Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:44:51.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogenies of some Ordovician Telephinidae from Argentina, and larval patterns in the Proetida (Trilobita)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Brian D. E. Chatterton ,
Gregory D. Edgecombe ,
Norberto E. Vaccari  and
Beatriz G. Waisfeld
Brian D. E. Chatterton
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2E3, Canada
Gregory D. Edgecombe
Affiliation:
Division of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney South, NSW 2000, Australia
Norberto E. Vaccari
Affiliation:
CONICET, Instituto de Geología y Mineria, Universidad Nacional de Jujuy, Avenida Bolivia 1661, CC258, San Salvador de Jujuy (4600), Jujuy, Argentina
Beatriz G. Waisfeld
Affiliation:
División Paleozoología de Invertebrados, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia,” Avenida ángel Gallardo 470, 1405 Buenos Aires, Argentina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ontogenies of three new species of Telephinidae, Telephina calandria, Telephina chingolo, and Telephina problematica are described from Arenig-Caradoc strata in the Argentine Precordillera, and compared with the larval stages of some other Proetida, including other telephinids.

New findings reveal 1) a radical metamorphosis in the ontogenies of these Telephina species late in the meraspid period, not previously described among Trilobita; and 2) distinctive hypostomes of Telephinidae containing long, thin anterolaterally and dorsally splayed anterior wings. Early ontogenies of different species currently assigned to the genus Telephina fall into at least two distinct morphological and life history groups, and hypostomes (if correctly assigned in previous works) vary significantly. The three new species strengthen the hypothesis of a phylogenetic connection between Oopsites and Telephina.

Three morphological types of protaspid instars are described for proetide trilobites. Two are anaprotaspides, and the third is a metaprotaspis. They always occur in the same sequence in the ontogeny, but no cases are known of all three types in the same species. These larval types are important for understanding the systematics and life cycles of the Proetida. Benthic/pelagic transitions identify four life history patterns among the the Proetida. The best larval synapomorphy for the Proetida is the distinctive metaprotaspid larval type, which is absent in very few proetides (some Telephinidae), perhaps as a result of heterochronic displacement of this stage into the meraspid period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 73 , Issue 2: Papers from the Second International Trilobite Conference, August 1997 , March 1999 , pp. 219 - 239
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

Adrain, J. M., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1994. The aulacopleurid trilobite Otarion, with new species from the Silurian of northwestern Canada. Journal of Paleontology, 68:305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adrain, J. M., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1995a. The otarionine trilobites Harpidella and Maurotarion, with species from northwestern Canada, the United States, and Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 69:307–326.Google Scholar
Adrain, J. M., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1995b. Aulacopleurine trilobites from the Llandovery of northwestern Canada. Journal of Paleontology, 69:326–340.Google Scholar
Adrain, J. M., and Fortey, R. A. 1997. Ordovician trilobites from the Tourmakeady Limestone, western Ireland. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Geology), 53:79–115.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, P. 1995. Telephinid trilobites from the Ordovician of Sweden. Palaeontology, 38:259–285.Google Scholar
Astini, R. A. 1995. Sedimentología de la Formación Las Aguaditas (talud carbonático) y evolución de la cuenca precordillera durante el Ordovícico medio. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina, 50:143–164.Google Scholar
Baldis, B. A., and Blasco, G. 1974. Trilobites ordovícicos de la Comarca de Jáchal, Precordillera Argentina. I. Telephinidae. Ameghiniana, 11:71–87.Google Scholar
Baldis, B. A., and Pöthe de Baldis, E. D. 1995. Trilobites ordovícicos de la formación Las Aguaditas (San Juan, Argentina) y consideraciones estratigráficas. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Córdoba, Argentina, 60:409–448.Google Scholar
Baldis, B. A., Shergold, J. H., and Peralta, S. H. 1995. New Llanvirnian trilobites and graptolites from the Las Aguaditas Formation, Argentine Precordillera. Actas VI Congreso Argentino de Paleontología y Bioestratigrafía, 31–38.Google Scholar
Bergström, J. 1977. Proetida—a disorderly order of trilobites. Lethaia, 10:95–105.Google Scholar
Brussa, E. D. 1994. Las graptofaunas ordovícicas del sector central de la Precordillera Occidental sanjuanina. Unpublished , , 323 p.Google Scholar
Brussa, E. D. 1996. Las graptofaunas ordovícicas de la Formación Las Aguaditas, Precordillera de San Juan, Argentina. Parte I: Familias Thamnograptidae, Dichograptidae, Abrograptidae y Glossograptidae. Ameghiniana, 33:421–434.Google Scholar
Cañas, F. In press. Facies and sequences of the Late Cambrian-Early Ordovician carbonates of the Argentine Precordillera: a stratigraphic comparison with Laurentian platforms. In Keppie, D. and Ramos, V. A. (eds.), Laurentia-Gondwana Connections Before Pangaea. Geological Society of America, Special Paper.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E. 1971. Taxonomy and ontogeny of Siluro-Devonian trilobites from near Yass, New South Wales. Palaeontographica A, 108 p.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E. 1980. Ontogenetic studies of Middle Ordovician trilobites from the Esbataottine Formation, Mackenzie Mountains, Canada. Palaeontographica A, 171, 74 p.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E. 1994. Ordovician proetide trilobite Dimeropyge, with a new species from northwestern Canada. Journal of Paleontology, 68:541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Ludvigsen, R. 1976. Silicified Middle Ordovician trilobites from the South Nahanni River area, District of Mackenzie, Canada. Palaeontographica A, 154, 106 p.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Speyer, S. E. 1989. Larval ecology, life history strategies, and patterns of extinction and survivorship among Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology, 15:118–132.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Speyer, S. E. 1990. Applications of the study of trilobite ontogeny, p. 116–136. In Culver, S. J., series editor. Arthropod Paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Speyer, S. E. 1997. Trilobite Ontogeny. p. 173–247. In Whittington, H. B. (ed.). Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, Revised. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 530 p.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., Edgecombe, G. D., Vaccari, N. E., and Waisfeld, B. G. 1997. Ontogeny and relationships of the Ordovician odontopleurid trilobite Ceratocara, with new species from Argentina and New York. Journal of Paleontology, 71:108–125.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., Edgecombe, G. D., Waisfeld, B. G., and Vaccari, N. E., 1998. Ontogeny and systematics of the Toernquistiidae (Trilobita, Proetida) from the Ordovician of the Argentine Precordillera. Journal of Paleontology, 72:273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., Siveter, D. J., Edgecombe, G. D., and Hunt, A. S. 1990. Ontogeny and relationships of the Calymenina (Trilobita). Journal of Paleontology, 64:255–277.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K., and Zhang, X.-G. 1991. Ontogeny of the Carboniferous trilobite Paladin eichwaldi shunnerensis (King 1914). Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 82:277–295.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D., Chatterton, B. D. E., Vaccari, N. E., and Waisfeld, B. G. 1997. Ontogeny of the proetoid trilobite Stenoblepharum and relationships of a new species from the Upper Ordovician of Argentina. Journal of Paleontology, 71:419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D., Chatterton, B. D. E., Waisfeld, B. G., and Vaccari, N. E. 1998. Ordovician (Whiterock) calymenid and encrinurid trilobites from the Argentine Precordillera. Journal of Paleontology, 72:678–697.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1974. A new pelagic trilobite from the Ordovician of Spitsbergen, Ireland, and Utah. Palaeontology, 17:111–124.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1975a. The Ordovician trilobites of Spitsbergen. II. Asaphidae, Nileidae, Raphiophoridae and Telephinidae of the Valhallfonna Formation. Norsk Polarinstitutt Skrifter, 162, 207 p.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1975b. Early Ordovician trilobite communities. Fossils and Strata, 4:339–360.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1980. The Ordovician trilobites of Spitsbergen. III. Remaining trilobites of the Valhallfonna Formation. Norsk Polarinstitut Skrifter, 171, 163 p.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1985. Pelagic trilobites as an example of deducing the life habits of extinct arthropods. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, 76:219–230.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1990. Ontogeny, hypostome attachment and trilobite classification. Palaeontology, 33:529–576.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1988. Classification of the trilobite suborder Asaphina. Palaeontology, 31:165–222.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1975. Proetida—a new order of trilobites. Fossils and Strata, 4:227–239.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1979. Enrollment in the classification of trilobites. Lethaia, 12:219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintze, L. 1953. Lower Ordovician trilobites from western Utah and eastern Nevada. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Bulletin, Number 48:1–249.Google Scholar
Hünicken, M. A., and Sarmiento, G. N. 1982. La zona baltoescandinava de Oepikodus evae (conodonto, Arenigiano inferior) en el perfil del Río Guandacol, La Rioja, Argentina. Vth Congreso Latinamericano de Geología, Actas 1:791–796, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Laurie, J. R., and Shergold, J. H. 1996. Early Ordovician trilobite taxonomy and biostratigraphy of the Emanual Formation, Canning Basin, Western Australia, Pt. 1. Palaeontographica A, 240:65–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. C., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1997a. Three new proetide trilobite larvae from the Lower Ordovician Garden City Formation in southern Idaho. Journal of Paleontology, 71:434–441.Google Scholar
Lee, D. C., and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1997b. Hystricurid trilobite larvae from the Garden City Formation (Lower Ordovician) of Idaho and their phylogenetic implications. Journal of Paleontology, 71:862–877.Google Scholar
McCormick, T., and Fortey, R. A. 1998. Independent testing of a paleobiological hypothesis: the optical design of two Ordovician pelagic trilobites reveals their relative paleobathymetry. Paleobiology, 24:235–253.Google Scholar
Ross, R. J. Jr. 1951. Stratigraphy of the Garden City Formation in northeastern Utah, and its trilobite faunas. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Bulletin 6:1–161.Google Scholar
Ross, R. J. Jr. 1953. Additional Garden City (Early Ordovician) trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 27:633–646.Google Scholar
Shaw, F. C. 1968. Early Middle Ordovician (Chazy) trilobites of New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Memoir, 17:1–163.Google Scholar
Tripp, R. P., and Evitt, W. R. 1983. Silicified trilobites of the genus Dimeropyge from the Middle Ordovician of Virginia. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 30:229–240.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1930. Ordovician trilobites of the family Telephidae and concerned stratigraphic relations. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 76:1–101.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1965. Trilobites of the Ordovician Table Head Formation, western Newfoundland. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 132:1–441.Google Scholar