Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T21:45:19.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are the most durable shelly taxa also the most common in the marine fossil record?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Anna K. Behrensmeyer ,
Franz T. Fürsich ,
Robert A. Gastaldo ,
Susan M. Kidwell ,
Matthew A. Kosnik ,
Michal Kowalewski ,
Roy E. Plotnick ,
Raymond R. Rogers  and
John Alroy
Anna K. Behrensmeyer
Affiliation:
Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Post Office Box 37012, NHB MRC 121, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012. E-mail: Behrensa@si.edu
Franz T. Fürsich
Affiliation:
Institut für Paläontologie, Universität Würzburg, 97070 Würzburg, Germany. E-mail: franz.fuersich@mail.uni-wuerzburg.de
Robert A. Gastaldo
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Colby College, Waterville, Maine 04901. E-mail: ragastal@colby.edu
Susan M. Kidwell
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: skidwell@uchicago.edu
Matthew A. Kosnik
Affiliation:
Centre for Coral Reef Biodiversity, School of Marine Biology and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville 4811, Australia. E-mail: mkosnik@alumni.uchicago.edu
Michal Kowalewski
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061. E-mail: michalk@vt.edu
Roy E. Plotnick
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607. E-mail: plotnick@uic.edu
Raymond R. Rogers
Affiliation:
Geology Department, Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota 55105. E-mail: rogers@macalester.edu
John Alroy
Affiliation:
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93101. E-mail: alroy@nceas.ucsb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper tests whether the most common fossil brachiopod, gastropod, and bivalve genera also have intrinsically more durable shells. Commonness was quantified using occurrence frequency of the 450 most frequently occurring genera of these groups in the Paleobiology Database (PBDB). Durability was scored for each taxon on the basis of shell size, thickness, reinforcement (ribs, folds, spines), mineralogy, and microstructural organic content. Contrary to taphonomic expectation, common genera in the PBDB are as likely to be small, thin-shelled, and unreinforced as large, thick-shelled, ribbed, folded, or spiny. In fact, only six of the 30 tests we performed showed a statistically significant relationship between durability and occurrence frequency, and these six tests were equally divided in supporting or contradicting the taphonomic expectation. Thus, for the most commonly occurring genera in these three important groups, taphonomic effects are either neutral with respect to durability or compensated for by other factors (e.g., less durable taxa were more common in the original communities). These results suggest that biological information is retained in the occurrence frequency patterns of our target groups.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , Fall 2005 , pp. 607 - 623
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

Literature Cited

Adrain, J. M., and Westrop, S. R. 2000. An empirical assessment of taxic paleobiology. Science 289(5476):110–112.Google Scholar
Alroy, J., Marshall, C. R., Bambach, R. K., Bezusko, K., Foote, M., Fürsich, F. T., Hansen, T. A., Holland, S. M., Ivany, L. C., Jablonski, D., Jacobs, D. K., Jones, D. C., Kosnik, M. A., Lidgard, S., Low, S., Miller, A. I., Novack-Gottshall, P. M., Olszewski, T. D., Patzkowsky, M. E., Raup, D. M., Roy, K., Sepkoski, J. J., Sommers, M. G., Wagner, P. J., and Webber, A. 2001. Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:6261–6266.Google Scholar
Allison, P. A., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1993. Paleolatitudinal sampling bias, Phanerozoic species diversity, and the end-Permian extinction. Geology 21:65–68.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G. 1995. Experimental taphonomy. Palaios 10:539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G. 1990. Skeletal biomineralization: patterns, processes, and evolutionary trends. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Chave, K. E. 1964. Skeletal durability and preservation. Pp. 377–387 in Imbrie, J. and Newell, N. D., eds. Approaches to paleoecology. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986. The size-frequency distribution in palaeoecology; effects of taphonomic processes during formation of molluscan death assemblages in Texas bays. Palaeontology 29:495–518.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E. G. 1970. Selective bivalve destruction in marine environments, a field study. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 40:898–905.Google Scholar
Harper, E. M. 2000. Are calcitic layers an effective adaptation against shell dissolution in the Bivalvia? Journal of Zoology 251:179–186.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Johnson, K. G. 2001. Measuring past biodiversity. Science 293(5539):2401.Google Scholar
Jope, H. M. 1965. Composition of brachiopod shell. Pp. 156–164 in Williams, A. et al. Brachiopoda, Vol. 1. Part H of Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, New York, and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2005. Shell composition has no net impact on large-scale evolutionary patterns in molluscs. Science 307:914–917.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Bosence, D. W. J. 1991. Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shelly faunas. Pp. 115–209 in Allison, P. A. and Briggs, D. E. G., eds. Taphonomy. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Brenchley, P. J. 1994. Patterns in bioclastic accumulation through the Phanerozoic: changes in input or in destruction. Geology 22:1139–1143.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Brenchley, P. J. 1996. Evolution of the fossil record: thickness trends in marine skeletal accumulations and their implications. Pp. 290–336 in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology: essays in honor of James W. Valentine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F. 1978. Bias in the published fossil record. Paleobiology 4:367–372.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Carroll, M., Casazza, L., Gupta, N., Hannisdal, B., Hendy, A., Krause, R. A. Jr., LaBarbera, M., Lazo, D. G., Messina, C., Puchalski, S., Rothfus, T. A., Sälgeback, J., Stempien, J., Terry, R. C., and Tomasovych, A. 2003. Quantitative fidelity of brachiopod-mollusk assemblages from modern subtidal environments of San Juan Islands, USA. Journal of Taphonomy 1:43–65.Google Scholar
Krause, R. A., Stempien, J., Kowalewski, M., and Miller, A. I. 2002. Differences in size of early Paleozoic bivalves and brachiopods: the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on body size evolution. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 34(6):33.Google Scholar
Martin, R. E. 1999. Taphonomy: a process approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Martin, R. E., Wehmiller, J. F., Harris, M. S., and Liddell, W. D. 1996. Comparative taphonomy of bivalves and foraminifera from Holocene tidal flat sediments, Bahía la Choya, Sonora, Mexico (Northern Gulf of California): taphonomic grades and temporal resolution. Paleobiology 22:80–90.Google Scholar
McClain, C. R. 2004. Connecting species richness, abundance, and body size in deep sea gastropods. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13:327–334.Google Scholar
Parsons, K. M., and Brett, C. E. 1991. Taphonomic processes and biases in modern marine environments: an actualistic perspective on fossil assemblage preservation. Pp. 22–65 in Donovan, S. K., ed. The processes of fossilization. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., and Smith, A. B. 1987. Is the periodicity of extinctions a taxonomic artefact? Nature 330:248–251.Google Scholar
Peck, L. S., Clarke, A., and Holmes, L. J. 1987. Size, shape and the distribution of organic matter in the Recent Antarctic brachiopod Liothyrella uva . Lethaia 20:33–40.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2001. Biodiversity in the Phanerozoic: a reinterpretation. Paleobiology 27:583–601.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnick, R. E. and Wagner, P. In press. Round up the usual suspects: occurrence distribution and wastebasket taxa in the fossil record. Paleobiology.Google Scholar
Plotnick, R. E., Ventura, G. T., Medved, M., and Hudson, C. 2002. Round up the usual suspects: ubiquitous taxa and systematic inertia. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 34(6):283–13.Google Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1948. The commonness, and rarity, of species. Ecology 29:254–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1972. Taxonomic diversity during the Phanerozoic. Science 177:1065–1071.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1976. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: an interpretation. Paleobiology 2:289–297.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Martien, K. K. 2000. Invariant size-frequency distributions along a latitudinal gradient in marine bivalves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:13150–13155.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 2001. Climate change, species range limits, and body size in marine bivalves. Ecology Letters 4:366–370.Google Scholar
Sanders, D. 2003. Syndepositional dissolution of calcium carbonate in neritic carbonate environments: geological recognition, processes, potential significance. Journal of African Earth Sciences 36:99–134.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1993. Ten years in the library: new data confirm paleontological patterns. Paleobiology 19:43–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. B. 2001. Large-scale heterogeneity of the fossil record: implications for Phanerozoic biodiversity studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 356:351–367.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., Gale, A. S., and Monks, N. E. A. 2001. Sea-level change and rock-record bias in the Cretaceous: a problem for extinction and biodiversity studies. Paleobiology 27:241–253.Google Scholar
Sohl, N. F., and Koch, C. F. 1983. Upper Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) Mollusca from the Haustator bilira Assemblage Zone in the East Gulf Coastal Plain. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83–451:1–239.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D., Kennedy, W. J., and Hall, A. 1969. The shell structure and mineralogy of the Bivalvia. Introduction. Nuculacea-Trigonacea. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology 3(Suppl.):1–125.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D., Kennedy, W. J., and Hall, A. 1973. The shell structure and mineralogy of the Bivalvia. II. Lucinacea—Clavagellacea. Conclusions. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology 22(Suppl.):253–294.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1970. How many marine invertebrate fossil species? A new approximation. Journal of Paleontology 44:410–415.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Stratigraphic tests of cladistic hypotheses. Paleobiology 21:153–178.Google Scholar
Warwick, R. M., and Clark, K. R. 1996. Relationships between body-size, species abundance, and diversity in marine benthic assemblages: facts or artifacts. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 202:63–71.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Carlson, S. J., and Brunton, C. H. C. 2000. Brachiopod classification. Pp. 1–27 in Williams, W. et al. Brachiopoda (revised), Vols. 2, 3. Part H of Kaesler, R. L. and Moore, R. C., eds. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wright, P., Cherns, L., and Hodges, P. 2003. Missing molluscs: field testing taphonomic loss in the Mesozoic through early large-scale aragonite dissolution. Geology 31:211–214.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Zuschin, M., and Oliver, P. G. 2003. Fidelity of molluscan life and death assemblages on sublittoral hard substrata around granitic islands of the Seychelles. Lethaia 36:133–149.Google Scholar
Zuschin, M., Stachowitsch, M., and Stanton, R. J. 2003. Patterns and processes of shell fragmentation in modem and ancient marine environments. Earth-Science Reviews 63:33–82.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Behrensmeyer et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Behrensmeyer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.1 MB