Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:25:49.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical morphology of the crinoid cup

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

David C. Kendrick
David C. Kendrick*
Affiliation:
Department of Geoscience, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York 14456. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two simple plate parameters, P, the height of the plate measured normal to the plate base, and α, the angle formed between the plate base and the adjacent edge of that plate, serve to model crinoid aboral cup morphology. With few exceptions, the resulting theoretical geometries replicate the range of calyx morphology observed in the natural world. A theoretical morphospace, derived from these parameters, encompasses both the realized and unrealized possibilities of crinoid calyx construction. The model and the associated morphospace demonstrate that the occupation of crinoid cup space varies non-uniformly in time and space and suggest that functional constraints and/or ecological habit are important components of the distribution of cup morphology in time.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , Spring 2007 , pp. 337 - 350
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
Ausich, W. I. 1988. Evolutionary convergence and parallelism in crinoid calyx design. Journal of Paleontology 62:906–916.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1975. Ontogeny of Hybocrinus punctatus (Miller and Gurley), an Ordovician crinoid. Mathematical Geology 7:129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derstler, K. 1981. Morphological diversity of Early Cambrian echinoderms. Pp. 71–75 in Michael, E. Taylor, ed. Short papers for the second international symposium on the Cambrian System. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. Google Scholar
Ellers, O. 1993. A mechanical model of growth in regular sea urchins: predictions of shape and a developmental morphospace. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 254:123–129.Google Scholar
Loeb, A. 1971. Color and symmetry. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. 2001. Exploring the spectrum of existent, non-existent and impossible biological form. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:172–173.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1978. Flexibilia. Pp. T759–T812 in Ubaghs, et al. 1978.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Plummer, F. B. 1940. Crinoids from the Upper Carboniferous and Permian strata in Texas. Texas University Bulletin 3945:9–468.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., Lane, N. G., Strimple, H. L., Sprinkle, J., and Fay, R. O. 1978. Inadunata. Pp. T520–T759 in Ubaghs, et al. 1978.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988a. Analysis of heteromorph ammonoids by differential geometry. Palaeontology 31:35–52.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988b. Developmental regulation and morphological saltation in the heteromorph ammonite Nipponites . Paleobiology 14:272–286.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling; general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling; coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41:43–65.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1968. Theoretical morphology of echinoid growth. Pp. 50–63 in Macurda, D. B., ed. Paleobiological aspects of growth and development: a symposium. Journal of Paleontology Memoir 2 (Suppl. to Vol. 42, No. 5). Paleontological Society, Bridgewater, Mass. Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Michelson, A. 1965. Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. Science 147:1294–1295.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1979. Constructional morphology of sand dollars. Paleobiology 5:191–221.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1901. Uintacrinus, its structure and relations. Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoirs 25:1–89.Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1994. Structural models and graphical simulation of echinoids. Pp. 895–899 in David, B., Guille, A., Feral, J.-P., and Roux, M., eds. Echinoderms through time: proceedings of the eighth international echinoderm conference. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Camerata. Pp. T408–T519 in Ubaghs, et al. 1978.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. et al. 1978. Echinodermata 2, Crinoidea. Part T of Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, New York, and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1920. Über Armlose Krinoiden aus dem jüngeren Palaeozoikum. Verhandelingen Geologie Mijnbouw Genootoch, Geologic Series 5:21–35.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1929. Die Krinoiden-Gattung Holopus in Lichte der Paläontologie. Palaeontologische Zeitschrift 11:318–330.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kendrick supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Kendrick supplementary material(File)
File 15.1 KB