Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:30:01.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five species of camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician Dunleith Formation (Galena Group) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota are described: Cleiocrinus regius Billings, Cotylacrinna sandra n. gen. and n. sp., Euptychocrinus skopaios n. gen. and n. sp., Abludoglyptocrinus charltoni (Kolata), and Eopatelliocrinus ornatus (Billings) n. comb. Archaeocrinus desideratus Billings is assigned to Cotylacrinna, and Glyptocrinus fimbriatus Shumard and Ptychocrinus longibrachialis Brower are placed in Euptychocrinus. The geographical affinities of the Iowa and Minnesota crinoids lie with adjacent localities in the northern midcontinent and the Appalachian province of Canada and New York. Preservation of various specimens implies that Euptychocrinus skopaios, Abludoglyptocrinus charltoni, and Eopatelliocrinus ornatus utilized parabolic arm fans. Cotylacrinna sandra is a specialized rhodocrinitid which is perhaps the largest completely known Ordovician crinoid with a stem length of over 91 cm and a total volume of about 45,740 mm3. The root morphology indicates an upright column and this animal towered above the associated echinoderms, which ranged from the substrate level to a maximum of 25 cm above the seafloor. Euptychocrinus skopaios is marked by dwarfed morphology compared to the closely allied E. fimbriatus, and it exhibits accelerated development of fixed brachs, number of brachials in and length of the arms, and closely spaced pinnules. The dwarfism is interpreted as a specialization for small size and adults of E. skopaios were only located about five or six cm above the substrate. New brachials and pinnules form at the distal arm tips of E. skopaios throughout ontogeny. Consequently, the length of and the number of plates in the food-gathering system are positively allometric relative to the crown volume. Food gathering capacity equals the number of food-catching tube feet times width of the food grooves and it is also augmented more rapidly than expected for an isometric crinoid. Although distantly related to euptychocrinids, most other Dunleith camerates, namely Abludoglyptocrinus charltoni, Eopatelliocrinus ornatus, and Cotylacrinna sandra, follow the same developmental trends of the food-gathering system observed in Euptychocrinus skopaios. Comparison of the pinnulate camerates and three species of ramulate cladids and a disparid from the Dunleith reveals some striking contrasts. At equivalent crown volumes, the camerates are characterized by more numerous arm branches in the form of pinnules, more narrow food grooves, more closely spaced tube feet, and longer food-gathering systems with more plates and greater capacity. The Dunleith camerates were adapted for catching smaller food particles using more numerous and more closely spaced tube feet located on more extensively branched filtration nets than the associated cladids and disparid. The differences can be attributed to taxonomy and presumably phylogeny, that is camerates versus cladids and disparids, and/or morphology in the presence of pinnules versus ramules.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , May 1994 , pp. 570 - 599
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

Angelin, N. P. 1878. Iconographica crinoideorum in stratis Sueciae Siluricis fossilium. Samson & Wallim, Holmiae, 62 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paeontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1986. Early Silurian rhodocrinitacean crinoids (Brassfield Formation, Ohio). Journal of Paleontology, 60:84–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1987. Revision of Rowley's Ordovician(?) and Silurian crinoids from Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 61:563–578.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1915. Bibliographic index of American Ordovician and Silurian fossils. United States National Museum Bulletin 92, 1521 p.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S., and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 45, 734 p.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1992. The energetics of passive suspension feeding: ecological and evolutionary consequences for crinoids, p. 20. In Lidgard, S. and Crane, P. R. (eds.), Fifth North American Paleontological Convention—Abstracts and Program. Paleontological Society Special Publication Number 6.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1857. New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada, p. 247–345. In Geological Survey of Canada, Report of Progress 1853–1856.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1859. On the Crinoideae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains, Decade IV, p. 7–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, W. R. 1885. Two new species of crinoids. Transactions, Ottawa Field Naturalists' Club, 6:127–129.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1978. Description and paleoecology of a new Lower Silurian camerate crinoid. Journal of Paleontology, 52:91–103.Google Scholar
Broadhead, T. W. 1987. Heterochrony and the achievement of the multibrachiate grade in camerate crinoids. Paleobiology, 13:177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadhead, T. W. 1988. The evolution of feeding structures in Palaeozoic crinoids, p. 255–268. In Paul, C. R. C. and Smith, A. B. (eds.), Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1974a. Upper Ordovician xenocrinids (Crinoidea, Camerata) from Scotland. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 67, 25 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1974b. Ontogeny of camerate crinoids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 72, 53 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1975. Silurian crinoids from the Pentland Hills, Scotland. Palaeontology, 18:631–656.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1976. Evolution of the Melocrinitidae. Thalassia Jugoslavica, 12:41–49.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1978. Postlarval ontogeny of fossil crinoids, camerates, p. T244–T263. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992a. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992b. Hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:973–993.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Kile, K. M.In press. Paleoautecology and ontogeny of Cupulocrinus levorsoni Kolata, a Middle Ordovician crinoid from the Guttenberg Formation of Wisconsin. New York State Museum Bulletin.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Strimple, H. L. 1983. Ordovician calceocrinids from northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 57:1261–1281.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1974. Middle Ordovician crinoids from southwestern Virginia and eastern Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 66(283), 125 p.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D. 1984. Early Llandovery crinoids and stelleroids from the Cataract Group (Lower Silurian) in southern Ontario, Canada. Royal Ontario Museum, Life Sciences Contributions 137, 82 p.Google Scholar
Gislén, T. 1924. Echinoderm studies. Zoologiska Bidrag Från Uppsala, 9:1–316.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 498 p.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1984. Echinodermata of the Middle Ordovician Lebanon Limestone, central Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 86(319), 100 p.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1992. Paleoecology of hardground encrusting and commensal crinoids, Middle Ordovician, Tennessee. Journal of Paleontology, 66:129–147.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1867. Descriptions of some new species of Crinoidea, and other fossils from the Lower Silurian strata principally of the age of the Hudson-River Group. New York State Cabinet of Natural History, 20th Annual Report, p. 304.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1872 [preprint dated 1871]. Description of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils from strata of the age of the Hudson-River Group and Trenton Limestone. New York State Museum of Natural History, Annual Report 24:205–224[1–28, preprint].Google Scholar
Hudson, G. H. 1911. Studies of some early Siluric Pelmatozoa. New York State Museum Bulletin, 148:195–272.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7, Journal of Paleontology 49, Supplement, 74 p.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1982. Camerates, p. 170–205. In Sprinkle, J. (ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R., Brower, J. C., and Frest, T. J. 1987. Upper Mississippi Valley Champlainian and Cincinnatian echinoderms. Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations, 35:179–181.Google Scholar
Levorson, C. O., and Gerk, A. J. 1975. Field recognition of subdivision of the Galena Group within Winneshiek County. Guidebook for Field Gathering of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Academies of Science, 1975:1–17.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr., and Meyer, D. L. 1974. Feeding posture of modern stalked crinoids. Nature, 247:394–396.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G., Neumann, A. C., and Lang, J. C. 1990. Biozonation of deep-water lithoherms and associated hardgrounds in the Northeastern Straits of Florida. Palaios, 5:15–33.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Marine Biology, 51:361–369.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A Natural History of the Crinoidea or Lily-shaped Animals, with observation on the genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites. Bryan & Company, Bristol, 150 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1883. Glyptocrinus redefined and restricted, Gaurocrinus, Pycnocrinus and Compsocrinus established and two new species described. Cincinnati Society of Natural History, Journal, 6:217–235.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, Ohio, 664 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1890. The structure, classification, and arrangement of American Palaeozoic crinoids into families. American Geologist, 6:275–286, 340–357.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1952. Crinoids, p. 604–652. In Moore, R. C., Lalicker, C. G., and Fischer, A. G., Invertebrate Fossils. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943a. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 46:1–167.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943b. Trichinocrinus, a new camerate crinoid from Lower Ordovician (Canadian?) rocks of Newfoundland. American Journal of Science, 241:262–268.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, W. H. C. 1961. A monograph of British Ordovician Crinoidea. Palaeontographical Society, London, Monograph, 114:1–37.Google Scholar
Roemer, C. F. 1854–1855. Erste Periode, Kohlen-Gebirge, 788 p. In Bronn, H. G., Lethaea Geognostica, 3rd edition, Vol. 2. E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Roux, M. 1987. Evolutionary ecology and biogeography of Recent stalked crinoids as a model for the fossil record, p. 1–53. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Studies, Vol. 2. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. E. 1934. Die Crinoideen des rheinischen Devons, Teil 1, Die Crinoideen des Hunsrückschiefers. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt Neue Folge, Heft 163:1–149.Google Scholar
Shumard, B. F. 1855. Dr. Shumard's Report. Missouri Geological Survey, Annual Report, 2:137–208.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. 1977. A method for testing the distinctness of clusters: a test of the disjunction of two clusters in euclidean space as measured by their overlap. Mathematical Geology, 9:123–143.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1905. Cleiocrinus. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Memoir 25(2):93–114.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton echinoderm fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario. Canada Geological Survey, Memoir 15-P:1–50.Google Scholar
Templeton, J. S., and Willman, H. B. 1963. Champlainian Series (Middle Ordovician) in Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey, Bulletin 89, 260 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1950. Le genre Spyridiocrinus Oehlert. Annales de Paléontologie, 36:107–122.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1953. Classe des Crinoïdes, p. 658–773. In Piveteau, J. (ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, Tome III. Masson et Cie, Paris.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978a. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978b. Evolution of camerate crinoids, p. T281–T292. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1881. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Part 2. Family Sphaeridocrinidae, with the sub-families Platycrinidae, Rhodocrinidae, and Actinocrinidae. Academy of Natural Sciences, Phildelphia, Proceedings for 1881:175–411(1–237).Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Part 3, Section 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Proceedings for 1885:223–364(1–162).Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1897. The North American Crinoidea Camerata. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Memoir 21, 22:1–897.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1973. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids 1942–1968. Geological Society of America, Memoir 137, 341 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. E. 1946. Echinodermata of the Ottawa Formation of the Ottawa-St. Lawrence Lowland. Canada Geological Survey, Bulletin, 4:1–61.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., and Strimple, H. L. 1981. Early Silurian camerate crinoids of eastern Iowa. Proceedings, Iowa Academy of Sciences, 88:101–137.Google Scholar
von Zittel, K. A. 1879. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Band 1, Palaeozoologie, Abt. 1. R. Oldenbourg, Munich and Leipzig, 765 p.Google Scholar