Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:26:09.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paleoecology of Dominican amber preservation: spider (Araneae) inclusions demonstrate a bias for active, trunk-dwelling faunas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

David Penney
David Penney*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Dominican Republic amber, as a data set for ecological investigation, is subject to unique biases. To understand the paleoecology of Hispaniola during the Miocene it is not sufficient only to identify the amber inclusions, the biases of entrapment also need to be elucidated. This study compares the spider (Araneae) fauna from Recent Neotropical rainforests with assemblages from Dominican Republic amber deposits. This comparison demonstrates that the site of the original resin secretion is farther removed from the ground layer than has previously been suggested. In many spider families, particularly the web weavers, mature males lead an active lifestyle as they roam in search of the more sedentary females. Male spiders are significantly more common as amber inclusions than females. When the sex ratios of preserved spiders are examined in relation to the predation strategies of their extant relatives, at family level, wandering spiders appear more susceptible to entombment than sedentary spiders. This implies that spiders, and presumably other co-occurring organisms, were trapped primarily by wandering onto sticky resin rather than by being engulfed passively by less viscous, flowing resin.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , Summer 2002 , pp. 389 - 398
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

Baroni-Urbani, C., and Saunders, J. B. 1980. The fauna of the Dominican Republic amber: the present status of knowledge. Transactions of the Ninth Caribbean Geological Conference (Santo Domingo, August 1980), pp. 213–223.Google Scholar
Bray, J. R., and Curtis, C. T. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:325–349.Google Scholar
Coddington, J. A., Griswold, C. E., Dávila, D. S., Peñaranda, E., and Larcher, S. F. 1991. Designing and testing sampling protocols to estimate biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. Pp. 44–60in Dudley, E. C., ed. The unity of evolutionary biology. Proceedings of the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology. Dioscorides, Portland, Ore.Google Scholar
Erwin, T. L. 1983. Beetles and other insects of tropical forest canopies at Manaus, Brazil, sampled by insecticidal fogging. Pp. 59–75in Sutton, S. L., Whitmore, T. C., and Chadwick, A. C.Chadwick, A. C., eds. Tropical rain forest: ecology and management. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gasnier, T. R., Höfer, H., and Brescovit, A. D. 1995. Factors affecting the activity density of spiders on tree trunks in an Amazonian rainforest. Ecotropica 1:69–77.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D. A. 1996. Amber: window to the past. Harry N. Abrahams. New York.Google Scholar
Henwood, A. 1993a. Recent plant resins and the taphonomy of organisms in amber: a review. Modern Geology 19:35–59.Google Scholar
Henwood, A. 1993b. Ecology and taphonomy of Dominican Republic amber and its inclusions. Lethaia 26:237–245.Google Scholar
Höfer, H. 1997. Araneae. In Junk, W. J., ed. The central Amazonian floodplain: ecology of a pulsing system. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hueber, F. M., and Langenheim, J. 1986. Dominican amber tree had African ancestors. Geotimes 31:8–10.Google Scholar
Iturralde-Vinent, M. A., and MacPhee, R. D. E. 1996. Age and palaeogeographical origin of Dominican amber. Science 273:1850–1852.Google Scholar
Langenheim, J. H. 1969. Amber: a botanical enquiry. Science 163:1157–1169.Google Scholar
Langenheim, J. H. 1995. Biology of amber-producing trees: focus on case studies of Hymenaea and Agathis. Proceedings of the American Chemical Society, Symposium Series 617:1–31.Google Scholar
Larsson, S. G. 1978. Baltic amber: a paleobiological study. Scandinavian Science Press, Klamperborg.Google Scholar
Manhart, C. 1994. Spiders on bark in a tropical rainforest (Pan-guana, Peru). Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 29:49–53.Google Scholar
McCobb, L. M. E., Duncan, I. J., Jarzembowski, E. A., Stankiewicz, B. A., Wills, M. A., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1998. Taphonomy of the insects from the Insect Bed (Bembridge Marls), late Eocene, Isle of Wight, England. Geological Magazine 135:553–563.Google Scholar
Nentwig, W. 1993. Spiders of Panama: biogeography, investigation, phenology, check list, key and bibliography of a tropical spider fauna. Flora and Fauna Handbook No. 12. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Fla.Google Scholar
Penney, D. 1999a. Hypotheses for the Recent Hispaniolan spider fauna based on the Dominican Republic amber spider fauna. Journal of Arachnology 27:64–70.Google Scholar
Penney, D. 1999b. Dominican Republic amber spiders and their contribution to fossil and recent ecology. Ph.D. thesis. University of Manchester, Manchester, England.Google Scholar
Pike, E. M. 1993. Amber taphonomy and collecting biases. Palaios 8:411–419.Google Scholar
Pike, E. M. 1994. Historical changes in insect community structure as indicated by hexapods of Upper Cretaceous Alberta (Grassy Lake) amber. Canadian Entomologist 126:695–702.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. Q. Jr. 1991. Hymenaea protera sp. n. (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae) from Dominican amber has African affinities. Experientia 47:1075–1082.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. Q. Jr. 1992. Life in amber. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. O. Jr., and Poinar, R. 1999. The amber forest: a reconstruction of a vanished world. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Ross, A. J. 1997. Insects in amber. Geology Today 13:24–28.Google Scholar
Sanderson, M. W., and Farr, T. H. 1960. Amber with insect and plant inclusions from the Dominican Republic. Science 131:1313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, D. 1996. Species composition and community structure of Peruvian rainforest spiders: a case study from a seasonally inundated forest along the Samiria River. Pp. 597–610in Manhert, V., ed. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Arachnology, Geneva. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, Volume hors série 2.Google Scholar
Uetz, G. W., Halaj, J., and Cady, A. B. 1999. Guild structure of spiders in major crops. Journal of Arachnology 27:270–280.Google Scholar
Walter, D. E. 1995. Dancing on the head of a pin: mites in the rainforest canopy. Records of the Western Australian Museum 52 (Suppl.):49–53.Google Scholar
Weiss, I. 1995. Spinnen und Weberknechte auf Baumstämmen im National Park Bayerischer Wald. Pp. 184–192in Ruziçka, V., ed. Proceedings of the 15th European Colloquium of Arachnology. Institute of Entomology, Ceské Budejovice, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, J. 1988. Die Fossilen Spinnen im Dominikanischen Bernstein. Beiträge zur Araneologie 2:1–378.Google Scholar