Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:22:58.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anchors and snorkels: heterochrony, development and form in functionally constrained fossil crassatellid bivalves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

Katie S. Collins ,
James S. Crampton ,
Helen L. Neil ,
Euan G. C. Smith ,
Michael F. Gazley  and
Michael Hannah
Katie S. Collins
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington, Post Office Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
James S. Crampton
Affiliation:
GNS Science, Post Office Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, and Victoria University of Wellington, Post Office Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Helen L. Neil
Affiliation:
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 14901, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Euan G. C. Smith
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington, Post Office Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Michael F. Gazley
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Mineral Resources Flagship, Australian Resources Research Centre, Post Office Box 1130, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia, and Victoria University of Wellington, Post Office Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Michael Hannah
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington, Post Office Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New growth rate estimates for nine species from three genera of New Zealand Crassatellidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia), combined with existing morphometric ontogenetic descriptions, allow identification of heterochronic processes in the evolution of these genera. Both paedomorphosis (progenesis and neoteny) and peramorphosis (hypermorphosis and acceleration) have occurred within the clade. Overall, morphological variability and response to environmental pressure in this nonsiphonate group is restricted by the interplay of anatomical and life habit constraints. Stability in the substrate, predator avoidance, sluggish burrowing speed, and inability to escape by deep burial are suggested as key drivers of, or constraints on, morphological change. Two groups of shell characters are identified: heavy, armored “anchors” and elongate “snorkels,” which combine juvenile and adult traits in shells of different sizes and ages, produced by heterochronic variation in developmental timing. Anchors and snorkels both represent different “solutions” to the problems of life as a nonsiphonate, infaunal bivalve.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 305 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 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

Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B.. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5:296–317.Google Scholar
Beu, A. G., and Maxwell, P. A., with drawings by R. C. Brazier 1990. Cenozoic Mollusca of New Zealand. New Zealand Geological Survey Palaeontological Bulletin 58:1–518.Google Scholar
Boulding, E. G. 1984. Crab-resistant features of shells of burrowing bivalves: decreasing vulnerability by increasing handling time. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 16:201–223.Google Scholar
Butler, P. G., Wanamaker, A. D., Scourse, J. D., Richardson, C. A., and Reynolds, D. J.. 2013. Variability of marine climate on the North Icelandic Shelf in a 1357-year proxy archive based on growth increments in the bivalve Arctica islandica. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 373:141–151.Google Scholar
Collins, K. S., Crampton, J. S., and Hannah, M.. 2013. Identification and independence: morphometrics of Cenozoic New Zealand Spissatella and Eucrassatella (Bivalvia, Crassatellidae). Paleobiology 39:525–537.Google Scholar
Collins, K. S., Crampton, J. S., and Hannah, M.. 2014. Stratocladistic analysis and taxonomic revision of the character-poor New Zealand crassatellid bivalves Spissatella and Eucrassatella. Journal of Molluscan Studies 81:104–123.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., and Maxwell, P. A.. 2000. Size: all it’s shaped up to be? Evolution of shape through the lifespan of the Cenozoic bivalve Spissatella (Crassatellidae). Geological Society of London Special Publication 177:399–423.Google Scholar
Darragh, T. A. 1965. Revision of the species of Eucrassatella and Spissatella in the Tertiary of Victoria and Tasmania. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, new series 78:95–114.Google Scholar
Finlay, H. J. 1926. New shells from New Zealand Tertiary beds: Part 2. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 56:227–258.Google Scholar
Goodwin, D. H., Anderson, L. C., and Roopnarine, P. D.. 2008. Evolutionary origins of novel conchologic growth patterns in tropical American corbulid bivalves. Evolution and Development 10:642–656.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Belknap, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haines, A. J., and Crampton, J. S.. 2000. Improvements to the method of Fourier shape analysis as applied in morphometric studies. Palaeontology 43:765–783.Google Scholar
Hallmann, N., Burchell, M., Schöne, B. R., Irvine, G. V., and Maxwell, D.. 2009. High-resolution sclerochronological analysis of the bivalve mollusk Saxidomus gigantea from Alaska and British Columbia: techniques for revealing environmental archives and archaeological seasonality. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2353–2364.Google Scholar
Iredale, T. 1924. Results from Roy Bell’s molluscan collections. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 49:179–278.Google Scholar
Ivany, L. C., Wilkinson, B. H., and Jones, D. S.. 2003. Using stable isotopic data to resolve rate and duration of growth throughout ontogeny: an example from the surf clam Spisula solidissima. Palaios 16:126–137.Google Scholar
Jaecks, G. S., and Carlson, S. J.. 2001. How phylogenetic inference can shape our view of heterochrony: examples from thecideide brachiopods. Paleobiology 27:205–225.Google Scholar
Jones, D. S., and Gould, S. J.. 1999. Direct measurement of age in fossil Gryphaea: the solution to a classic problem in heterochrony. Paleobiology 25:158–187.Google Scholar
Jones, D. S., Quitmyer, I. R., and Andrus, C. F. T.. 2005. Oxygen isotopic evidence for greater seasonality in Holocene shells of Donax variabilis from Florida. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 228:96–108.Google Scholar
King, P. R., Naish, T. R., Browne, G. H., Field, B. D., and Edbrooke, S. W.. 1999. Cretaceous to Recent sedimentary patterns in New Zealand. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Folio Series 1:1–35.Google Scholar
Kirby, M. X. 2001. Differences in growth rate and environment between Tertiary and Quaternary Crassostrea oysters. Paleobiology 27:84–103.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A.. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology 7:533–552.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J., and McKinney, M. L.. 2005. Heterochrony, disparity and macroveolution. Paleobiology 31:17–26.Google Scholar
Oschmann, W. 2009. Sclerochronology. Editorial. International Journal of Earth Sciences 98:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, J. I., Beu, A. G., Boyes, A. F., Campbell, H. J., Cooper, R. A., Crampton, J. S., Crundwell, M. P., Hollis, C. J., Morgans, H. E. G., and Mortimer, N.. 2015. New Zealand geological timescale NZGT2015/1. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 58(4), 398–403.Google Scholar
Richardson, C. A. 2001. Molluscs as archives of environmental change. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 39:103–164.Google Scholar
Schöne, B. R., Houk, S. D., Castro, A. D. F., Fiebig, J., Oschmann, W., Kröncke, I., Dreyer, W., and Gosselck, F.. 2005. Daily growth rates in shells of Arctica islandica: assessing sub-seasonal environmental controls on a long-lived bivalve mollusk. Palaios 20:78–92.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1968. Post-Paleozoic adaptive radiation of infaunal bivalve molluscs: a consequence of mantle fusion and siphon formation. Journal of Paleontology 42:214–229.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life habits of the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Geological Society of America Memoir 125:1–296.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1981. Infaunal survival: alternative functions of shell ornamentation in the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Paleobiology 7:384–393.Google Scholar
Tashiro, M., and Matsuda, T.. 1988. Mode of life in Cretaceous trigonians. Fossils 45:9–21.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D., Kennedy, W. J., and Hall, A.. 1973. The shell structure and mineralogy of the Bivalvia: II, Lucinacea-Clavagellacea Conclusions. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) 22:254–294.Google Scholar