Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:38:17.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fossilization potential of an intertidal fauna: Friday Harbor, Washington

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Thomas J. M. Schopf
Thomas J. M. Schopf*
Affiliation:
Schopf. Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago; 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How much of a living marine fauna would be reflected in the fossil record? In order to answer this, I investigated the probable fate of 169 megascopic genera of the intertidal fauna of the Friday Harbor, Washington region. Three methods were used and these give very similar results. (I) From morphologic examination, 30% of the mud fauna, 32% of the sand fauna, and 29% of the rock fauna are predicted to yield many identifiable fossils; 38% of the mud fauna, 42% of the sand fauna, and 41% of the rock fauna are predicted to yield few identifiable fossils; and the remainder are predicted to yield no fossils. (II) In actual fact, 44% of the mud fauna, 32% of the sand fauna, and 39% of the rock fauna have a fossil record (data from Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology). (III) The 16 sediment samples which were examined yielded 29% of the total fauna. I conclude (1) that the fossilization potential for the Friday Harbor intertidal fauna is largely independent of habitat, and (2) that 40% of the present megascopic fauna would be (and has been!) preserved in the fossil record.

The fossil record would accurately (and preferentially) include the herbivore and filter feeding genera. The reason which I postulate for this is based on the suitability of heavily calcified exoskeletons to an essentially sessile mode of life, and the lack of suitability of such skeletons for readily mobile forms. 67% of the genera which essentially rest in one place are known as fossils. In contrast, only 16 to 27% of the burrowing detritus eaters (e.g., polychaetes) and roving carnivores (e.g., sea stars and crabs) are known as fossils. The percentage of herbivore and filter feeding genera in rocky environments is 39%, in sand 16% and in mud 34%. In the fossil record, deposits which were originally mud are likely to be most fossiliferous because (1) that environment has a high proportion of essentially sessile genera, (2) essentially sessile genera are far more likely to have a heavily calcified skeleton, and (3) few rock intertidal regions are buried.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , Summer 1978 , pp. 261 - 270
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

Abele, L. G. 1976. Comparative species richness in fluctuating and constant environments: coral-associated decapod crustaceans. Science. 192:461–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bambach, R. K. 1977. Species richness in marine benthic habitats through the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology. 3:152–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadée, G. C. 1968. Molluscan Biocoenoses and Thanatocoeneses in the Ria de Arosa, Galicia, Spain. 121 pp. E. J. Brill; Leiden.Google Scholar
Cones, H. R. 1968. Selectivity in fossil preservation as shown by a comparison of fossil and modern barnacle populations. Chesapeake Science. 9:61–63.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E. G. and Swanson, R. A. 1973. Diversity and structure of epifaunal communities on mollusc valves, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 14:229–247.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1967. The incompleteness of our knowledge of the fossil record. J. Paleontol. 41:559–565.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, R. N., Ed. 1976. Tidal Deposits. 428 pp. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.Google Scholar
Glynn, P. W. 1976. Some physical and biological determinants of coral community structure in the Eastern Pacific. Ecol. Monogr. 46:431–456.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. G. 1964. The community approach to paleoecology. Pp. 107–134, In: Imbrie, J. and Newell, N., eds. Approaches to Paleoecology. John Wiley and Sons; New York.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. G. 1965. Pelecypod death assemblages in Tomales Bay, California. J. Paleontol. 39:80–85.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1977. The poor fossil record of the regular echinoid. Paleobiology. 3:168–174.Google Scholar
Kornicker, L. S. and Conover, J. T. 1959. Effect of high storm tide levels on beach burial of jellyfish and other organisms. Pp. 344–345. In: International Oceanographic Congress, Preprints. Sears, M., ed.Google Scholar
Kornicker, L. S. and Conover, J. T. 1960. Effect of high stormtide levels on beach burial of jellyfish (Scyphozoa) and other organisms. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 45:203–214.Google Scholar
Kozloff, E. N. 1974. Seashore life of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and the San Juan Archipelago. 282 pp. Univ. Wash. Press; Seattle and London. [Second Printing with corrections.]Google Scholar
Kozloff, E. N. 1976. Keys to the marine invertebrates of Puget Sound, the San Juan Archipelago and adjacent regions. 226 pp. Univ. Wash. Press; Seattle and London. [Second printing with corrections.]Google Scholar
Lasker, H. 1976. Effects of differential preservation on the measurement of taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology. 2:84–93.Google Scholar
Macdonald, K. B. 1976. Paleocommunities: toward some confidence limits. Pp. 87–106. In: Scott, R. W. and West, R. R., eds. Structure and Classification of Paleocommunities. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross; Stroudsburg, Pa.Google Scholar
Mauzey, K. P., Birkeland, C., and Dayton, P. K. 1968. Feeding behavior of asteroids and escape responses of their prey in the Puget Sound Region. Ecology. 49:603–619.Google Scholar
Monniot, F. and Buge, E. 1971. Les spicules d'Ascidies fossiles et actuelles. Ann. Paleontol. 57:93–105.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1959. The nature of the fossil record. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 103:264–285.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100:65–75.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. H. 1976. Relative abundances of living and dead molluscs in two California lagoons. Lethaia. 9:137–148.Google Scholar
Rieger, R. M. and Sterrer, W. 1975. New spicular skeletons in Turbellaria, and the occurrence of spicules in marine meiofauna. Z. zool. Syst. Evol. 13:207–248.Google Scholar
Risk, M. J. 1973. Silurian Echiuroids: possible feeding traces in the Thorold Sandstone. Science. 180:1285–1287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolfe, W. D. I. and Brett, D. W. 1969. Fossilization processes. Pp. 213–244. In: Eglinton, G. and Murphy, M. T. J., eds. Organic Geochemistry, Methods and Results. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil brachiopods. 199 pp. Hutchinson Univ. Library; London.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1976. Ralph Gordon Johnson 1927–1966): paleontological contributions. Paleobiology. 2:388–391.Google Scholar
Shelford, V. E. and Towler, E. D. 1925. Animal communities of the San Juan Channel and adjacent areas. Publ. Puget Sound Biol. Station. 5:33–73.Google Scholar
Shelford, V. E., Weese, A. O., Rice, L. A., Rasmussen, D. I., and MacLean, A. 1935. Some marine biotic communities of the Pacific Coast of North America. Part I. General Survey of the communities. Ecol. Monogr. 5:250–332.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1960. The history of life. Pp. 117–180. In: Tax, S., ed. The Evolution of Life. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Smith, L. S. 1976. Living shores of the Pacific Northwest. 159 pp. Pacific Search Books, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. A. and Stephenson, A. 1961. Life between tide-marks in North America. IVB. Vancouver Island II. J. Ecol. 49:227–243.Google Scholar
Wismer, N. M. and Swanson, J. H. 1935. Some marine biotic communities of the Pacific coast of North America. Part II. A study of the communities of a restricted area of soft bottom in San Juan Channel. Ecol. Monogr. 5:333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar