Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T03:25:25.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary patterns of naticid gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: an example of coevolution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Patricia H. Kelley
Patricia H. Kelley*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of Mississippi, University 38677
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The naticid gastropod predator–prey system has been cited as a possible example of coevolution. Previous work indicated that Miocene bivalves from the Chesapeake Group responded to naticid drilling with a predation-avoidance strategy of gradual thickness increase over evolutionary time. The present study examined whether the predators, Euspira heros (Say) and Neverita duplicata (Say), coevolved by increasing their efficiency in response to prey adaptation.

Neither predator showed significant trends in most characters thought to affect predator efficiency, including measures of globosity and aperture size relative to shell height. Stasis occurred for all such characters except Euspira aperture height, which showed a statistically significant decrease of 9 percent through the section. Morphologic trends occurred in two additional characters, shell thickness relative to height, and shell height. Euspira increased in thickness by 63 percent through the section; Neverita decreased in thickness by 37 percent (through slightly less section) and simultaneously increased mean height by 60 percent.

The size increase exhibited by Neverita could be interpreted as a coevolutionary response to increased prey defenses. Naticids are subject to predation by other naticids, however; the trends in size and thickness may be viewed instead as an evolutionary strategy to escape naticid predation, including cannibalism. Although the possibility of coevolution is difficult to eliminate, Chesapeake Group naticids appear to have evolve more in response to their own predators than to evolution of their prey.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 66 , Issue 5 , September 1992 , pp. 794 - 800
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

Bakker, R. T. 1983. The deer flees, the wolf pursues: incongruencies in predator–prey coevolution, p. 350–382. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R. 1951. Observations on the penetration of tightly closing bivalves by Busycon and other predators. Ecology, 32:73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R., and Krebs, J. R. 1979. Arms races within and between species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B205:489–511.Google Scholar
DeAngelis, D. L., Kitchell, J. A., and Post, W. M.In press. The nature of stasis and change: potential coevolutionary dynamics. In Stenseth, N. (ed.), Coevolution of Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R., and Raven, P. H. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution, 18:586–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, D. J., and Slatkin, M. (eds.). 1983. Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, 555 p.Google Scholar
Kabat, A. R. 1990. Predatory ecology of naticid gastropods with a review of shell boring predation. Malacologia, 32:155–193.Google Scholar
Kabat, A. R. 1991. The classification of the Naticidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda): review and analysis of the supraspecific taxa. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 152:417–449.Google Scholar
Kabat, A. R., and Kohn, A. J. 1986. Predation on Early Pleistocene naticid gastropods in Fiji. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 53:255–269.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1979. Mollusc lineages of the Chesapeake Group (Miocene). Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, 220 p.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1983. Evolutionary patterns of eight Chesapeake Group molluscs: evidence for the model of punctuated equilibria. Journal of Paleontology, 57:581–598.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1989a [1988]. Predation by Miocene gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: stereotyped and predictable. Palaios, 3:436–448.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1989b. Evolutionary trends within bivalve prey of Chesapeake Group naticid gastropods. Historical Biology, 2:139–156.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1991a. Cannibalism by Chesapeake Group naticid gastropods: a predictable result of stereotyped predation. Journal of Paleontology, 65:75–79.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1991 b. The effect of predation intensity on rate of evolution of five Miocene bivalves. Historical Biology, 5:65–78.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 1982. Time scales of fossil accumulation: patterns from Miocene benthic assemblages. Third North American Paleontological Convention, Proceedings, 1:295–300.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1982. Coevolution in a predator–prey system. Third North American Paleontological Convention, Proceedings, 2:301–305.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1986. The evolution of predator–prey behavior: naticid gastropods and their molluscan prey, p. 88–110. In Nitecki, M. and Kitchell, J. A. (eds.), Evolution of Animal Behavior: Paleontological and Field Approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology, 7:533–552.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Rice, J. A., Kitchell, J. F., Hoffman, A., and Martinell, J. 1986. Anomalies in naticid predatory behavior: a critique and experimental observations. Malacologia, 27:291–298.Google Scholar
Schaffer, W. M., and Rosenzweig, M. L. 1978. Homage to the Red Queen. I. Coevolution of predators and their victims. Theoretical Population Biology, 14:135–157.Google Scholar
Shattuck, G. B. 1904. Geological and paleontological relations with a review of earlier investigations, p. xxxiii–cxxvii. In Maryland Geological Survey, Miocene.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G., Roe, A., and Lewontin, R. C. 1960. Quantitative Zoology. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, 440 p.Google Scholar
Sohl, N. F. 1969. The fossil record of shell boring by snails. American Zoologist, 9:725–734.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Van Valkenburgh, B., and Steneck, R. S. 1983. Coevolution and the fossil record, p. 328–349. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Trueman, E. R. 1975. The Locomotion of Soft-Bodied Animals. American Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology, 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Intimate associations and coevolution in the sea, p. 311–324. In Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and Escalation: An Ecological History of Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 527 p.Google Scholar
Ward, L. W., and Blackwelder, B. W. 1980. Stratigraphic revision of upper Miocene and lower Pliocene beds of the Chesapeake Group, middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 1482 D:1–61.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B., and Eshelman, R. E. 1987. Miocene Tyassuidae (Mammalia) from the Chesapeake Group of the mid-Atlantic coast and their bearing on marine–nonmarine correlation. Journal of Paleontology, 61:604–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar