; (2) potential facies control of species longevity was evaluated by a bootstrap that compared the observed data to a null model where species longevity was limited only by the actual occurrences of each species known facies through time; (3) uniformity of clade species richness through time was evaluated by the “Index of Uniformity for Species Richness” based on the standard deviation of clade species richness across the time intervals; and (4) potential species range truncations were evaluated by a biostratigraphic gap analysis based on the binomial distribution.

The general order of increasing longevity and eurytopy is (from least to most): flexibles, advanced cladids, camerates, disparids, and primitive cladids. In general the pinnulate crinoids (advanced cladids and camerates) were specialists with lower mean species longevity, and the non-pinnulate crinoids (disparids and primitive cladids) were generalists with higher mean species longevity. Pinnulate crinoids were specialized for feeding in high-energy currents and, thus, were limited in their facies distribution and presumably more extinction-prone. The non-pinnulates could feed in both low- and high-energy currents and, thus, were less limited in their facies distribution and presumably less extinction-prone. The flexibles were the exception in that they were non-pinnulate but had the lowest mean species longevity, apparently because they were specialized for deeper-water clastic environments.

On average, generalist clades have mean species longevities that at a minimum are up to 45% (≈1.0 ± 0.7 m.y.) longer than specialist clades. However, greater mean species longevity did not necessarily confer long-term advantages to a clade. The specialist advanced cladids became the dominant crinoid clade of the late Paleozoic and gave rise to the articulate crinoids of the post-Paleozoic. This may have resulted from the more rapid species turnover of stenotopes creating adaptive evolutionary novelties for their clade. Alternatively, it could simply be the result of stochastic processes.

The finer subdivision of niche space by specialists has led previous workers to predict that specialist clades should have higher species richness than generalist clades. The present study supports this prediction.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , Spring 1998 , pp. 155 - 176
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

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology 54: 273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Taphonomic method for determining muscular articulations in fossil echinoderms: a test for the occurrence of muscles in Lower Mississippian cladid crinoids. Palaios 8: 477–484.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Kammer, T. W. 1990. Systematics and phylogeny of the late Osagean and Meramecian crinoids Platycrinites and Eucladocrinus from the Mississippian stratotype region. Journal of Paleontology 64: 759–778.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1991a. Late Osagean and Meramecian Actinocrinites (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) from the Mississippian stratotype region. Journal of Paleontology 65: 485–499.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1991b. Systematic revisions to Aorocrinus, Dorycrinus, Macrocrinus, Paradichocrinus, Strotocrinus, and Uperocrinus: Mississippian camerate crinoids (Echinodermata) from the stratotype region. Journal of Paleontology 65: 936–944.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1992. Dizygocrinus: Mississippian camerate crinoid (Echinodermata) from the midcontinental United States. Journal of Paleontology 66: 637–658.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Meyer, D. L. 1990. Origin and composition of carbonate buildups and associated facies in the Fort Payne Formation (Lower Mississippian, south-central Kentucky): an integrated sedimentologic and paleoecologic analysis. Geological Society of America Bulletin 102: 129–146.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1992. Crinoidea Flexibilia (Echinodermata) from the Fort Payne Formation (Lower Mississippian; Kentucky and Tennessee). Journal of Paleontology 6: 825–838.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., Kammer, T. W., and Baumiller, T. K. 1994. Demise of the Middle Paleozoic crinoid fauna: a single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover? Paleobiology 20: 345–361.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., Kammer, T. W., and Meyer, D. L. 1997. Middle Mississippian disparid crinoids from the midcontinental United States. Journal of Paleontology 71: 131–148.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology 19: 304–321.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1994. Patterns of dominance and extinction in the record of Paleozoic crinoids. Pp. 193–198. David, B., Guille, A., Féral, J. P., Roux, M.Echinoderms through time. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America Special Paper 45. New York.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Buzas, M. A. and Culver, J. J. 1984. Species duration and evolution: benthic Foraminifera on Atlantic continental margin of North America. Science 225: 829–830.Google Scholar
Collinson, C., Rexroad, C. B., and Thompson, T. L. 1971. Conodont zonation of the North American Mississippian. Geological Society of America Memoir 127: 353–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, W. R. and Goldstein, M. 1984. Multivariate analysis, methods and applications. Wiley New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1979. Alternative approaches to evolutionary theory. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 13: 7–19.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1996. Hierarchies in macroevolution. pp. 42–61Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., Lipps, J. H.Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. R. 1989. Echinoderms of the Somerset Shale Member, Salem Limestone (Mississippian), in Indiana and Kentucky. Journal of Paleontology 63: 900–912.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability. Paleobiology 23: 278–300.Google Scholar
Foote, M. and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22: 121–140.Google Scholar
Gili, C. and Martinell, J. 1994. Relationship between species longevity and larval ecology in nassariid gastropods. Lethaia 27: 291–299.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1985. The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology. Paleobiology 11: 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1978. Larval dispersal and species longevity in lower Tertiary gastropods. Science 199: 885–887.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1980. Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity in Neogastropods. Paleobiology 6: 193–207.Google Scholar
Harland, W. B., Armstrong, R. L., Cox, A. V., Craig, L. E., Smith, A. G., and Smith, D. G. 1990. A geologic time scale 1989. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986. Background and mass extinctions: the alternation of macroevolutionary regimes. Science 231: 129–133.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1984. Crinoids from the New Providence Shale Member of the Borden Formation (Mississippian) in Kentucky and Indiana. Journal of Paleontology 58: 115–130.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. and Ausich, W. I. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for late Osagean crinoids. Paleobiology 13: 379–395.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W.Advanced cladid crinoids from the Middle Mississippian of the east-central United States: primitive-grade calyces. Journal of Paleontology 66: 461–480.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1993. Advanced cladid crinoids from the Middle Mississippian of the east-central United States: intermediate-grade calyces. Journal of Paleontology 67: 614–639.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W.Advanced cladid crinoids from the Middle Mississippian of the east-central United States: advanced-grade calyces. Journal of Paleontology 68: 339–351.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1996. Primitive cladid crinoids from upper Osagean-lower Meramecian (Mississippian) rocks of east-central United States. Journal of Paleontology 70: 835–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Brenckle, P. L., Carter, J. L., and Ausich, W. I. 1990. Redefinition of the Osagean-Meramecian boundary in the Mississippian stratotype region. Palaios 5: 414–431.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Baumiller, T. K., and Ausich, W. I. 1997. Species longevity as a function of niche breadth: evidence from fossil crinoids. Geology 25: 219–222.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1971. Crinoids and reefs. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention Part J: 1430–1443.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1972. Synecology of Middle Mississippian (Carboniferous) crinoid communities in Indiana. Twenty-fourth International Geological Congress, Comptes Rendues Section 7: 89–94.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1948. Osage-Meramec contact. Journal of Geology 56: 288–302.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1991. Estimation of taxonomic ranges from the fossil record. Gilinsky, N. L., Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology 4: 19–38. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1997. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges with nonrandom distributions of fossil horizons. Paleobiology 23: 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Ausich, W. I. 1997. Morphological variation within and among populations of the camerate crinoid Agaricocrinus (Lower Mississippian, Kentucky and Tennessee): breaking the spell of the mushroom. Journal of Paleontology 71: 896–917.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Ausich, W. I., and Terry, R. E. 1989. Comparative taphonomy of echinoderms in carbonate facies: Fort Payne Formation (Lower Mississippian) of Kentucky and Tennessee. Palaios 4: 533–552.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America Special Paper 46. New York.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. 1978. Echinodermata 2, Crinoidea. Part T of Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1963. Crises in the history of life. Scientific American 208: 77–92.Google Scholar
Norris, R. D. 1991. Biased extinction and evolutionary trends. Paleobiology 17: 388–399.Google Scholar
Norris, R. D. 1992. Extinction selectivity and ecology in planktonic foraminifera. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 95: 1–17.Google Scholar
Novacek, M. 1984. Evolutionary stasis in the elephant-shrew, Rhynchocyon. pp. 4–22. Eldredge, N., Stanley, S. M.Living fossils. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1975. Taxonomic diversity estimation using rarefaction. Paleobiology 1: 333–342.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist 106: 414–418. SAS Institute, Inc. 1990. SAS/STAT® User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed.Cary, N. C.Google Scholar
Simms, M. J. and Sevastopulo, G. D. 1993. The origin of articulate crinoids. Palaeontology 36: 91–109.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution, pattern and process. W. H. Freeman San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986. Population size, extinction, and speciation: the fission effect in Neogene Bivalvia. Paleobiology 12: 89–110.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1990. The general correlation between rate of speciation and rate of extinction: fortuitous causal linkages. pp. 103–127Ross, R. M., Allmon, W. D.Causes of evolution, a paleontological perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids. Pp. T58–T216in Ubaghs, G. et al. Echinodermata 2, Crinoidea. R.C. Moore, C. Teichert Part T of Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Van Sant, J. F. 1964. Crawfordsville crinoids. pp. 34–136in Van Sant, J. F. and Lane, N. G.Crawfordsville (Indiana) crinoid studies. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 7. Lawrence, Kans.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1980. Evolution, species and fossils: how does life evolve? South African Journal of Science 76: 61–84.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1984. Evolutionary pattern and proces in the sister-group Alcelaphini-Aepycerotini (Mammalia: Bovidae). pp. 62–79Eldredge, N., Stanley, S. M.Living fossils. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1987. Ecology in relation to speciation rates: some case histories of Miocene-Recent mammal clades. Evolutionary Ecology 1: 283–300.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1989. Tournaisian and early Visean crinoid faunas of western North America. Eleventh International Congress of Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology. Compte Rendu 2: 376–381.Google Scholar
Welch, J. R. and Lane, N. G. 1977. A new crinoid fauna from the Harrodsburg Limestone (Mississippian) of southern Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 86: 285–289.Google Scholar
Windley, B. F. 1977. The evolving continents. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Young, C. M. and Emson, R. H. 1994. 3 P. 273 B. David, A. Guille, J.-P. Féral, M. Roux Echinoderms through time. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar