Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T15:48:49.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogeny of the crinoid Eucalyptocrinites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2017

Donald B. Macurda Jr.
Donald B. Macurda Jr.*
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The calyx of a Paleozoic camerate crinoid is composed of a mosaic of large, polygonal plates. Ontogenetic size increase results from accretionary additions of calcite to thecal plates. When new calcite is added to the lateral edge of a plate, a new layer is also added over the external surface, obscuring the earlier growth stages of the plate. However, ontogenetic development can be studied by measurement of a growth series. This is illustrated by regression analysis of growth series of two Silurian species of the genus Eucalyptocrinites: E. crassus (Hall) and E. tuberculatus (Miller & Dyer). Growth of the principal plates is isometric; most growth parameters have a very similar mode of development in both species; only a few parameters show any specific difference. A table of correlation coefficients for 51 growth parameters demonstrates that the entire development of the calyx was highly coordinated throughout life, with coefficients almost always equal to or larger than 0.90. Integrated expansion of the cup plates provided a larger cavity for the viscera. The stem increased in diameter to support the increasingly larger theca, as did the diameter of the root system. Growth of the vaulted plates in the upper part of the theca provided a protective recess for the arms, which probably contributed to the evolutionary success of this animal on a widespread basis during the Silurian and Devonian.

Based upon growth studies, the following synonymies are suggested: E. constrictus Hall, E. ellipticus Miller, E. ovalis Hall, and E. subglobosus Miller are synonyms of E. crassus; E. clrodi Miller is a synonym of E. tuberculatus Miller & Dyer.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 42 , Issue S2: Paleontological Society Memoir 2. Paleobiological Aspects of Growth and Development: A Symposium , September 1968 , pp. 99 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 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

Bassler, R. S., & Moodey, M. W., 1943, Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms: Geol. Soc. America, Spec. Paper 45, 734 p.Google Scholar
Cock, A. G., 1963, Genetical studies on growth and form in the fowl. I. Phenotypic variation in the relative growth pattern of shank length and body weight: Genet. Res. Camb., v. 4, p. 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currey, J. D., & Nichols, David, 1967, Absence of organic phase in echinoderm calcite: Nature, v. 214, p. 81–83.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., 1966, Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny: Biol. Reviews, v. 41, p. 587–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, James, 1863, Notice of some new species of fossils from a locality of the Niagaran Group, in Indiana; with a list of identified species from the same place: Albany Inst., Trans., v. 4, p. 195–229 Google Scholar
Hall, James, 1867, Account of some new or little known species of fossils from rocks of the age of the Niagara group: N.Y. State Museum, 20th Ann. Rept., p. 305–401, 23 pls. (advance printing, 1865).Google Scholar
Hall, James, 1879, The fauna of the Niagara Group, in central Indiana: N.Y. State Museum, 28th Ann. Rept., p. 99–203, pls. 2–34 (advance publication, 1877).Google Scholar
Hall, James, 1882, Descriptions of the species of the fossils found in the Niagara Group at Waldron, Indiana: Ind. Dept. Geology Nat. History, 11th Ann. Rept., p. 217–345, pls. 1–36.Google Scholar
Hall, James, & Whitfield, R. P., 1875, Description of invertebrate fossils, mainly from the Silurian System: Ohio Geol. Survey, Rept. 2, pt. 2, p. 65–157, pls. 1–9.Google Scholar
Kermack, K. A., & Haldane, J. B. S., 1950, Organic correlation and allometry: Biometrika, v. 37, p. 30–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kesling, R. V., 1962a, An interpretation of Rhombifera bohemica Barrande, 1867, an unusual hydrophoridean cystoid: Mich., Univ., Contrib. Mus. Paleontology, v. 17, no. 13, p. 277–289, 2 pls.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V., 1962b, Morphology and taxonomy of the cystoid Cheirocrinus anatiformis (Hall): Mich., Univ., Contrib. Mus. Paleontology, v. 18, no. 1, p. 1–21, 4 pls.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., 1963, Neristic variation in the dorsal cup of monobathrid camerate crinoids: Jour. Paleontology, v. 37, p. 917–930.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr., 1964, Dentiblastus, a new blastoid genus from the Burlington Limestone (Mississippian): Jour. Paleontology, v. 38, p. 367–372, pl. 58.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr., 1965, The functional morphology and stratigraphic distribution of the Mississippian blastoid genus Orophocrinus : Jour. Paleontology, v. 39, p. 1045–1096, pls. 121–126.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr., 1966, The ontogeny of the Mississippian blastoid Orophocrinus : Jour. Paleontology, v. 40, p. 92–124, pls. 11–13.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., 1965, Plate growth in some platycrinid crinoids: Jour. Paleontology, v. 39, p. 1207–1209.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A., 1892, Paleontology: Indiana, Dept. Geol. and Nat. Resources, 17th Ann. Rept., p. 611–705, 20 pls. (advance publication, 1891).Google Scholar
Miller, S. A., & Dyer, C. B., 1878, Contributions to paleontology [descriptions of Cincinnatian and Niagaran fossils]: Cincinnati Soc. Nat. History, Jour., v. 1, p. 24–39.Google Scholar
Misra, R. K., & Reeve, E. C. R., 1964, Genetic variation of relative growth in Notonecta undulata : Genet. Res. Camb., v. 5, p. 384–396.Google Scholar
Regnell, Gerhard, 1960, Données concernant le développement ontogénétique des pelmatozoaires du Paléozoique (Échinodermes): Soc. Géol. France, Bull., ser. 7, v. 1, no. 7, p. 773–783.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G., Roe, Anne, & Lewontin, R. C., 1960, Quantitative zoology, rev. ed.: New York, Harcourt Brace and Co., 440 p.Google Scholar
Towe, K. M., 1967, Echinoderm calcite: single crystal or polycrystalline aggregate: Science, v. 157, no. 3792, p. 1048–1050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wachsmuth, Charles, & Springer, Frank, 1897, The North American Crinoidea Camerata: Harvard Univ., Mus. Comp. Zoology, Mem. 20 and 21, 837 p., 83 pls. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherby, A. G., 1879, Remarks on the genus Pterotocrinus Lyon and Casseday and the Subcarboniferous of Kentucky: Cincinnati Soc. Nat. History, Jour., v. 2, p. 3–8, pl. 8.Google Scholar
Wood, Elvira, 1909, A critical summary of Troost's unpublished manuscript on the crinoids of Tennessee: U. S. Natl. Mus., Bull. 64, 150 p., 15 pls. Google Scholar