Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-67gxp Total loading time: 0.463 Render date: 2021-02-28T23:00:34.099Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Exaptation of pelmatozoan oral surfaces: constructional pathways in tegmen evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2016

William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, 155 South Oval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA 〈ausich.1@osu.edu〉
Thomas W. Kammer
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, USA 〈tkammer@wvu.edu〉
Corresponding

Abstract

The adoral surface of a crinoid theca has traditionally been called the tegmen, despite a wide range of morphologies; and, unfortunately, this has obscured the potential to recognize homologies between blastozoans and crinoids. With present recognition of these homologies, the constructional morphology of crinoid oral regions is explored, herein. Two major types of oral regions exist among crinoids: (1) an oral surface with the mouth exposed; and (2) a tegmen, in a restricted definition, with the mouth covered beneath solid plating. A tegmen is constructed by exaptation of oral surface plating and, commonly, other thecal plating. A pseudo-tegmen is an exaptation of aboral cup plates (i.e., radial plates). Tegmens or pseudo-tegmens evolved in all major crinoid clades at least once as an exaptation of oral surface plating. Tegmens evolved iteratively both between and within clades. In some cases, tegmen plates can be homologized with oral surface plates, but in other cases this is not apparent. Examples of tegmens that evolved many times include tegmens with an appearance of oral surface plates cemented in place; tegmens with fixed ambulacral cover plates and primary peristomial cover plates disproportionately enlarged; tegmens composed exclusively, or nearly so, of greatly enlarged primary peristomial cover plates; tegmens with tessellate plating but presumably with some flexibility; and tegmens constructed of innumerable undifferentiated plates. Most tegmens have all ambulacral cover plates fixed; but in some instances, the abaxial ambulacral cover plates remain moveable. Additionally, some lineages that possessed a tegmen evolved an oral surface secondarily, likely as an atavism. Based on this restricted definition of a tegmen, the hemicosmitid blastozoan Caryocrinites also evolved a tegmen. As known, tegmens dominated among camerate crinoids; and oral surfaces were more common among cladids, hybocrinids, disparids, flexibles, and articulates. However, oral surfaces evolved in some camerate lineages; tegmens evolved in some cladid, disparid, and articulate lineages; and pseudo-tegmens evolved in some flexible and articulate lineages.The iterative evolution of tegmens in crinoids and blastozoans is thought to be an adaptive response to cover the mouth and proximal ambulacra to protect this portion of the digestive tract from predation, scavenging, parasites, and disease causing agents.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2016, The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Angelin, N.P., 1878, Iconographia Crinoideorum in stratis Sueciae Siluricis fossilium: Samson and Wallin, Holmiae, 62 p.Google Scholar
Arendt, Y.A., 1997, New Carboniferous crinoids with four-six arms from the Moscow region: Paleontological Journal, v. 31, p. 400408.Google Scholar
Ausich, W.I., 1988, Evolutionary convergence and parallelism in crinoid calyx design: Journal of Paleontology, v. 62, p. 906916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W.I., 1998a, Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc Crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata) and suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea: University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Papers, New Series, 36 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W.I., 1998b, Early phylogeny and subclass division of the Crinoidea (phylum Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology, v. 72, p. 499510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W.I., and Copper, P., 2010, The Crinoidea of Anticosti Island, Québec (Late Ordovician to Early Silurian): Palaeontolgraphica Canadiana, 157 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2009, Generic concepts in the Platycrinitidae Austin and Austin, 1842 (Class Crinoidea): Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p. 694717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W.I., Brett, C.E., Hess, H., and Simms, M.J., 1999, Crinoid form and function, in Hess. H., Ausich, W.I., Brett, C.E., and Simms, M.J. Fossil Crinoids: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., Rhenberg, E.C., and Wright, D.F., 2015a, Frontiers in Paleontology: Early phylogeny of crinoids within the pelmatozoan clade: Palaeontology, v. 58, p. 937952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W.I., Wilson, M.E., and Vinn, O., 2015b, Wenlock and Pridoli (Silurian) crinoids from Saaremaa, western Estonia (Phylum Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology, v. 89, p. 7281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, T. Sr., and Austin, T. Jr., 1843, XXXIII. - Description of several new genera and species of Crinoidea: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 1, v. 11, p. 195207.Google Scholar
Bakus, G.J., 1981, Chemical defense mechanisms on the Great Barrier Reef: Science, v. 211, p. 497499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumiller, T.K., 1990, Non-predatory drilling of Mississippian crinoids by platycerid gastropods: Palaeontology, v. 33, p. 743748.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T.K., and Gahn, F.J., 2002, Fossil record of parasitism on marine invertebrates with special emphasis on the platycerid-crinoid interaction, in Kowalewski, M.J., and Kelley, P.H., eds. The Fossil Record of Predation: The Paleontological Society Papers, p. 195209.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T.K., Salamon, M.A., Gorzelak, P., Mooi, R., Messing, C.G., and Gahn, F.J., 2010, Post-Paleozoic crinoid radiation in response to benthic predation proceded the Mesozoic marine revolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, v. 107, p. 58935896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, E., 1857, New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada: Canada Geological Survey, Report of Progress 1853-1856, Report for the year 1856, p. 247–345.Google Scholar
Branson, E.B., and Peck, R.E., 1940, A new cystoid from the Ordovician of Oklahoma: Journal of Paleontology, v. 14, p. 8992.Google Scholar
Breimer, A., 1978, General morphology recent crinoids, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T9T58.Google Scholar
Clark, A.H., 1921, A monograph on existing crinoids. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, no. pt. 2, 795 p.Google Scholar
Cole, S.R., and Ausich, W.I., 2015, Phylogenetic analysis of the Ordovician Diplobathrida (subclass Camerata, class Crinoidea): implications for early camerate evolution, in Zamora S., and Rábino, I., eds. Progress in Echinoderm Paleobiology: Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, p. 4144.Google Scholar
Eckert, J.D., 1987, Illemocrinus amphiatus, a new cladid inadunate crinoid from the Middle Ordovician of Ontario: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 2, p. 860865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frest, T.J., 1977, Cyathocrinites from the Silurian (Wenlock) strata of southeastern Indiana: Fieldiana Geology, v. 35, p. 109136.Google Scholar
Gahn, F.J., and Baumiller, T.K., 2005, Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?: Paleobiology, v. 31, p. 151164.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahn, F.J., Fabian, A., and Baumiller, T.K., 2003, Additional evidence for the drilling behavior of Paleozoic gastropods: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 48, 156 p.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, G.A., 1826–44, Petrefacta Germaniae, tam ea, Quae in Museo Universitatis Regiae Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanea, serventur, quam alia quaecunque in Museis Hoeninghusiano Muensteriano aliisque, extant, iconibus et descriiptionns illustrata. Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der Angränzende Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Hern Grafen Georg zu Münster, herausgegeben von August Goldfuss. v. 1 (1826–1833), Divisio prima. Zoophytorum reliquiae, p. 1–114; Divisio secunda. Radiariorum reliquiae, p. 115–221 [Echinodermata]; Divisio tertia. Annulatorium reliquiae, p. 222–242; v. 2 (1834–40), Divisio quarta. Molluscorum acephalicorum reliquiae. I. Bivalvia, p. 65–286; II. Brachiopoda, p. 287–303; III. (1841-44), Divisio quinta. Molluscorum gasteropodum reliquiae, p. 1–121; atlas of plates, 1–199, Düsseldorf, Arnz & Co. v. 1, p. 1–76 (1826), p. 77–164 (1829), p. 165–240 (1831), p. 241–252 (1833), v. 2, p. 1–68 (1833), p. 69–140 (1836), p. 141–224 (1837), p. 225–312 (1840), v. 3, p. 1–128(1844).Google Scholar
Gould, S.J., and Vrba, E.S., 1982, Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form Paleobiology, v. 8, p. 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldring, W., 1923, The Devonian crinoids of the state of New York: New York State Museum Memoir, v. 16, 670 p.Google Scholar
Grinnell, G.B., 1876, On a new crinoid from the Cretaceous formation of the West: Journal of Science and Arts, ser. 12, v. 3, p. 8183.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T.E., 2012, Phylogenetic implications of the oldest crinoids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 86, p. 455461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2003, The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician, Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 364, 43 p.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2010, Emended restoration of Titanocrinus sumralli Guensburg, T.E. and Sprinkle, J., 2003, (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): Journal of Paleontology, v. 84, p. 566–568.Google Scholar
Hagdorn, H., Wang, X.F., and Wang, C.S., 2007, Palaeoecology of the pseudoplanktonic Triassic crinoid Traumatocrinus from southwest China: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 247, p. 181196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagdorn, H., and Wang, X.F., 2015, The pseudoplanktonic crinoid Traumatocrinus from the Late Triassic of southwest China—Morphology, ontogeny, and taphonomy: Palaeoworld, 18 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J., 1847, Palaeontology of New York, v. 1, Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower division of the New-York system (equivalent of the Lower Silurian rocks of Europe): Natural History of New York. Albany, State of New York, v. 6, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J., 1858, Chapter 8. Palaeontology of Iowa. in Hall, J. and Whitney, J. D., Report of the Geological Survey of the state of Iowa. Embracing the results of investigations made during portions of the years 1855, 56 &. 57: v. 1, part II; Palaeontology, p. 473–724.Google Scholar
Hall, J., 1860, Contributions to the palaeontology of Iowa. being descriptions of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils: Iowa Geological Survey, supplement to 1(2) of Geological Report of Iowa, 1859a, 4 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J., 1863, Notice of some new species of fossil from a locality of the Niagara Group, in Indiana; with a list of identified species from the same place (privately published preprint), 34 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J., 1866, Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils from the Lower Silurian strata of the age of the Hudson-River Group and Trenton Limestone: Albany (privately published preprint), 17 p.Google Scholar
Hess, H., and Messing, C., 2011, Articulata, in Seldon, P., ed., and W.I. Ausich, W.I. (coordinating author). Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Revised, v. 3, 261 p.Google Scholar
Hisinger, W., 1828, Anteckningar i Physik och Geognosie under resor uti Sverige och Norrige: Stockholm, v. 4, 260 p.Google Scholar
Jangoux, M., 1987a, Diseases of Echinodermata. I. Agents microorganisms and protists: Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, v. 2, p 147162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jangoux, M., 1987b, Diseases of Echinodermata. II. Agents metazoans (Mesozoan to Bryozoa): Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, v. 2, p. 205234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jangoux, M., 1987c, Diseases of Echinodermata. III. Agents metazoans (Annelida to Pisces): Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, v. 3, p. 5983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jangoux, M., 1987d, Diseases of Echinodermata. IV. Structural abnormalities and general considerations on biotic diseases: Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, v. 2, p. 221229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I., 1996, Primitive cladid crinoids from upper Osagean-lower Meramecian (Mississippian) rocks of east-central United States: Journal of Paleontology, v. 70, p. 835866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich, W.I., 2007, Soft tissue preservation of the hind gut in a new genus of cladid crinoids from the Lower Carboniferous (Asbian) at St. Andrews, Scotland: Palaeontology, v. 50, p. 951959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T.W., Sumrall, C.D., Zamora, S., Ausich, W.I., and Deline, B., 2013, Oral region homologies in Paleozoic crinoids and other plesiomorphic pentaradiate echinoderms: PLoS ONE, v. 8(11), 16 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesling, R.V., 1967, Cystoids, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. S. Echinodermata 1: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, p. S85S267.Google Scholar
Kesling, R.V., and Paul, C.R.C., 1968, New species of Porocrinidae and brief remarks upon these unusual crinoids: University of Michigan Contributions from Museum of Paleontology, v. 22, p. 132.Google Scholar
Kirk, E., 1929, The fossil crinoid genus Vasocrinus Lyon: Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, v. 74, p. 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, E., 1933, Syndetocrinus, a new genus from the Silurian of Canada: American Journal of Science, v. 26, p. 344354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, D.R., 1982, Camerates, in Sprinkle, J., ed. Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph, p. 170205.Google Scholar
Koninck, L. G., de, 1858, Sur quelques Crinoides paleozoiques nouveaux de l’Angleterre et de l’Ecosse: Bulletin de la Academie Royal des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, ser. 2, v. 4, p. 93108.Google Scholar
Lane, N.G., and Moore, R.C., 1978, Suborder Cyathocrinina Bather, 1899, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, p. T578T607.Google Scholar
Laudon, L.R., 1933, The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Gilmore City Formation of Iowa: University of Iowa Studies, v. 15, p. 174.Google Scholar
Leuckart, R., von, 1848, Uber die Morphologie und die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der wirbellosen Thiere - ein Beitrag zur Charakteristic und Classification der thierischen Formen: F. Vieweg and Sohn, Braunschweig, 180 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, S.S., 1857, in Lyon, S.S., Cox, E.T., and Lesquereux, L., Palaeontological Report, Geological Report of Kentucky, v. 3, p. 467–497.Google Scholar
Lyon, S.S., and Casseday, S.A., 1859, Description of nine new species of Crinoidea from the Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana and Kentucky: American Journal of Science and Arts, ser. 2, v. 28, p. 233246.Google Scholar
Magnus, D.B.E., 1963, Der Federstern Heterometra savignyi im Roten Meer: Natural Museum of Frankfort, v. 93, p. 355394.Google Scholar
McClintock, J.B., Baker, B.J., Baumiller, T.K., and Messing, C.G., 1999, Lack of chemical defense in two species of stalked crinoids: support for the predation hypothesis of Mesozoic bathymetric restriction: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, v. 232, p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meek, F.B., and Worthen, A.H., 1865, Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea, etc. from the Paleozoic rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 17, p. 143155.Google Scholar
Meyer, D.L., 1985, Evolutionary implications of predation on Recent comatulid crinoids from the Great Barrier Reef: Paleobiology, v. 11, p. 154164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D.L., and Ausich, W.I., 1983, Biotic interactions among recent and among fossil crinoids,, in Tevesz, M.J.S., and McCall, P.L., eds. Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities: Plenum Publishing Corp., New York, New York, p. 377427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D.L., and Macurda, D.B. Jr., 1977, Adaptive radiation of comatulid crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 3, p. 7482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D.L., and Milson, C.V., 2001, Microbial sealing in the biostratinomy of Uintacrinus Lagerstätten in the Upper Cretaceous of Kansas and Colorado, USA: Palaios, v. 16, p. 535546.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle 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. Frost, Bristol, 150 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S.A., 1879, Description of twelve new fossil species, and remarks upon others: Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, v. 2, p. 104118.Google Scholar
Miller, S.A., 1891, Palaeontology: Advance sheets, Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, 17th Annual Report, 103 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S.A., 1892, Description of two new genera and eight new species of fossils from the Hudson River Group, with remarks upon others: Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, v. 5, p. 3443.Google Scholar
Miller, S.A., and Gurley, W.F.E., 1890, Description of some new genera and species of Echinodermata from the Coal Measures and Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa: Journal Cincinnati Society of Natural History, v. 13, 25 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S.A., and Gurley, W.F.E., 1896, Description of new and remarkable fossils from the Palaeozoic rocks of the Mississippi Valley: Illinois State Museum, Bulletin 8, 65 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S.A., and Gurley, W.F.E., 1897, New species of crinoids, cephalopods, and other Palaeozoic fossils: Illinois State Museum, Bulletin 12, 69 p.Google Scholar
Mooi, R., and David, B., 1998, Evolution within a bizarre phylum: homologies of the first echinoderms: American Zoologist, v. 38, p. 965974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooi, R., and David, B., 2008, Radial symmetry, the anterior/posterior axis, and echinoderm Hox genes: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, v. 39, p. 4362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R.C., 1978a, Glossary of morphological terms, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T229T242.Google Scholar
Moore, R.C., 1978b, Subclass Flexibilia, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T759T812.Google Scholar
Moore, R.C., and Lane, N.G., 1978a, Superfamily Cupressocrinidae Roemer, 1854, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T656T658.Google Scholar
Moore, R.C., and Lane, N.G., 1978b, Superfamily Dendrocrinacea Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T607T630.Google Scholar
Moore, R.C., and Strimple, H.L., 1978, Superfamily Allagecrinacea Carpenter and Etheridge, 1881, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T537T548.Google Scholar
Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. 1978, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2: Crinoidea. 3 vols., Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, 1027 p.Google Scholar
Mu, A.T., 1949, On the discovery of the crown of Traumatocrinus : Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, v. 29, p. 8592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J., 1856, Über neue Crinoiden aus dem Eifeler Kalk: Koniglich Akademie der Wissenschaft Berlin, Monatsbericht, p. 353356.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A., 1840–1841, Histoire naturelle générale et particulière, des Crinöides, vivants et fossiles, comprenant la description géologique et zoologique de ces animaux. Published by the authors, Paris, Livraison v. 2, 847 p.Google Scholar
Owen, D.D., and Shumard, B.F., 1850, Descriptions of fifteen new species of Crinoidea from the Subcarboniferous limestone of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota in the years 1848–1849: Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, ser. 2, v. 2, p. 5770.Google Scholar
Owen, D.D., and Shumard, B.F., 1852, Descriptions of seven new species of Crinoidea from the subcarboniferous of Iowa and Illinois: Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, ser. 2, v. 2, p. 8994.Google Scholar
Parks, W.A., 1908, On an occurrence of Hybocystis in Ontario: Ottawa Naturalist, v. 21, p. 232236.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., 1836, Illustrations of the geology of Yorkshire, or a description of the strata and organic remains, Pt. 2, The Mountain Limestone districts, 2nd ed.: London, John Murray, p. 203208.Google Scholar
Rideout, J.A., Smith, N.B., and Sutherland, M.D., 1979, Chemical defenses of crinoids by polyketide sulphates: Experientia, v. 35, p. 12731274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, C.F., 1844, Das Rheinische Übergangsgebirge. Eine palaeontologisch-geognostische Darstellung: Hannover, Hahn, 96 p.Google Scholar
Roemer, C.F., 1852-54, Erste Periode, Kohlen-Gebirge, in Bronn, H.G. Lethaea Geognostica, 1851–1856, 3rd ed. Stuttgart, E. Schweizerbart, v. 2, p. 788 p.Google Scholar
Roemer, C.F., 1860, Die Silurische Fauna des westlichen Tennessee: Eine Palaeontologische Monographie: Verlag von Edward Treuendt, Breslau, 100 p.Google Scholar
Rowley, R.R., 1900, New species of crinoids, blastoids and cystoids from Missouri: American Geologist, v. 25, p. 6575.Google Scholar
Sallan, L.C., Kammer, T.W., Ausich, W.I., and Cook, L.A., 2011, Persistent predator–prey dynamics revealed by mass extinction: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, v. 108(20), p. 83358338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Say, T., 1825, On two genera and several species of Crinoidea: Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 4, p. 289296.Google Scholar
Schultze, L., 1866, Monographie der Echinodermen des Eifler Kalkes: Denkschriften der Kaiserlich Akademie der Wissenschaften Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe, Wien, v. 26, p. 113230 (Advance publication).Google Scholar
Signor, P.W. III, and Brett, C.E., 1984, The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution: Paleobiology, v. 10, p. 229245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simms, M.J., and Sevastopulo, G.D., 1993, The origin of articulate crinoids: Palaeontology, v. 36, p. 91109.Google Scholar
Sinclair, G.W., 1945, Some Ordovician echinoderms from Oklahoma: American Midland Naturalist, v. 34, p. 707716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, F., 1901, Uintacrinus: its structure and relations: Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, v. 25, 89 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F., 1906, Discovery of the disk of Onychocrinus, and further remarks on the Crinoidea Flexibilia: Journal of Geology, v. 14, p. 467523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, F., 1926a, American Silurian Crinoids: New York, Smithsonian Institution Publication, v. 2872, 239 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, F., 1926b, Unsual forms of fossil crinoids: Proceedings of the U.S. Naional Museum, v. 67, 137 p.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., 1975, The ‘arms’ of Caryocrinites, a rhombiferan cystoid convergent on crinoids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 49, p. 10621073.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., 1982, Camerates, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph, p. 111118.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., and Collins, D., 2006, New eocrinoids from the Burgess Shale, southern British Columbia, Canada, and the Spence Shale, northern Utah, USA: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 43, p. 303322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprinkle, J., and Moore, R.C., 1978, Hybocrinida, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2, Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T564T574.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., Parsley, R.L., Zhao, Y., and Peng, J., 2011, Revision of lyracystid eocrinoids from the Middle Cambrian of south China and western Laurentia: Journal of Paleontology, v. 85, p. 250255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steininger, J., 1831, Bermerkungen über die Versteinuerungen, welche in dem Übergangskalkgebirge der Eifel gefunden warden, 44 p.Google Scholar
Stewart, G.A., 1940, Crinoids from the Silica Shale, Devonian, of Ohio: Ohio Journal of Science, v. 4, p. 5360.Google Scholar
Strimple, H.L., 1963, Crinoids of the Hunton Group: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin, v. 100, 169 p.Google Scholar
Strimple, H.L., 1973, Tegminal structure of some inadunate crinoids: The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, v. 66, p. 3338.Google Scholar
Strimple, H.L., and Moore, R.C., 1973, Tegmen of Camptocrinus : University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, v. 66, p. 3338.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C.D., 2010, A model for elemental homology for the peristome and ambulacra in blastozoan echinoderms, in Harris, L.G., Böttger, S.A., Walker, C.W., and Lesser, M.P., eds. Echinoderms, Durham: London, CRC Press, p. 269276.Google Scholar
Sumrall, C.D., and Deline, B., 2009, A new species of dual-mouthed paracrinoid Bistomiacystis and a redescription of the edrioasteroid Edrioaster priscus from the Upper Ordovician Curdsville Member of the Lexington Limestone: Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p. 135139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumrall, C.D., and Waters, J.A., 2012, Universal elemental homology in glyptocystitoids, hemicosmitoids, coronoids, and blastoids: Steps toward echinoderm phylogenetic reconstruction in derived blastozoans: Journal of Paleontology, v. 86, p. 956972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ubaghs, G., 1969, Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs, n. gen. n. sp., le plus ancien crinoide dicuclique connu: The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, v. 38, 25 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G., 1978a, Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T58T216.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G., 1978b, Camerata, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata 2: Lawrence, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. T408T519.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E.O., 1917, The formations of the Chester Series in Western Kentucky and their correlation elsewhere: Kentucky Geological Survey, 236 p.Google Scholar
von Zittel, K.A., 1870, Die Fauna der alteren cephalopodenführenden Tithonbildungen: Theodor Fischer, Cassel, 192 p.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1880, Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Pt. I. The families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae (1880), p. 226–378, (separate repaged p. 1–153). Pt. II. Family Sphaeroidocrinidae, with the sub-families Platycrinidae, Rhodocrinidae, and Actinocrinidae (1881), p. 177–411, (separate repaged, p. 1–237). Pt. III, Sec. 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1885), p. 225–364 (separate repaged, 1–138). Pt. III, Sec. 2. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1886), p. 64–226 (separate repaged to continue with section 1, p. 139–302).Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1888, The summit plates in blastoids, crinoids, and cystids, and their morphological relations: American Geologist, v. 1, p. 61.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1897, The North American Crinoidea Camerata: Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology, Memoir, v. 20, p. 1359.Google Scholar
Wanner, J., 1916, Die Permischen echinodermen von Timor, I. Teil: Palaontologie von Timor, v. 11, 329 p.Google Scholar
Wanner, J., 1920, Über Armlose Krinoiden aus dem jüngeren Palaeozoikum: Verhandelingen Geologie Mijnbouw Genootoch, Geologic Series, v. 5, p. 2135.Google Scholar
Wanner, J., 1924, Die permischen Krinoiden von Timor: Jaarbook van net Mijnwezen Nederlandes Oost-Indie, Verhandlungen (1921), Gedeelte, v. 3, 348 p.Google Scholar
Warn, J.M., 1982, Long-armed disparid inadunates, in Sprinkle, J., ed. Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1, p. 7789.Google Scholar
Warn, J.M., and Strimple, H.L., 1977, The disparid inadunate superfamilies Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata. Crinoidea), Ordovician-Silurian, North America: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 72, 138 p.Google Scholar
Whiteaves, J. F., 1887, On some fossils from the Hamilton Formation of Ontario, with a list of the species presently known from that formation and province: Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology, v. 1, p. 91125.Google Scholar
Wood, E., 1901, A new crinoid from the Hamilton of Charlestown, Ind.: American Journal of Science, ser. 4, v. 12, p. 197300.Google Scholar
Wood, E., 1909, A critical summary of Troost’s unpublished manuscript on the crinoids of Tennessee: U.S. National Museum, Bulletin, v. 64, 150 p.Google Scholar
Wright, J., 1936, New Scottish Carboniferous crinoids: Geological Magazine, v. 73, p. 385412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, D.F., and Ausich, W.I., 2015, From the stem to the crown: Phylogeny and diversification of pan-cladid crinoids, in Zamora S., and Rábino, I., eds. Progress in Echinoderm Paleobiology: Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, p. 199202.Google Scholar
Zamora, S., and Smith, A.B., 2011, Cambrian stalked echinoderms show unexpected plasticity of arm construction: Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 6 p. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 60 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Exaptation of pelmatozoan oral surfaces: constructional pathways in tegmen evolution
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Exaptation of pelmatozoan oral surfaces: constructional pathways in tegmen evolution
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Exaptation of pelmatozoan oral surfaces: constructional pathways in tegmen evolution
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *