Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T02:24:03.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogeny and phylogeny in primitive calceocrinid crinoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

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

Abstract

The evolution of primitive calceocrinids with four arm-bearing rays, here termed cremacrinids, has been examined for 13 species of Cremacrinus, Paracremacrinus, and Anulocrinus using numerical cladistics. The lineage was reconstructed from a Wagner tree of a Manhattan distance matrix. The characters were polarized by outgroup comparison. The Calceocrinidae originated from the Homocrinidae by development of the hinge, recumbent stem, loss of the BC interray basal and the C ray arm, and reorganization of the dorsal cup plates. The main evolutionary trends within cremacrinids consist of differentiation of the B and E ray arms from those of the lateral rays, increase or decrease in the number of branches and size of all arms, reduction of the B ray arm relative to those of the A and D rays, acquistion of additional main axils in the lateral rays, fusion of the infer- and superradials in the B and C rays, development of elongate brachials, and changes in adult body size.

Relatively complete growth sequences are known for six species of cremacrinids and these are analyzed with allometric equations for the dorsal cup, hinge, and arms. The relationships between ontogeny and phylogeny for the links in the evolutionary sequence and the number of examples of each are listed in order of decreasing frequency and importance: 1) unclassified divergences (for example, changes in the number of branches in the E ray and the formation of elongate brachials), 12 examples; 2) 10 cases of paedomorphosis; 3) no significant differences between ancestors and descendants, seven instances; 4) five links where the dorsal cup plates are rearranged; and 5) a single change by recapitulation. Some phyletic links are characterized by several patterns whereas others only exhibit one or two kinds of transitions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 62 , Issue 6 , November 1988 , pp. 917 - 934
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

Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5:296–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1984. Calceocrinids from the Early Silurian (Llandoverian) Brassfield Formation of southwestern Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 58:1167–1185.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1986. Palaeoecology and history of the Calceocrinidae (Palaeozoic Crinoidea). Palaeontology, 29:85–99.Google Scholar
Billings, W. R. 1887. A new genus and three new species of crinoids from the Trenton Formation with notes on a large specimen of Dendrocrinus proboscidiatus. Ottawa Naturalist, 1(4):49–54.Google Scholar
Bonner, J. T., (ed.). 1982. Evolution and development. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 356 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1981. Systematics and paleoecology of the Late Silurian (Wenlockian) calceocrinid crinoids from New York and Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 55:145–175.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1966. Functional morphology of Calceocrinidae with description of some new species. Journal of Paleontology, 40:613–634.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1974. Ontogeny of camerate crinoids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 72, 53 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1977. Calceocrinids from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of southern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular, 78, 28 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1982. Phylogeny of primitive calceocrinids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph, 1:90–110.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between ontogeny, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1978. Middle Ordovician crinoids from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 74:372–506.Google Scholar
Duncan, T., and Stuessy, T. F., (eds.). 1984. Cladistics: Perspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History. Columbia University Press, New York, 312 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1969. A successive approximations approach to character weighting. Systematic Zoology, 18:374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1970. Methods for computing Wagner Trees. Systematic Zoology, 19:83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1972. Estimating phylogenic trees from distance matrices. American Naturalist, 106:645–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J. S., Kluge, A. S., and Eckardt, M. J. 1970. A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Zoology, 19:172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1984. The statistical approach to inferring evolutionary trees and what it tells us about parsimony and compatability, p. 169–191. In Duncan, T. and Stuessy, T. F. (eds.), Cladistics: Perspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Jefferies, R. P. S. 1982. Fossils and phylogeny— a compromise approach. Systematics Association Special Publication, 21:197–234.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41:587–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 498 p.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London, 276 p.Google Scholar
Imbrie, J. 1956. Biometrical methods in the study of invertebrate fossils. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 108:211–252.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und system der Pelmatozoen. Palaeontologischen Zeitschrift, Band III, Heft, 1:1–128.Google Scholar
Kluge, A. G., and Farris, J. S. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Systematic Zoology, 13:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesling, R. B., and Sigler, J. P. 1969. Cunctocrinus, a new Middle Devonian calceocrinid crinoid from the Silica Shale of Ohio. University of Michigan, Museum of Paleonteontology Contributions, 22:339–360.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7, 74 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962a. Revision of Calceocrinidae. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 4, 40 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962b. Ray structures of some inadunate crinoids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 5, 47 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., Lane, N. G., Strimple, H. L., and Sprinkle, J. 1978. Disparida, p. T520–T564. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Vol. 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America Special Paper 46, 167 p.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology, 8:130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology, 60:4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokop, R. J. 1970. Family Calceocrinidae, Meek and Worthen, 1869 (Crinoidea) in the Silurian and Devonian of Bohemia. Sbornik Geologickych Ved Paleontologie Svak, 12:79–134.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, W. H. C. 1961. A monograph on British Ordovician Crinoidea. Palaeontographical Society Monograph, 114, 37 p.Google Scholar
Ringueberg, E. N. S. 1889. The Calceocrinidae; a revision of the family, with descriptions of some new species. New York Academy of Science, 4:388–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, A. J. 1969. Numerical methods and phylogeny of the Calceocrinidae. Mathematical Geology, 1:229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardeson, F. W. 1928. Derivation of the Calceocrinidae. Pan American Geologist, 49:35–46.Google Scholar
Schoch, R. M. 1986. Phylogeny Reconstruction in Paleontology. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 353 p.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy, The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 573 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926. American Silurian crinoids. Smithsonian Institution, Publication, 2871, 143 p.Google Scholar
Stuessy, T. F., and Crisci, J. V. 1984. Problems in the determination of evolutionary directionality of character-state change for phylogenetic reconstruction, p. 71–87. In Duncan, T. and Stuessy, T. F. (eds.), Cladistics: Perspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warn, J. M., and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate superfamilies Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician–Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72(96), 138 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1976. A new genus of calceocrinid from Spain with comments on mosaic evolution. Palaeontology, 19:681–688.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 439 p.Google Scholar