No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Phylogeny, systematics, and biostratigraphy of the Ordovician bryozoan genus Peronopora
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 July 2015
Abstract
Specimens of Peronopora Nicholson, 1881, are abundant in Upper Ordovician rocks of the North American Midcontinent. Based on the positions of units in the Composite Conodont Standard Section, we have sampled 211 specimens over a stratigraphic interval of 9.1 million years. The average duration of sample spacing is 61,664 years but is commonly as small as 32,800 yr.
Thirty-four morphometric characters were measured in each specimen and were converted into multistate characters; character-state breaks were established based upon each character's ability to discriminate between phenetic groupings. Each character was subsequently weighted based on the number of derived states, degree of independence from other attributes, and estimated heritability.
Cladistic analysis of these data indicate that there are eight species in Peronopora each consisting of an optimally defined crown group and a basal stem group (or paraclade). Character states shared by stem and crown groups define species but, within species, stem and crown groups also differ in some character states. The species are, in ascending order from the base of the tree, Peronopora decipiens (Rominger, 1886), P. compressa (Ulrich, 1979), P. pauca Utgaard and Perry, 1964, P. milleri Nickles, 1905, P. horowitzi new species, P. vera Ulrich, 1888, P. sparsa Brown and Daly, 1985, and finally P. dubia (Cumings and Galloway, 1913). Diagnostic keys permit the unique assignment of each specimen to a species and the separation of members of stem groups from those of crown groups. Thirty-one characters are required to discriminate between all 211 specimens. This contrasts with previous studies of Peronopora where eight or fewer characteristics were used. Of the ten characters most useful in discrimination, only three had been used in the conventional species literature. This accounts, largely, for only 29.8 percent (51 of 171) of previously identified specimens being classified as members of the same species in this analysis. Discriminant function analysis of original measurements, using species identity as the grouping criterion, produces statistically significant separation of species.
It appears that stratigraphic position had an explicit and undue effect on previous concepts of species many of which could not be recognized independently of stratigraphic position. All species of Peronopora appear, or are inferred to have appeared, within the Lexington Limestone between the base of the Grier Member and the top of the Millersburg Member. The cladogram indicates that species evolved in a sequential order, but their first appearance datums have been stratigraphically punctuated. Three species have ranges terminating in the Early to Middle Maysvillian, one in the Middle Richmondian, and four in the Late Richmondian. The latter four (or five) of these species died out in the extinction associated with the unconformity at the top of the Richmondian.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Anstey, R. L.
1981. Zooid orientation structures and water flow patterns in Paleozoic bryozoan colonies. Lethaia, 14:287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, R. L.
1987a. Astogeny and phylogeny: evolutionary heterochrony in Paleozoic bryozoans. Paleobiology, 13:20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, R. L.
1987b. Colony patterning and functional morphology of water flow in Paleozoic stenolaemate bryozoans, p. 1–8. In
Ross, J. R. P. (ed.), Bryozoa: Present and Past. Western Washington University, Bellingham, 333 p.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Bartley, J. W.
1984. Quantitative stereology: an improved thin section biometry for bryozoans and other colonial organisms. Journal of Paleontology, 58:612–625.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Pachut, J. F.
1980. Fourier packing ordinate: a univariate size-independent measurement of the polygonal packing variation in Paleozoic bryozoans. Mathematical Geology, 12:139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Perry, T. G.
1969. Redescription of cotypes of Peronopora vera, a Cincinnatian (Late Ordovician) ectoproct species. Journal of Paleontology, 43:245–251.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Perry, T. G.
1973. Eden Shale bryozoans: a numerical study (Ordovician, Ohio Valley). Publications of the Museum, Michigan State University, Paleontological Series
1(1):1–80.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Rabbio, S. F.
1989. Regional bryozoan biostratigraphy and taphonomy of the Edenian stratotype (Kope Formation, Cincinnati Area): graphic correlation and gradient analysis. Palaios, 4:574–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, R. L., Pachut, J. F., and Prezbindowski, D. R.
1976. Morphogenetic gradients in Paleozoic bryozoan colonies. Paleobiology, 2:131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astrova, G. G.
1978. Istoriya razvitiya, sistema i filogeniya mshanok, Otryad Trepostomata. Akademiya Nauk S.S.S.R., Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, 169:1–240.Google Scholar
Ax, P.
1987. The Phylogenetic System: The Systematization of Organisms on the Basis of Their Phylogenies. (transl. Jefferies, R. P. S.). Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S.
1928. Bryozoa, p. 143–168. In
Twenhofel, W. H. (ed.), Geology of Anticosti Island. Canada Geological Survey Memoir 154.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S.
1953. Bryozoa, p. G1–G253. In
Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. G., Bryozoa. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 253 p.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S.
1983. General features of the Class Stenolaemata, p. 49–137. In
Boardman, R. S. et al. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. G., Bryozoa Revised. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 625 p.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S., and Utgaard, J.
1966. A revision of the Ordovician bryozoan genera Monticulipora, Peronopora, Heterotrypa, and Dekayia
. Journal of Paleontology, 40:1082–1108.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Cook, P. L.
1970. Intracolony variation and the genus concept in Bryozoa. North American Paleontological Convention, Chicago, 1969, Proceedings C., 294–320.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., Blake, D. B., Utgaard, J., Karklins, O. L., Cook, P. L., Sandberg, P. A., Lutaud, G., and Wood, T. S.
1983. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. G., Bryozoa Revised. Volume 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Bolton, T. E.
1986. Early Silurian Bryozoa from the Clemville Formation of the Port Daniel region, Gaspesie Peninsula, Quebec. Geological Survey of Canada, Current Research, Pt. B, Paper 86-lB:97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boule, M., and Thevenin, A.
1906. Types du prodrome de paleontologie stratigraphique universelle d'Orbigny. Annales de Paleontologie, 1:97–101, 165–196, 193–196.Google Scholar
Bretsky, P. W.
1970. Upper Ordovician Ecology of the Central Appalachians. Peabody Museum Natural History Bulletin
34:1–150.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D., and Daly, E. J.
1985. Trepostome Bryozoa from the Dillsboro Formation (Cincinnatian) in southeastern Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Special Report, 33:1–95.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L.-A.
1993. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution. I. Rate tests for random change versus selection in differentiation of living species. Evolution, 47:1526–1538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L.-A.
1994. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution. II. Analysis of selection and random change in fossil species using reconstructed genetic parameters. Evolution, 48:360–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L.-A.
1995. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution. III. Phenotypic plasticity and the maintenance of genetic variation. Evolution, 49:290–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coryell, H. N.
1921. Bryozoan faunas of the Stones River Group of Central Tennessee. Indiana Academy of Natural Science, Proceedings for 1919:261–340.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J.
1983. Species concepts and speciation analysis. Current Ornithology, 1:159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F.
1986. Basic Concepts in Population, Quantitative, and Evolutionary Genetics. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 273 p.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R.
1908. The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Cincinnatian Series of Indiana. Department of Geology and Natural Resources of Indiana, Annual Report, 32:607–1189.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R., and Galloway, J. J.
1913. The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Tanner's Creek sections of the Cincinnatian Series of Indiana. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, Annual Report, 37:353–479.Google Scholar
Davis, W. J.
1885. Kentucky Fossil Corals, Pt. II, Kentucky Geological Survey. 139
plates, no text.Google Scholar
Delmet, D. A., and Anstey, R. L.
1974. Fourier analysis of morphologic plasticity within an Ordovician bryozoan colony. Journal of Paleontology, 48:217–226.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Donoghue, M. J.
1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics, 4:317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Donoghue, M. J.
1990a. Phylogenetic systematics or Nelson's version of cladistics?
Cladistics, 6:61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Donoghue, M. J.
1990b. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics, 6:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, M. J.
1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist, 88:172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, W. S., 1925. The stratigraphy and paleontology of Toronto and vicinity, Pt. 5, The paleontology of the Credit River section. Ontario Department of Mines, Annual Report, 32(7):47–88.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J.
1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fordham, B. G.
1992. Chronometric calibration of mid-Ordovician to Tournaisian conodont zones: a compilation from recent graphic-correlation and isotope studies. Geological Magazine, 129:709–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, J., Kluge, A., and Rowe, T.
1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics, 4:105–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hageman, S. J., Bayer, M. M., and Todd, C. D.
1999. Partitioning phenotypic variation: genotypic, environmental and residual components from bryozoan skeletal morphology. Journal of Natural History, 33:1713–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, D. R.
1988. Bryozoan astogeny and evolutionary novelties: their role in the origin and systematics of the Ordovician monticuliporid trepostome genus Peronopora
. Journal of Paleontology, 62:180–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S. M.
1993. Sequence stratigraphy of a carbonate-clastic ramp: the Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) in its type area. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 105:306–322.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S. M.
1997. Using time-environment analysis to recognize faunal events in the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati Arch, p. 309334. In
Brett, C. E. (ed.), Paleontoiogical Event Horizons: Ecological and Evolutionary Implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hu, Z.
1986. Late Ordovician bryozoans from Yushan County, Jiangxi Province. Acta Micropaleontologica Sinica, 3:167–183.Google Scholar
International Comission on Zoological Nomenclature.
1968. Opinion 838. Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, and Peronopora Nicholson, 1881 (Bryozoa): designation of type-species under the plenary powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 24:335–336.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H.
1990. Evolutionary significance of morphospecies: a test with cheilostome Bryozoa. Science, 248:579–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, U. P.
1875. Catalogue of Lower Silurian fossils at Cincinnati, Ohio, and Vicinity, with Descriptions of Some New Species of Corals and Polyzoa. Cincinnati, U. P. James, 8 p.Google Scholar
Jefferies, R. S. P.
1979. The origin of the chordates—a methodological essay, p. 443–477. In
House, M. R. (ed.), The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups. Systematics Association Special Paper, Volume 12. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Kachigan, S. K.
1991. Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Radius Press, New York, 303 p.Google Scholar
Karklins, O. L.
1984. Trepostome and cystoporate bryozoans from the Lexington Limestone and the Clays Ferry Formation (Middle and Upper Ordovician) of Kentucky. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1066-1:1–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeblich, A. R.
1942. Bryozoa from the Ordovician Bromide Formation, Oklahoma. Journal of Paleontology, 16:413–436.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P., and Maddison, D. R.
1992. MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, Version 3.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Marintsch, E. J.
1998. Systematic paleontology, biostratigraphy, and paleoecology of Middle Ordovician Bryozoa (Trepostomata) from the Hermitage Formation of east-central Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 112:1–121.Google Scholar
Mischler, B. D., and Brandon, R. N.
1987. Individuality, pleuralism, and the phylogenetic species concept. Biological Philosophy, 2:397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G., and Platnick, N. I.
1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A.
1874. Descriptions of species of Chaetetes from lower Silurian rocks of North America. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 30:499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, H. A.
1881. On the Structure and Affinities of the Genus Monticulipora and Its Subgenera. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh, 235 p.Google Scholar
Nickles, J. M.
1905. The Upper Ordovician rocks of Kentucky and their Bryozoa. Kentucky Geological Survey Bulletin, 20:103–105.Google Scholar
Nixon, K. C., and Wheeler, Q. D.
1990. An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept. Cladistics, 6:211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachut, J. F.
1982. Morphologic variation within and among genotypes in two Devonian bryozoan species: an independent indicator of paleostability?
Journal of Paleontology, 56:703–716.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F.
1987. Population genetics of four species of Ordovician bryozoans: stereology and jackknifed analysis of variance. Journal of Paleontology, 61:927–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachut, J. F.
1989. Heritability and intraspecific heterochrony in Ordovician bryozoans from environments differing in diversity. Journal of Paleontology, 63:182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachut, J. F.
1992. Morphological integration and covariance during astogeny of an Ordovician trepostome bryozoan from communities of different diversities. Journal of Paleontology, 66:750–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachut, J. F., and Cuffey, R. J.
1991. Clinal variation, intraspecific heterochrony, and microevolution in the Permian bryozoan Tabulipora carbonaria
. Lethaia, 24:165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachut, J. F., Cuffey, R. J., and Anstey, R. L.
1991. The concepts of astogeny and ontogeny in stenolaemate bryozoans, and their illustration in colonies of Tabulipora carbonaria from the Lower Permian of Kansas. Journal of Paleontology, 65:213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podell, M. E., and Anstey, R. L.
1979. The interrelationship of early colony development, monticules and branches in Paleozoic bryozoans. Palaeontology, 22:965–982.Google Scholar
Premik, L.
1924. O bryozoach sylurskich Podola polskiego. Service Geologique de Pologne, Travaux, 1:157–197.Google Scholar
Prezbindowski, D. R., and Anstey, R. L.
1978. A Fourier-numerical study of a bryozoan fauna from the Threeforks Formation (Late Devonian) of Montana. Journal of Paleontology, 52:353–369.Google Scholar
Rominger, C., 1866. Observations on Chaetetes and some related genera, in regard to their systematic position, p. 113–123.
In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. E.
1979. Fishes from the uplands and intermontane basins of Guatemala: revisionary studies and comparative geography. Bulletins of the American Museum of Natural History, 162:267–376.Google Scholar
Savage, T. E.
1924. Richmond rocks of Iowa and Illinois. American Journal of Science, 8:411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, T. E.
1925. Correlation of the Maquoketa and Richmond rocks of Iowa and Illinois. Illinois Academy of Science Transactions, 17:233–247.Google Scholar
Schoch, R. M.
1986. Phylogeny Reconstruction in Paleontology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Singh, R. J.
1979. Trepostomatous bryozoan fauna from the Bellevue Limestone, Upper Ordovician, in the tri-state area of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 76:159–288.Google Scholar
Sloan, R. E.
1987. A precise Ordovician time scale and the absence of cyclic extinction. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 20(7):105–106.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B.
1994. Systematics and the Fossil Record: Documenting Evolutionary Patterns. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, W.
1984. Graphic correlation of upper Middle and Upper Ordovician rocks, North American Midcontinent Province, U.S.A., p. 23–36. In
Brunton, D. L. (ed.), Aspects of the Ordovician System. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L.
2000. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods). Version 4.0b4a. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L., and Maddison, W. P.
1987. Reconstructing ancestral character states under Wagner parsimony. Mathematical Bioscience, 87:199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriot, E.
1992. Clusters, species concepts, and morphological evolution of diatoms. Systematic Biology, 41:141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuckey, M. E., and Anstey, R. L.
1992. Late Ordovician extinctions of bryozoans. Lethaia, 25:111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, E. O.
1879. Descriptions of new genera and species of fossils from the Lower Silurian about Cincinnati. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 2:8–30.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O.
1882. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 5:121–175.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O.
1886. Report on the Lower Silurian Bryozoa with preliminary descriptions of some new species, p. 57–103. Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 14th Annual Report for 1885.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O.
1888. A correlation of the Lower Silurian horizons of Tennessee and of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys with those of New York and Canada. American Geologist, 2:39–44.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O.
1895. On the Lower Silurian Bryozoa of Minnesota, p. 96–332. In
Minnesota Geological Survey Final Report, volume 3, Part 1.Google Scholar
Utgaard, J., and Boardman, R. S.
1965.
Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, and Peronopora Nicholson, 1881 (Bryozoa, Trepostomata): proposed designation of a type-species in conformity with generally accepted usage. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 22:112–118.Google Scholar
Utgaard, J., and Perry, T. G.
1964. Trepostomatous bryozoan fauna of the upper part of the Whitewater Formation (Cincinnatian) of eastern Indiana and western Ohio. Indiana Department of Conservation, Geological Survey Bulletin, 33:1–111.Google Scholar
Vinassa de Regny, P.
1920. Sulla classificazione dei Treptostomidi. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 59:212–231.Google Scholar
Waagen, M., and Wentzel, J.
1886. Salt Range Fossils. Geological Survey of India Memoirs, Paleontologica Indica, Series 13, 1:835–924.Google Scholar