Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T03:17:48.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brachiopod outline and the importance of the logarithmic spiral

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Anthony E. Aldridge
Anthony E. Aldridge*
Affiliation:
Post Office Box 4050, St. Kilda, Dunedin, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To a first approximation, the logarithmic spiral is a close fit to the biconvex lateral outline of three terebratellid genera from Australasia. Investigation of spiral parameters confirms the value of the biconvex morphospace of McGhee (1980), but not the method for estimating the spiral itself. Deviations from the estimated spiral are episodic and consistent with Rudwick's (1959) observations of allometry in brachiopod growth. Morphospace location is postulated to be indicative of a species' substrate and lifestyle. The logarithmic spiral offers much opportunity for gaining better understanding of external shape and its cause in articulate brachiopods.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , Spring 1998 , pp. 215 - 226
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

Ackerly, S. C. 1989. Kinematics of accretionary shell growth, with examples from brachiopods and molluscs. Paleobiology 15: 147–164.Google Scholar
Ackerly, S. C. 1992. The structure of ontogenetic variation in the shell of Pecten. Palaeontology 35: 847–867.Google Scholar
Becker, R. A., Cleveland, W. S., and Shyu, M-J. 1996. The visual design and control of trellis display. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5: 123–155.Google Scholar
Chapman, B. E. and Richardson, J. R. 1981. Recent species of Neothyris. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 8: 157–161.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A. 1982. New brachiopods from the Southern Hemisphere. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 41 Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Davies, O. L. and Goldsmith, P. L. 1972. Statistical methods in research and production. Longman, London. International Organization for Standardisation 1994. Accuracy of measurement methods and results Geneva.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. R., Tabachnick, R. E., and Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Landmark-based morphometrics of spiral accretionary growth. Paleobiology 17: 19–37.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. 1980. Shell form in the biconvex articulate Brachiopoda: a geometric analysis. Paleobiology 6: 57–76.Google Scholar
Neall, V. E. 1972. Systematics of the endemic New Zealand brachiopod Neothyris. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 2: 229–247.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1990. Handbook of nonlinear models. Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling. Journal of Paleontology 40: 1178–1190.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. R. 1987. Brachiopods from carbonate sands of the Australian shelf. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 99: 37–50.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. R. 1994. Origins and dispersal of a brachiopod family—the systematics and biogeography and evolution on the family Terebratellidae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 106: 17–29.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1959. The growth and form of brachiopod shells. Geological Magazine XCVI 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1968. Some analytic methods in the study of ontogeny in fossils with accretionary skeletons. Journal of Palaeontology 42: 35–49.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and fossil brachiopods. Hutchinson London.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1990. Biological aspects of theoretical shell morphology. Lethaia 23: 195–212.Google Scholar