Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:33:17.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developmental breakdown during the early evolution of the Codiacrinidae: Parazophocrinus callosus Strimple, 1963 (class Crinoidea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

William I. Ausich
William I. Ausich*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, 155 South Oval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parazophocrinus callosus Strimple, 1963, is redescribed as a cladid crinoid belonging to the Codiacrinidae. Parazophocrinus is a reasonably large cladid crinoid that is composed primarily of basal plates, radial plates, and oral plates; arms are absent; and the anal opening is along the side of the aboral cup. The radial plates are hypertrophied laterally, producing a disc-shaped aboral cup, and this very unusual crinoid is considered to be neotenic. Presumably, feeding in Parazophocrinus occurred only with tube feet projected through opened oral plates or from epidermal nutrient uptake. Typical codiacrinids may lack arms, may have the anal opening from the side of the aboral cup, and commonly have prominent oral plates; but in contrast to Parazophocrinus, they are small to very small in size. This small size and arrested development is considered progenetic.

Parazophocrinus is the second oldest genus in the Codiacrinidae. Apparently, when developmental controls broke down during the early evolution of this family, both neotenic and progenetic crinoids evolved. However, ultimately, the Parazophocrinus morphology, a large crinoid lacking arms, was not successful through time. Thus, although more than one heterochronic pathway was possible, functional and ecologic constraints determined which developmental pathway would have long-term success.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , May 2003 , pp. 471 - 475
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

Bamford, D. 1982. Epithelial absorption, p. 317–330. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1890. British fossil crinoids. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 6, 5:373–388,458–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science Report (1898):916–923.Google Scholar
Breimer, A. 1978. Recent crinoids, p. T9–T58. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2(2). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1980. Paracolocrinus, a new inadunate crinoid genus from the Rochester Shale (Silurian, Wenlockian) of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 54:913–922.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1984. Autecology of Silurian pelmatozoan echinoderms, p. 87–120. In Bassett, M. G. and Lawson, J. D. (eds.), Autecology of Silurian Organisms. The Palaeontological Association Special Papers, 32.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 501 p.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Breimer, A. 1974. Arm types and feeding habits of Paleozoic crinoids. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, series B, 77:32–39.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Sevastopulo, G. D. 1982. Microcrinoids from the Middle Pennsylvanian of Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 56:103–115.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. (ed.). 1988. Heterochrony in Evolution a Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York, 348 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, M. L., and McNamara, K. J. 1991. Heterochrony the Evolution of Ontogeny. Plenum Press, New York, 437 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986a. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology, 60:4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986b. The role of heterochrony in the evolution of Cambrian trilobites. Biological Reviews, 61:121–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messing, C. G., and Llewellyn, G. 1992. Variations in post-mortem disarticulation and sediment production in two species of Recent stalked crinoids. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 27:A136.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A natural history of the Crinoidea or lily-shaped animals, with observations on the genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites . Bryan and Co., Bristol, 150 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Lane, N. G. 1978. Superfamily Belemnocrinacea S. A. Miller, 1883, p. T557–T562. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2(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 Papers, 46, 153 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Teichert, C. (eds.). 1978. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, 1,027 p.Google Scholar
Oji, T., and Amemiya, S. 1998. Survival of crinoid stalk and its taphonomic implications. Paleontological Research, 2:67–70.Google Scholar
Robertson, R. 1985. Archaeogastropod biology and the systematics of the genus Tricolia (Trachacea: Tricoliidae) in the Indo-West-Pacific. Monographs on Marine Mollusca, 31, 103 p.Google Scholar
Shaver, R. H., Ault, C. H., Burger, A. M., Carr, D. D., Droste, J. D., Eggert, D. L., Gray, H. H., Harper, D., Hasenmueller, N. R., Hasenmueller, W. A., Horowitz, A. S., Hutchison, H. C., Keith, B. D., Keller, S. J., Patton, J. B., Rexroad, C. B., and Weir, C. E. 1986. Compendium of Paleozoic rock-unit stratigraphy in Indiana—a revision. Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin, 59, 203 p.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1963. Crinoids of the Hunton Group. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 100, 169 p.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1972. The genus Parazophocrinus from the Henryhouse Formation (Silurian), Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 32:119–121.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2(2).Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1973. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids 1942–1968. Geological Society of America Memoir 137, 341 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1977. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids 1969–1973. Geological Society of America Microform Publication 8, 235 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1986. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids 1974–1980. Geological Society of America Microform Publication 16, 405 p.Google Scholar