No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Revision of the unusual Carboniferous ophiuroid Cholaster (Echinodermata) and remarks on skeletal differentiation within the Asterozoa
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2019
Abstract
Newly discovered, relatively well-preserved specimens of Cholaster whitei n. sp. (Ophiuroidea, Echinodermata) are described from a small area of extensive outcrop of the Bangor Limestone (Mississippian, Chesterian) exposed on the edge of Cedar Creek Reservoir in northern Alabama, USA. The only other known species of the genus, C. peculiaris Worthen and Miller, is based on a single specimen exposed in dorsal aspect and collected from strata of similar age from southwestern Illinois. Incomplete preservation of the single C. peculiaris specimen limits comparisons, but differences between the two occurrences support separation at the species level.
Skeletal remains of both asteroids and ophiuroids are first recognized from Early Ordovician sediments, and representatives of the two classes have retained plesiomorphies or converged morphologically since that time, thereby suggesting important evolutionary potentials and limitations. Cholaster is asteroid-like and unusual among ophiuroids in that the arms are comparatively broad and strap-like, and lateral ossicles are similar to asteroid adambulacrals and marginals, whereas the “vertebrae” (i.e., fused axial pair) and oral frame configurations of C. whitei n. sp. are typical of the Ophiuroidea. The oral frame of C. peculiaris is unknown.
A poorly preserved specimen of the asteroid Delicaster? also was recovered from nearby strata associated with the C. whitei n. sp.
UUID: http://zoobank.org/e0eea445-58e5-4096-80c1-a65964832ef6
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2019, The Paleontological Society 2019
References
Billings, E., 1858, On the Asteriadae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada: Geological Survey of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains, dec. 3, p. 75–85.Google Scholar
Blainville, H.M. de., 1830, Zoophytes: Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, Strasbourg, F.G. Levrault, 60 p.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., 2000, An Archegonaster-like somasteroid (Echinodermata) from Pomeroy, Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland: Irish Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 18, p. 89–99.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., 2013, Early asterozoan (Echinodermata) diversification: A paleontologic quandary: Journal of Paleontology, v. 87, p. 353–372.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., 2014, Two Ordovician asterozoans (Echinodermata) of problematic affinities. Journal of Paleontology, v. 88, p. 1163–1173.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., 2018, Toward a history of the Paleozoic Asteroidea (Echinodermata): Bulletins of American Paleontology, No. 394, 96 p.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., and Elliott, D.R., 2003, Ossicular homologies, systematics, and phylogenetic implications of certain North American Carboniferous asteroids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 77, p. 476–489.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., and Guensburg, T.E., 1989, Illusioluidia teneryi n. gen. and sp. (Asteroidea: Echinodermata) from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, and its homeomorphy with the extant genus Luidia Forbes: Journal of Paleontology, v. 63, p. 331–340.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., and Guensburg, T.E., 2015, The class Somasteroidea (Echinodermata, Asterozoa): morphology and occurrence: Journal of Paleontology, v. 89, p. 465–486.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., and Koniecki, J., 2018, Two new Paleozoic Asteroidea (Echinodermata) and their taxonomic and evolutionary significance: Journal of Paleontology, https://doi.org/10.1017/jpa.2018.70.Google Scholar
Blake, D.B., Zamora, S., and García-Alcalde, J.L., 2015, A new Devonian asteroid-like ophiuroid from Spain: Geologica Acta, v. 13, p. 335–343.Google Scholar
Cox, L.R., 1955, Obituary, Dr. William Kingdon Spencer, F.R.S.: Nature, v. 176, p. 952–953.Google Scholar
Dean, J., 1999, What makes an ophiuroid? A morphological study of the problematic Ordovician stelleroid Stenaster and the palaeobiology of the earliest asteroids and ophiuroids: Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 126, p. 225–250.Google Scholar
Fell, H.B., 1963, The phylogeny of sea-stars: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, v. 246, p. 381–435.Google Scholar
Gray, J.E., 1840, A synopsis of the genera and species of the class Hypostoma (Asterias Linnaeus): The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, v. 6, p. 175–184, 275–290.Google Scholar
Gregory, J.W., 1899, On Lindstromaster and the classification of the palaeasterids: Geological Magazine, New Series, v. 6, p. 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800142384Google Scholar
Hunter, A.W., and McNamara, J., 2017, Prolonged co-existence of ‘archaic’ and ‘modern’ Palaeozoic ophiuroids—evidence from the early Permian, Southern Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 16, p. 891–907.Google Scholar
Hunter, A.W., Rushton, A.W.A., and Stone, P., 2016, Comments on the ophiuroid family Protasteridae and description of a new genus from the Lower Devonian of the Fox Bay Formation, Falkland Islands: Alcheringa, v. 40, p. 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/03115518.2016.1218246Google Scholar
Jell, P., 1997, Early Carboniferous ophiuroids from Crawfordsville, Indiana: Journal of Paleontology, v. 71, p. 306–316.Google Scholar
Kesling, R.V., 1967, Neopalaeaster enigmaticus, new starfish from Upper Mississippian Paint Creek Formation in Illinois: Contributions from The Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan, v. 21, p. 73–85.Google Scholar
Kesling, R.V., 1969, Three Permian starfish from Western Australia and their bearing on revision of the Asteroidea: Contributions from The Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan, v. 22, p. 361–376.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W.M., 1951, Anomalien und Regenerationserscheinungen an paläozoischen Asterozoen: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, v. 93, p. 401–416.Google Scholar
Lyman, T., 1865, Ophiuridae and Astrophytidae: Illustrated Catalogue of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, v. 1, 200 p.Google Scholar
McKnight, D.G., 1975, Classification of somasteroids and asteroids (Asterozoa: Echinodermata): Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v. 5, p. 13–19.Google Scholar
Meek, F.B., and Worthen, A.H., 1860, Description of new Carboniferous fossils from Illinois and other western States: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 12, p. 447–472.Google Scholar
Müller, J., and Troschel, F.H., 1840, Beobachtungen über die Asteriensammlung des Zoologischen Museum: Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1840, p. 100–106.Google Scholar
O'Hara, T.D., Stöhr, S., Hugall, A.F., Thuy, B., and Martynov, A., 2018, Morphological diagnoses of higher taxa in Ophiuroidea (Echinodermata) in support of a new classification: European Journal of Taxonomy, v. 416, p. 1–35.Google Scholar
Owen, H.G., 1965, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: table of contents, supplement and index: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, p. 541–583.Google Scholar
Puckett, T.M., and Rindsberg, A.K., 2014, Stratigraphy and depositional systems in the Mississippian strata of the Appalachian Plateau, northwest Alabama: Tuscaloosa, Alabama Geological Society, Guidebook, 51st Annual Field Trip, 216 p.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R., 1916., Account of some new or little-known species of fossils, mostly from the Paleozoic rocks of New York: New York State Museum Bulletin, v. 189 p. 7–97.Google Scholar
Shackleton, J.D., 2005, Skeletal homologies, phylogeny and classification of the earliest asterozoan echinoderms: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 3, p. 29–114.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1914–1940, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, pts. 1–10 (for 1913–1940), 540 p.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1914, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, pt. 1 (for 1913), p. 1–56.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1916, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, pt. 2 (for 1915), p. 57–108.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1918, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, pt. 3 (for 1916), p. 109–168.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1919, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, pt. 4 (for 1917), p. 169–196.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1925, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, pt. 6 (for 1922). p. 237–324.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1940, The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa: Palaeontographical Society of London Monograph, pt. 10 (for 1940), p. 495–540.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., 1951, Early Palaeozoic starfish: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, v. 235, p. 87–129.Google Scholar
Spencer, W.K., and Wright, C.W., 1966, Asterozoans, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, pt. U, Echinodermata 3(1): Lawrence, Kansas The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas, p. U4–U107.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., and Collins, D.C., 2011, Echmatocrinus from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale: a crinoid echinoderm or an octocoral cnidarian?: Palaeontographica Canadiana, v. 31, p. 169–176.Google Scholar
Villier, L., Brayard, A., Bylund, K.G., Jenks, J.F., Escarguel, G., Olivier, N., Stephen, D.A., Vennin, E., and Fara, E., 2017, Superstesaster promissor gen. et sp. nov., a new starfish (Echinodermata, Asteroidea) from the Early Triassic of Utah, USA, filling a major gap in the phylogeny of asteroids: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 16, p. 395–415.Google Scholar
Waters, J.A, Maples, C.G., and Horowitz, A.S., 1993, Mississippian Echinoderms from Alabama—an overview, in Pashin, J.C., ed., New perspectives on the Mississippian of Alabama: Tuscaloosa, Alabama Geological Society Guidebook, 30th Annual Field Trip, p. 41–50.Google Scholar
Worthen, A.H., and Miller, S.A., 1883, Class Echinodermata: Geology and Palaeontology, Geological Survey of Illinois, v. 7, p. 327–338.Google Scholar