Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:43:39.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new species of the dual-mouthed paracrinoid Bistomiacystis and a redescription of the Edrioasteroid edrioaster priscus from the Upper Ordovician Curdsville Member of the Lexington Limestone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Colin D. Sumrall  and
Bradley Deline
Colin D. Sumrall
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996–1410,
Bradley Deline
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Ohio, 45221,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Echinoderms are important faunal components in the Curdsville Member of the Lexington Limestone. Numerous clades are represented, including Crinoidea (Springer, 1911; Parsley, 1981), Paracrinoidea (Parsley and Mintz, 1975; Parsley, 1981), Cyclocystoidea (undescribed), Edrioasteroidea (Miller and Gurley, 1894; Bell, 1976, 1979), and Stylophora (Parsley, 1981, 1991). Although some of these taxa are well preserved (Springer, 1911), most have been recovered from residues of acidized samples. These later specimens are poorly preserved, obscuring much of the information. Here we describe well preserved specimens recently collected by members of the Kentucky Paleontological Society (Lexington) of two species that add significantly to our understanding of lesser known components of the Curdsville Fauna. Bistomiacystis schrantzi n. sp. is a large paracrinoid bearing two separate ambu1acral systems that lead to two peristomial openings. Our research suggests that this unusual arrangement is consistent with oral areas of other derived blastozoans bearing oral plates. Edrioaster priscus (Miller and Gurley) is a poorly known large edrioasterid edrioasteroid previously known only from specimens preserved in coarse beekite. The new material of this taxon allows for a thorough characterization of this poorly known edrioasteroid and shows that previous assessments of its size and morphology need revision.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 135 - 139
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

Bassler, R. S. 1915. Bibliographic index of American Ordovician and Silurian fossils. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, 92, 1521 p.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1935. The classification of the Edrioasteroidea. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 93:1–11.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, 743 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1898. Dinocystis barroisi, n. g. et sp., Psammites du Condroz. Geological Magazine, 5:543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1914. The Edrioasters of the Trenton Limestone. Geological Magazine, 1:115–125,162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, B. M. 1976. A Study of North American Edrioasteroidea. New York State Museum Memoir 21, 446 p.Google Scholar
Bell, B. M. 1979. Edrioasteroids (Echinodermata), p. E1–E7. In Pojetta, John (ed.), Contributions to the Ordovician Paleontology of Kentucky and Nearby States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1066E.Google Scholar
Bergström, S. M., Finney, S. C., Chen, Xu, Goldman, D., and Leslie, S. A. 2006. Three new Ordovician global stage names. Lethaia, 39:287–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, E. 1858. On the Asteriadae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, figures and descriptions of Canadian organic remains, Decade, 3:75–85.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Mclaughlin, P. I., Cornell, S. R., and Baird, G. C. 2004. Comparative sequence stratigraphy of two classic Upper Ordovician successions, Trenton Shelf (New York–Ontario) and Lexington Platform (Kentucky–Ohio): Implications for eustasy and local tectonism in eastern Laurentia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 210:295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressman, E. R. 1973. Lithostratigraphy and depositional environments of the Lexington Limestone (Ordovician) of central Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 768, 61 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. A. and Gurley, W. F. E. 1894. New genera and species of Echinodermata. Illinois State Museum Bulletin 5, 53 p.Google Scholar
Parsley, R. L. 1981. Echinoderms from the Middle and Upper Ordovician rocks of Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1066-K: K1–K9.Google Scholar
Parsley, R. L. 1991. Reviews of selected North America mitrrate stylophorans (Homalozoa: Echinodermata. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 100:1–57.Google Scholar
Parsley, R. L. and Mintz, W. L. 1975. North American Paracrinoidea (Ordovician: Paracrinozoa, new, Echinodermata). Bulletin of American Paleontology, 68:1–115.Google Scholar
Regnell, G. 1945. Non-crinoid Pelmatozoa from the Paleozoic of Sweden. Meddelanden från Lunds Geologisk-Mineralogiska Institution, 108:1–255.Google Scholar
Regnell, G. 1966. Edrioasteroids, p. U135–U173. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. U, Echinodermata 3. University of Kansas and Geological Society of America, Lawrence and Boulder.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton echinoderm fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario. Canada Geological Survey Memoir, 15:301–314.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1973. Morphology and Evolution of Blastozoan Echinoderms. Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology, Special Publication, 283 p.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. and Parsley, R. L. 1982. “Golf-ball” paracrinoid, p. 224–230. In Sprinkle, J. (ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. 1993. Thecal designs in isorophinid edrioasteroids. Lethaia, 26:289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. 2008. The origin of Lovén's Law in glyptocystitoid rhombiferans and its bearing the plate homology and the heterochronic evolution of the hemicosmitid peristomal border, p. 229–242. In Ausich, W. I. and Webster, G. (eds.), Echinoderm Paleobiology. University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. In press. A model for elemental homology for the peristome and ambulacra in blastozoan echinoderms. In Harris, L. G., (ed.), Echinoderms Durham, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C. D. and Wray, G. A. 2007. Ontogeny in the fossil record: Diversification of body plans and the evolution of “aberrant” symmetry in Paleozoic echinoderms. Paleobiology, 33:149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar