Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:20:21.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method to the madness: Ontogenetic changes in the hydrostatic properties of Didymoceras (Nostoceratidae: Ammonoidea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

David J. Peterman Open the ORCID record for David J. Peterman [Opens in a new window] ,
Margaret M. Yacobucci ,
Neal L. Larson ,
Charles Ciampaglio  and
Tom Linn
David J. Peterman
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, Ohio45435, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Margaret M. Yacobucci
Affiliation:
School of Earth, Environment & Society, Bowling Green State University, 190 Overman Hall, Bowling Green, Ohio43403-0218, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Neal L. Larson
Affiliation:
Larson Paleontology Unlimited, Keystone, South Dakota57745, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Charles Ciampaglio
Affiliation:
Department of Science and Mathematics, Wright State University Lake Campus, Dwyer Hall 219, 7600 Lake Campus Drive, Celina, Ohio45822, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Tom Linn
Affiliation:
Early Earth Enterprises, LLC, Glendive, Montana59330, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The seemingly aberrant coiling of heteromorphic ammonoids suggests that they underwent more significant changes in hydrostatic properties throughout ontogeny than their planispiral counterparts. Such changes may have been responses to different selective pressures at different life stages. The hydrostatic properties of three species of Didymoceras (D. stevensoni, D. nebrascense, and D. cheyennense) were investigated by creating virtual 3D models at several stages during growth. These models were used to compute the conditions for neutral buoyancy, hydrostatic stability, orientation during life, and thrust angles (efficiency of directional movement). These properties suggest that Didymoceras and similar heteromorphs lived low-energy lifestyles with the ability to hover above the seafloor. The resultant static orientations yielded a downward-facing aperture in the hatchling and a horizontally facing aperture throughout most of the juvenile stage, before terminating in an upward direction at maturity. Relatively high hydrostatic stabilities would not have permitted the orientation of Didymoceras to be considerably modified with active locomotion. During the helical phase, Didymoceras would have been poorly suited for horizontal movement, yet equipped to pirouette about the vertical axis. Two stages throughout growth, however, would have enhanced lateral mobility: a juvenile stage just after the formation of the first bend in the shell and the terminal stage after completion of the U-shaped hook. These two more mobile phases in ontogeny may have improved juvenile dispersal potential and mate acquisition during adulthood, respectively. In general, life orientation and hydrostatic stability change more wildly for these aberrantly coiled ammonoids than their planispiral counterparts.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 237 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved

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

3DFlow. 2018. 3DF Zephyr, Free edition. https://www.3dflow. net/3df-zephyr-free, accessed March 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Autodesk Inc. 2017a. Meshmixer 3.3. Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, Calif.Google Scholar
Autodesk Inc. 2017b. Netfabb 2017.3. Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, Calif.Google Scholar
Blender Online Community. 2017. Blender, a 3D modelling and rendering package. Blender Institute, Amsterdam. http://www.blender.org, accessed August 20, 2017.Google Scholar
Bucher, H., Landman, N. H., Klofak, S. M., and Guex, J.. 1996. Mode and rate of growth in ammonoids. In Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York. Topics in Geobiology 13:407–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checa, A., Okamoto, T., and Keupp, H.. 2002. Abnormalities as natural experiments: a morphogenetic model for coiling regulation in planispiral ammonites. Paleobiology 28:127–138.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobban, W. A. 1974. Ammonites from the Navesink Formation at Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 845: 1–48.Google Scholar
Cobban, W. A., Walaszczyk, I., Obradovich, J. D., and McKinney, K.. 2006. A USGS zonal table for the Upper Cretaceous middle Cenomanian–Maastrichtian of the Western Interior of the United States based on ammonites, inoceramids, and radiometric ages. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cignoni, P., and Ranzuglia, G.. 2014. MeshLab, Version 1.3.3. Visual Computing Lab–ISTI–CNR Pisa, Italy. http://meshlab.sourceforge.net, accessed August 20, 2017.Google Scholar
Ebel, K., 1990. Swimming abilities in ammonites and limitations. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 64:25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, L., and Ward, P. D.. 1987. Buoyancy in Nautilus. Pp. 547–560in Saunders, B. W. and Landman, N. H., eds. Nautilus—the biology and paleobiology of a living fossil. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanlon, R. T., and Messenger, J. B.. 2018. Cephalopod behavior, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, S., Kyser, T. K., and Caldwell, W. G. E.. 2005. Paleoenvironment of the Western Interior Seaway inferred from δ18O and δ13C values of molluscs from the Cretaceous Bearpaw marine cyclothem. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 217:67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, S., Kyser, T. K., and Caldwell, W. G. E.. 2016. Redox conditions of the Late Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway recorded by rare earth elements of Bearpaw molluscan fossils. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 53:1029–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, R., Schultz, J. A., Schellhorn, R., Rybacki, E., Keupp, H., Gerden, S. R., Lemanis, R., and Zachow, S.. 2014. Non-invasive imaging methods applied to neo- and paleo-ontological cephalopod research. Biogeosciences 11:2721–2739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R., Lemanis, R., Naglik, C., and Klug, C.. 2015. Ammonoid buoyancy. In Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, D., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R. H., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology, Vol. 1. From anatomy to ecology. Topics in Geobiology 43:611–648.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, R., Lemanis, R., Falkenberg, J., Schneider, S., Wesendonk, H., and Zachow, S.. 2018. Integrating 2D and 3D shell morphology to disentangle the paleobiology of ammonoids: a virtual approach. Palaeontology 61:89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, S., and Kondo, S.. 2016. Suture pattern formation in ammonites and the unknown rear mantle structure. Scientific Reports 6:33689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, D. K., and Chamberlain, J. A.. 1996. Buoyancy and hydrodynamics in ammonoids. In Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York. Topics in Geobiology 13:169–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, E. G., Arthur, M. A., Howe, B., and Scholle, P. A.. 1996. Widespread venting of methane-rich fluids in Late Cretaceous (Campanian) submarine springs (Tepee Buttes), Western Interior seaway, U.S.A. Geology 24:799–802.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, W. J., Landman, N. H., Cobban, W. A., and Scott, G. R.. 2000. Late Campanian (Cretaceous) heteromorph ammonites from the Western Interior of the United States. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 251:1–88.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinger, H. C. 1981. Speculations on buoyancy control and ecology in some heteromorph ammonites. 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. Academic Press, London. Systematics Association Special Volume 18:337–355.Google Scholar
Klug, C. 2001. Life-cycles of some Devonian ammonoids. Lethaia 34:215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klug, C., and Korn, D.. 2004. The origin of ammonoid locomotion. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49:235–242.Google Scholar
Klug, C., and Lehmann, J.. 2015. Soft part anatomy of ammonoids: reconstructing the animal based on exceptionally preserved specimens and actualistic comparisons. In Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R. H., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology, Vol. 1. From anatomy to ecology. Topics in Geobiology 43:515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klug, C., Korn, D., Richter, U., and Urlichs, M.. 2004. The black layer in cephalopods from the German Muschelkalk (Triassic). Palaeontology 47:407–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klug, C., Zatoń, M., Parent, H., Hostettler, B., and Tajika, A.. 2015. Mature modifications and sexual dimorphism. In Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R. H., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology, Vol. 1. From anatomy to ecology. Topics in Geobiology 43:252–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruta, I., Rouget, I., Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Cecca, F.. 2009. Aptychus microstructure in three genera of Late Cretaceous Ancyloceratina (Ammonoidea). Lethaia 42:312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruta, I., Landman, N. H., Rouget, I., Cecca, F., and Larson, N. L.. 2010. The jaw apparatus of the Late Cretaceous ammonite Didymoceras. Journal of Paleontology 84:556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, N. H. 1988. Early ontogeny of Mesozoic ammonites and nautilids. Pp. 215–228in Wiedmann, J. and Kullmann, J., eds. Cephalopods—present and past. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Kennedy, W. J., Cobban, W. A., and Larson, N. L.. 2010. Scaphites of the “nodosus group” from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) of the Western Interior of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, N. H., Cochran, J. K., Larson, N. L., Brezina, J., Garb, M. P., and Harries, P. J.. 2012. Methane seeps as ammonite habitats in the U.S. Western Interior Seaway revealed by isotopic analyses of well-preserved shell material. Geology 40:507–510.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Cochran, J. K., Slovacek, M., Larson, N. L., Garb, M. P., Brezina, J., and Witts, J. D.. 2018. Isotope sclerochronology of ammonites (Baculites compressus) from methane seep and non-seep sites in the Late Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway, USA: implications for ammonite habitat and mode of life. American Journal of Science 318:603–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, N. L., Jorgensen, S. D., Farrar, R. A., and Larson, P. L.. 1997. Ammonites and the other cephalopods of the Pierre Seaway. Geoscience Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Lemanis, R., Zachow, S., Fusseis, F., and Hoffmann, R.. 2015. A new approach using high-resolution computed tomography to test the buoyant properties of chambered cephalopod shells. Paleobiology 41:313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemanis, R., Korn, D., Zachow, S., Rybacki, E., and Hoffmann, R.. 2016. The evolution and development of cephalopod chambers and their shape. PLoS ONE 11:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mapes, R. H., and Nützel, A.. 2008. Late Palaeozoic mollusc reproduction: cephalopod egg-laying behavior and gastropod larval palaeobiology. Lethaia 42:341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, H. 1838. On the geometrical form of turbinated and discoid shells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1838:351–370.Google Scholar
Naglik, C., Monnet, C., Goetz, S., Kolb, C., De Baets, K., Tajika, A., and Klug, C.. 2015a. Growth trajectories of some major ammonoid subclades revealed by serial grinding tomography data. Lethaia 48:29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglik, C., Tajika, A., Chamberlain, J., and Klug, C.. 2015b. Ammonoid locomotion. In Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R. H., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology, Vol. 1. From anatomy to ecology. Topics in Geobiology 43:649–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglik, C., Rikhtegar, F., and Klug, C.. 2016. Buoyancy of some Palaeozoic ammonoids and their hydrostatic properties based on empirical 3D models. Lethaia 49:3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988a. Changes in life orientation during the ontogeny of some heteromorph ammonoids. Palaeontology 31:281–294.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988b. Developmental regulation and morphological saltation in the heteromorph ammonite Nipponites. Paleobiology 14:272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1996. Theoretical modeling of ammonoid morphology. In Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York. Topics in Geobiology 13:225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, A., Bone, Q., and Hignette, M.. 1980. Breathing and swimming movements in a captive Nautilus. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 60:313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterman, D. J. 2019. Project: Didymoceras theoretical models. https://www.morphosource.org/Detail/ProjectDetail/Show/project_id/907, last modified December 17, 2019.Google Scholar
Peterman, D. J., and Barton, C. C.. 2018. Ontogenetic changes in the hydrostatic properties of the heteromorphic ammonite, Didymoceras. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2018, Abstract PP13F-1402.Google Scholar
Peterman, D. J., and Barton, C. C.. 2019. Power scaling of ammonitic suture patterns from Cretaceous Ancyloceratina: constraints on septal/sutural complexity. Lethaia 52:77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterman, D. J., Barton, C. C., and Yacobucci, M. M.. 2019a. The hydrostatics of Paleozoic ectocochleate cephalopods (Nautiloidea and Endoceratoidea) with implications for modes of life and early colonization of the pelagic zone. Palaeontologia Electronica 22.2.24A:1–29. doi: 10.26879/884.Google Scholar
Peterman, D. J., Ciampaglio, C. N., Shell, R. C., and Yacobucci, M. M.. 2019b. Mode of life and hydrostatic stability of orthoconic ectocochleate cephalopods: hydrodynamic analyses of restoring moments from 3D printed, neutrally buoyant models. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 64:441–460.CrossRefGoogle 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
Reyment, R. A. 1958. Some factors in the distribution of fossil cephalopods. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis—Stockholm contributions. Geology 1:97–184.Google Scholar
Ritterbush, K., De Baets, K., Hoffmann, R., and Lukeneder, A.. 2014. Pelagic palaeoecology: the importance of recent constraints on ammonoid palaeobiology and life history. Journal of Zoology 292:229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha, F., Guerra, A., and González, A. F.. 2001. A review of reproductive strategies in cephalopods. Biological Reviews 76:291–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saunders, B. W., and Shapiro, E. A.. 1986. Calculation and simulation of ammonoid hydrostatics. Paleobiology 12:64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slattery, J. S., Clementz, M. T., and Johnson, M. R.. 2007. Habitat of the Upper Cretaceous heteromorphic ammonoid Didymoceras in the Western Interior Seaway. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 39:398.Google Scholar
Tajika, A., and Wani, R.. 2010. Intraspecific variation of hatchling size in Late Cretaceous ammonoids from Hokkaido, Japan: implication for planktic duration at early ontogenetic stage. Lethaia 44:287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajika, A., Morimoto, N., Wani, R., Naglik, C., and Klug, C.. 2015a. Intraspecific variation of phragmocone chamber volumes throughout ontogeny in the modern nautilid Nautilus and the Jurassic ammonite Normannites. PeerJ 3:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajika, A., Naglik, C., Morimoto, N., Pascual-Cebrian, E., Hennhöfer, D. K., and Klug, C.. 2015b. Empirical 3D-model of the conch of the Middle Jurassic ammonite microconch Normannites, its buoyancy, the physical effects of its mature modifications and speculations on their function. Historical Biology 27:181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajika, A., Nützel, A., and Klug, C.. 2018. The old and the new plankton: ecological replacement of associations of mollusc plankton and giant filter feeders after the Cretaceous? PeerJ 6:e4219. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanabe, K., and Landman, N. H.. 2002. Morphological diversity of the jaws of Cretaceous Ammonoidea. In Summesberger, H., Histon, K., and Daurer, A., eds. Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 57:157–165.Google Scholar
Trueman, A. E. 1941. The ammonite body-chamber, with special reference to the buoyancy and mode of life of the living ammonite. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 384:339–383.Google Scholar
Urdy, S., Goudemand, N., Bucher, H., and Chirat, R.. 2010. Allometries and the morphogenesis of the molluscan shell: a quantitative and theoretical model. Journal of Experimental Zoology 314B:280–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, S. A., Korn, D., and Klug, C.. 2010. Size distribution of the Late Devonian ammonoids Prolobites: indication for possible mass spawning events. Swiss Journal of Geosciences 103:475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1979. Cameral liquid in Nautilus and ammonites. Paleobiology 5:40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1977. Form and function of orthocone cephalopod shells with concave septa. Paleobiology 3:300–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1996. Ammonoid life and habitat. In Landman, N.H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York. Topics in Geobiology 13:607–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 2013. Hydrostatics, propulsion and life-habits of the Cretaceous ammonoid Baculites. Revue de Paléobiologie 32:249–265.Google Scholar