Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:15:23.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symbiotic relationships between worms and solitary rugose corals in the Late Ordovician

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Robert J. Elias
Robert J. Elias*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Symbiotic relationships involving physical contact between worms and solitary rugosan polyps are recorded by the following structures in North American Late Ordovician corals: (1) Trypanites borings enclosed within septal swellings in two specimens, (2) vermiform grooves and openings along the external wall of one corallum, and (3) a chamber containing a unique brown tube within one individual. These features are indicative, respectively, of commensal boring polychaete annelids that penetrated through coralla, commensal epizoic worms of unknown taxonomic affinity that attached to the side of a polyp, and a tubicolous worm (possibly a polychaete) that was likely a parasitic endozoan. Symbionts comparable to the latter two types are also known from two specimens of Devonian solitary rugose corals.

Indirect evidence suggests that symbioses between solitary rugosans and the worms that produced Trypanites borings as dwelling structures in the sides of coralla were relatively common. However, direct evidence that the hosts were alive has been found in only two corals. In both cases, worms bored through septa within the calices and came into contact with basal surfaces of the polyps, which secreted skeletal material that sealed off the intruders. The rarity of such structures suggests that the encounters were inadvertent. If boring worms favored upcurrent portions of objects in order to maximize feeding benefits and avoid sedimentation, their locations indicate that the concave sides of curved coralla faced toward prevailing currents when in life positions.

“Opportunistic” worms are known to have attached to the sides of polyps only in rare instances when the hosts became temporarily exposed as a result of accidents or abnormalities. This indicates that coralla normally served to shield polyps from colonization by nonboring epizoans.

Worms that apparently extended up through openings in basal surfaces of polyps likely obtained sustenance parasitically within the central cavities. They could have entered the hosts through their mouths, or via the calices when parts of the polyps detached from their coralla and contracted radially. The rarity of this type of relationship in solitary Rugosa suggests that the worms entered inadvertently.

Symbioses involving physical contact between worms and polyps seem to have been rare throughout the history of solitary rugose corals. Both groups apparently tolerated such associations when they did occur, although the rugosans secreted structures in their coralla that served to isolate the symbionts. In doing so, they recorded the presence of worms not likely to be preserved as body fossils. The interpretation of such features provides information on the physiology and ethology of both organisms, on the history of symbiotic relationships, and on the diversity of soft-bodied organisms in ancient environments.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Winter 1986 , pp. 32 - 45
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

Barnes, R. D. 1980. Invertebrate Zoology. 4th ed.1089 pp. Saunders; Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Birenheide, R. 1979. Xystriphyllum- und Sociophyllum-Arten (Rugosa) aus dem Eifelium der Eifel. Senckenberg. Leth. 60:189–221.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1972. On some ichnotaxa in hard substrates, with a redefinition of Trypanites Mägdefrau. Paläontol. Z. 46:93–98.Google Scholar
Cameron, B. 1969. Paleozoic shell-boring annelids and their trace fossils. Am. Zool. 9:689–703.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M. 1908. The beginnings of dependent life. Ann. Rept. New York St. Mus. 61(1):146–196 (also issued in New York St. Mus. Bull. 121).Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M. 1921. Organic Dependence and Disease: Their Origin and Significance. 113 pp. Yale Univ. Press; New Haven (also issued as New York St. Mus. Bull. 221, 222).Google Scholar
Duncan, H. 1957. Bighornia, a new Ordovician coral genus. J. Paleontol. 31:607–615.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1980. Borings in solitary rugose corals of the Selkirk Member, Red River Formation (late Middle or Upper Ordovician), southern Manitoba. Can. J. Earth Sci. 17:272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1981. Solitary rugose corals of the Selkirk Member, Red River Formation (late Middle or Upper Ordovician), southern Manitoba. 53 pp. Geol. Surv. Can. Bull. 344.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1982a. Latest Ordovician solitary rugose corals of eastern North America. 116 pp. Bull. Am. Paleontol. 81(314).Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1982b. Paleoecology and biostratinomy of solitary rugose corals in the Stony Mountain Formation (Upper Ordovician), Stony Mountain, Manitoba. Can. J. Earth Sci. 19:1582–1598.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1983. Middle and Late Ordovician solitary rugose corals of the Cincinnati Arch region. 13 pp. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1066-N.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1984a. Paleobiologic significance of fossulae in North American Late Ordovician solitary rugose corals. Paleobiology. 10:102–114.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1984b. Paleobiology of solitary rugose corals, Late Ordovician of North America. Palaeontogr. Am. 54:533–537.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1985. Solitary rugose corals of the Upper Ordovician Montoya Group, southern New Mexico and westernmost Texas. 58 pp. Paleontol. Soc. Mem. 16.Google Scholar
Goreau, T. F., Goreau, N. I., Soot-Ryen, T., and Yonge, C. M. 1969. On a new commensal mytilid (Mollusca: Bivalvia) opening into the coelenteron of Fungia scutaria (Coelenterata). J. Zool. (Lond.) 158:171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goreau, T. F., Goreau, N. I., Yonge, C. M., and Neumann, Y. 1970. On feeding and nutrition in Fungiacava eilatensis (Bivalvia, Mytilidae), a commensal living in fungiid corals. J. Zool. (Lond.) 160:159–172.Google Scholar
Goreau, T. F., Goreau, N. I., and Yonge, C. M. 1972. On the mode of boring in Fungiacava eilatensis (Bivalvia: Mytilidae). J. Zool. (Lond.) 166:55–60.Google Scholar
Kobluk, D. R. and Nemcsok, S. 1982. The macroboring ichnofossil Trypanites in colonies of the Middle Ordovician bryozoan Prasopora: population behaviour and reaction to environmental influences. Can. J. Earth Sci. 19:679–688.Google Scholar
Ladd, H. S. 1929. The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Maquoketa Shale of Iowa, part 1. Iowa Geol. Surv. Ann. Rept. (1928) 34:305–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macintyre, I. G. 1984. Preburial and shallow-subsurface alteration of modern scleractinian corals. Palaeontogr. Am. 54:229–244.Google Scholar
Nield, E. W. 1984. The boring of Silurian stromatoporoids—towards an understanding of larval behaviour in the Trypanites organism. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol. 48:229–243.Google Scholar
Oliver, W. A. Jr. 1983. Symbioses of Devonian rugose corals. Mem. Assoc. Australasian Palaeontol. 1:261–274.Google Scholar
Pemberton, S. G., Kobluk, D. R., Yeo, R. K., and Risk, M. J. 1980. The boring Trypanites at the Silurian-Devonian disconformity in southern Ontario. J. Paleontol. 54:1258–1266.Google Scholar
Pickerill, R. K. 1976. Vermiforichnus borings from the Ordovician of central Wales. Geol. Mag. 113:159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, R. H. and Eldredge, L. G. 1976. Skeletal modification by a polychaete annelid in some scleractinian corals. Pp. 453–465. In: Mackie, G. O., ed. Coelenterate Ecology and Behavior. Plenum; New York.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P. and Shabica, C. W. 1969. Cylindrical living burrows in Ordovician dalmanellid brachiopod beds. J. Paleontol. 43:838–841.Google Scholar
Rosen, B. R. 1968. An account of a pathologic structure in the Faviidae (Anthozoa): a revision of Favia valenciennesii (Edwards & Haime) and its allies. Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Zool.). 16:323–352.Google Scholar
Sando, W. J. 1984. Significance of epibionts on horn corals from the Chainman Shale (Upper Mississippian) of Utah. J. Paleontol. 58:185–196.Google Scholar
Stasek, C. R. 1958. A new species of Allogaussia (Amphipoda, Lysianassidae) found living within the gastrovascular cavity of the sea-anemone Anthopleura elegantissima. J. Washington Acad. Sci. 48:119–126.Google Scholar
Takahashi, K. 1937. Notes on the polychaetous annelid, Polydora pacifica n. sp., which bores holes in Pinctada margaritifera (Linné). Palao Trop. Biol. Stn. Studies. 2:155–167.Google Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1974. Substrate specificity of Devonian epizoa. J. Paleontol. 48:881–894.Google Scholar