Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:46:58.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epizoans on Flexicalymene (Trilobita) and implications for trilobite paleoecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Danita S. Brandt
Danita S. Brandt*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824-1115
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epibionts on specimens of Flexicalymene (Late Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region, U.S.A.) that were encrusted while alive show an apparent preference for attachment along the relatively elevated sagittal axis of the exoskeleton (glabella, axial rings of thorax and pygidium) or the medial portion of the cephalic doublure. This site-specificity supports an interpretation of a semi-infaunal habit for this trilobite and may indicate a commensal relationship between the epizoan and host (e.g., epizoan bryozoans exploiting the trilobite exoskeleton as a hard substrate and perhaps benefitting from feeding currents generated by the trilobite). Epizoans are found only on larger individuals of this trilobite, suggesting a terminal molt stage for Flexicalymene.

Although the number of previously reported encrusted trilobites is small, a survey of the literature suggests the following hypotheses concerning the relationships between trilobite life habit and susceptibility to epizoan colonization: 1) infaunal (burrow dwelling) trilobites were generally free of epizoans; 2) a small proportion of shallow-burrowing (semi-infaunal or “ploughing”) trilobites were suitable hosts for epizoans, but the epizoans preferentially colonized the elevated or anterior portions of the exoskeleton; 3) epifaunal (and some pelagic?) trilobites were more susceptible to encrustation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , May 1996 , pp. 442 - 449
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

Alexander, R. R., and Brett, C. E. 1990. Symposium on Paleozoic epibionts: introduction. Historical Biology, 4:151–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. R., and Scharpf, C. D. 1990. Epizoans on Late Ordovician brachiopods from southeastern Indiana. Historical Biology, 4:179–202.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. D. 1980. Invertebrate Zoology. Saunders College, Philadelphia, 1089 p.Google Scholar
Bergström, J. 1969. Remarks on the appendages of trilobites. Lethaia, 2:395–414.Google Scholar
Bergström, J. 1973a. Organization, life, and systematics of trilobites. Fossils and Strata, 2, 69 p.Google Scholar
Bergström, J. 1973b. Paleoecologic aspects of an Ordovician Tretaspis fauna. Acta Geologica Polonica, 23:179–206.Google Scholar
Birkenmajer, K., and Bruton, D. L. 1971. Some trilobite resting and crawling traces. Lethaia, 4:303–319.Google Scholar
Brandt, D. S. 1993. Ecdysis in Flexicalymene meeki (Trilobita). Journal of Paleontology, 67:999–1005.Google Scholar
Branson, C. C., 1961. Trilobite from the Francis Shale near Ada. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 21:179–180.Google Scholar
Branson, C. C., 1964. Sessile Foraminifera in the Pennsylvanian of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 24:188–190.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1984. Upper Mississippiann epizoans and hosts from southwestern Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 58:223–226.Google Scholar
Brockmann, H. J., and Penn, D. 1992. Male mating tactics in the horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus. Animal Behavior, 44:653–665.Google Scholar
Calman, W. T. 1911. The Life of Crustacea. Macmillan, New York, 289 p.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K. 1966. The life attitude of the Silurian trilobite Phacops musheni (Salter, 864). Scottish Journal of Geology, 2:76–83.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K. 1969. A functional study of the Silurian odontopleurid trilobite Leonaspis deflexa (Lake). Lethaia, 2:329–344.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1909. Preliminary notes of Cincinnatian and Lexington fossils. Denison University Journal of Science Laboratory Bulletin, 14:289–324.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1910. Preliminary notes on Cincinnatian and Lexington fossils of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Denison University Journal of Science Laboratory Bulletin, 16:17–87.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1985. Pelagic trilobites as an example of deducing the life habits of extinct arthropods. Royal Society of Edinburgh Transactions, 76:219–230.Google Scholar
Hammann, W. 1985. Life habit and enrolment in Calymenacea (Trilobita) and their significance for classification. Royal Society of Edinburgh Transactions, 76:307–318.Google Scholar
Ingham, J. K. 1968. British and Swedish Ordovician species of Cybeloides (Trilobita). Scottish Journal of Geology, 4:300–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesling, R. V., and Chilman, R. B. 1975. Strata and megafossils of the Middle Devonian Silica Formation. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology, 8, 408 p.Google Scholar
Kloc, G. J. 1992. Spine function in the odontopleurid trilobites Leonaspis and Dicranurus from the Devonian of Oklahoma. North American Paleontological Convention Abstracts and Program. (Paleontological Society Special Publication no. 6), p. 167.Google Scholar
Kloc, G. J. 1993. Epibionts on Selenopeltinae (Odontopleuriae) Trilobites. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 25A–103.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1990. Population paleoecology and comparative taphonomy of two edrioasteroid (Echinodermata) pavements: Upper Ordovician of Kentucky and Ohio. Historical Biology, 4:55–178.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Tobin, R. C., Pryor, W. A., Harrison, W. B., Osgood, R. G., Hinterlong, G. D., Krumpolz, B. J., and Mahan, T. K. 1981. Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and paleoecology of the Cincinnatian series (Upper Ordovician) in the vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 31–71. In Roberts, T. G. (ed.), GSA Annual Meeting Field Trip Guidebooks, vol. I: Stratigraphy, sedimentology.Google Scholar
Mikulic, D. G. 1990. The arthropod fossil record: biologic and taphonomic controls on its composition, p. 1–23. In Culver, S. J. (ed.), Arthropod Paleobiology. Paleontological Society Short Courses in Paleontology, Number 3.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 1975. Structure and function of trilobite terrace lines. Fossils and Strata, 4:155–178.Google Scholar
Morris, R. W., and Felton, S. H. 1993. Symbiotic association of crinoids, platyceratid gastropods, and Cornulites in the Upper Ordovician (Cincinnatian) of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios, 8:465–476.Google Scholar
Morris, R. W., and Rollins, H. B. 1971. The distribution and paleoecological interpretation of Cornulites in the Waynesville Formation (Upper Ordovician) of southwestern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, 71:159–170.Google Scholar
Osgood, R. 1970. Trace fossils of the Cincinnati area. Palaeontographica Americana, 5:281–438.Google Scholar
Prokop, R. 1965. Argodiscus hornyi gen. n. et sp. n. (Edrioasteroidea) from the Middle Ordovician of Bohemia and a contribution to the ecology of the edrioasteroids. Casopis Narodni Muzeum, R. prirodoved, 134:30–32.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P. 1972. Autecology of Richmondian brachiopods (Late Ordovician of Indiana and Ohio). Journal of Paleontology, 46:386–405.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P. 1974. Ecology of the Cornulitidae. Journal of Paleontology, 48:514–523.Google Scholar
Schmalfuss, H. 1981. Structure, pattern, and function of cuticular terraces in trilobites. Fossils and Strata, 4:331–341.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1985. Trilobite paleoecology and substrate relationships. Royal Society of Edinburgh Transactions, 76:231–237.Google Scholar
Shuster, C. N. Jr. 1982. A pictorial review of the natural history and ecology of the horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus, with reference to other Limulidae, p. 1–52. In Bonaventura, J., Bonaventura, C., and Tesh, S. (eds.), Physiology and Biology of Horseshoe Crabs: studies on normal and environmentally stressed animals. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M. 1983. Epifauna on the exuviae of Bohemian Devonian trilobites. Casopis pro mineralogii a geologii, 28:181–186.Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M. 1984. Bohemian Ordovician Odontopleuridae (Trilobita). Sbornik Geologickych ved Paleontologie, 26:47–82.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E., and Brett, C. E. 1985. Clustered trilobite assemblages in the Middle Devonian Hamilton Group. Lethaia, 18:85–103.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1973. Morphology and evolution of blastozoan echinoderms. Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology Special Publication, 283p.Google Scholar
St⊘rmer, L. 1939. Studies on trilobite morphology, Part I. The thoracic appendages and their phylogenetic significance. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 19:143–273.Google Scholar
Sydlik, M. A., and Turner, L. L. 1989. Temporal variation in the composition of epibiotic assemblages found on horseshoe crab carapaces. American Zoologist, 29:37a.Google Scholar
Tetreault, D. K. 1992. Paleoecologic implications of epibionts on the Silurian lichid trilobite Arctinurus. North American Paleontological Convention abstracts and program (Paleontological Society Special Publication no. 6), p. 289.Google Scholar
Turner, L. L., Kammire, C., and Sydlik, M. A. 1988. Preliminary report: composition of communities resident on Limulus carapaces. Biological Bulletin, 175:312.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1992. Trilobites. Boydell Press, Woodbridge. 145p.Google Scholar