Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:06:25.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Broken-Stick model as a null hypothesis for crinoid stalk taphonomy and as a guide to the distribution of connective tissue in fossils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Tomasz K. Baumiller  and
William I. Ausich
Tomasz K. Baumiller
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1398
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lengths of crinoid stalk segments consisting of multiple columnals (pluricolumnals) from the Fort Payne Formation of south-central Kentucky (Mississippian) were tested for uniformity using simulations. The results indicate that stalk segment lengths are too uniform to have been produced by a random process operating on homogeneous stalks.

The most parsimonious explanation for the uniformity of pluricolumnal lengths is based on analogy with stalks of living isocrinids. The stalks of these crinoids are organized into multicolumnal segments of approximately uniform length: columnals within each segment are connected by “through-going” ligament and “intercolumnal” ligament. The articulation between segments, however, consists of only intercolumnal ligament. Preliminary results from experiments on Recent carcasses indicate that the latter is the primary plane of disarticulation following death.

The preservational pattern of the Mississippian stalks suggests that their ligamentary organization was similar to that of the isocrinids. Since the plane of primary disarticulation in isocrinids corresponds to the autotomy plane, Mississippian crinoids also may have been capable of autotomizing their stalks.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Summer 1992 , pp. 288 - 298
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

Ausich, W. I., and Meyer, D. L. 1990. Origin and composition of carbonate buildups and associated facies in the Fort Payne Formation (Lower Mississippian, south-central Kentucky): an integrated sedimentologic and paleoecologic analysis. Geological Society of America Bulletin 102:129–146.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and LaBarbera, M. 1989. Metabolic rates of Caribbean crinoids (Echinodermata), with special reference to deep-water stalked and stalkless taxa. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 93A:391–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., LaBarbera, M., and Woodley, J. D. 1991. Ecology and functional morphology of the isocrinid Cenocrinus asterius (Echinodermata): in situ and laboratory experiments and observations. Bulletin of Marine Science 48:731–748.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1984. Stem morphology of the Recent crinoid Chladocrinus (Neocrinus) decorus. Palaeontology 27:825–841.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1988. Functional morphology of synarthrial articulations in the crinoid stem. Lethaia 21:169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1989a. The improbability of a muscular crinoid column. Lethaia 22:307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1989b. Functional morphology of synostosial articulations in the crinoid column. Lethaia 23:291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emson, R. G., and Wilkie, I. C. 1980. Fission and autotomy in echinoderms. Annual Review Oceanography and Marine Biology 8:155–250.Google Scholar
Grimmer, J. C., Holland, N. D., and Hayami, I. 1985. Fine structure of an isocrinid sea lily (Metacrinus rotundus) (Echinodermata, Crinoidea). Zoomorphology 105:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagdorn, H. 1983. Holocrinus doreckae n. sp. aus dem Oberen Muschelkalk und die Entwicklung von Sollbruchstellen in Stiel der Isocrinida. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 6:345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haude, R. 1980. Constructional morphology of the stems of Pentacrinitidae, and way of life of Seirocrinus. Pp. 17–23in Jangoux, M., ed. Echinoderms: present and past. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Holland, N. D., Grimmer, J. C., and Wiegmann, K. 1991. The structure of the sea lily Calamocrinus diomedae, with special reference to the articulations, skeletal microstructure, symbiotic bacteria, axial organs, and stalk tissues (Crinoidea, Millericrinida). Zoomorphology 110:115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Baumiller, T. 1990. Experimental disintegration of regular echinoids: roles of temperature, oxygen, and decay thresholds. Paleobiology 16:247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. 1957. On the relative abundance of bird species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Washington 43:293–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macurda, D. B., and Meyer, D. L. 1975. The microstructure of the crinoid endoskeleton. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions. Paper 74:1–22.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G., Rosesmyth, M. C., Mailer, S. R., and Miller, J. E. 1988. Relocation movement in a stalked crinoid (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Bulletin of Marine Science 42:480–487.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., Jeffords, R. M., and Miller, T. H. 1968. Morphological features of crinoid columns. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata Article 8:1–30.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1969. An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Roux, M. 1975. Microstructural analysis of the crinoid stem. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper 75:1–7.Google Scholar
Roux, M. 1977. The stalk-joints of Recent Isocrinidae (Crinoidea). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology) 32:45–64.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., Drozdzewski, G., and Haude, R. 1968. Form and function of the stem in the pseudoplanktonic crinoid (Seirocrinus). Palaeontology 11:275–282.Google Scholar
Simms, M. J. 1989. British Lower Jurassic crinoids. Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society, London 142:1–103. (Publ. No. 581, part of Vol. 142 for 1988.)Google Scholar
Stukalina, G. A. 1988. Studies in Paleozoic crinoid columnals and stems. Palaeontographica 204:1–66.Google Scholar
Wilkie, I. C., and Emson, R. H. 1988. Mutable collagenous tissues and their significance for echinoderm palaeontology and phylogeny. Pp. 311–330in Paul, C.R.C. and Smith, A. B., eds. Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary biology. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar