Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:07:46.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogeny of the food-gathering system in Ordovician crinoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growth of the food-gathering systems of Ordovician crinoids illustrates the solutions evolved to avoid or minimize problems of suspension feeding and maintenance. The column has low metabolic requirements and may even be self-sufficient; little or no food need be diverted from the crown to the column. The tissue that the food-gathering system supplies with food is all or mostly in the crown. The volume of tissue in the crown is isometric with its volume. Distal arm branches, ramules, or pinnules form throughout growth of most taxa. The number of arm branches is constant in hybocrinids and porocrinids. The length and number of plates in the food-gathering system show marked positive allometry relative to crown volume. Food grooves become wider in larger crinoids but growth rates vary greatly. Branch density declines in all species studied. The tubefoot spacing can be constant, increase, or decrease in larger crinoids. Food-gathering capacity is the number of food-catching tubefeet multiplied by the average food-groove width, and it is positively allometric in terms of crown volume. The food-gathering ratio (food-gathering capacity: crown volume) declines somewhat, remains the same, or increases slightly during growth. The food-gathering parameters are correlated with arm structure. Crinoids with pinnulate arms exhibit the highest food-gathering ratios, high values of tubefoot spacing and branch density, and narrow food grooves, and they catch small food particles with small and closely spaced tubefeet. The lowest food-gathering ratios are seen in crinoids with unbranched and nonpinnulate arms which possess low tubefoot spacings and branch densities and wide food grooves. On average these organisms ate larger food items collected by larger and more widely spaced tubefeet. Larger food-gathering ratios are associated with greater resistance to fluid flow through the arms and tubefeet. The allometry of the food-gathering systems of Ordovician crinoids suggests that their metabolic rates could be proportional to body mass0.75 as in many living animals and plants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , May 2006 , pp. 430 - 446
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

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: Effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 19:304–321.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1997. Crinoid functional morphology, p. 45–68. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and LaBarbera, M. 1989. Metabolic rates of Caribbean crinoids (Echinodermata), with special reference to deep-water stalked and stalkless taxa. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 93A:391–394.Google 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
Billings, E. 1859. On the Crinoideae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains, Decade IV:7–66.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Whiteley, T. E., Allison, P. A., and Yochelson, E. L. 1999. The Walcott-Rust Quarry: Middle Ordovician trilobite Konservat-Lagerstätten. Journal of Paleontology, 73:288–305.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1974. Ontogeny of camerate crinoids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 72, 53 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1977. Calceocrinids from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of southern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey, Circular 78, 28 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1978. Postlarval ontogeny of fossil crinoids, camerates, p. T244–T263. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. T. Echinodermata, 2. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1988. Ontogeny and phylogeny in primitive calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 62:917–934.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992a. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992b. Hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:973–993.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1994. Camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 68:570–599.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1995. Eoparisocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 69:351–366.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2005. The paleobiology and ontogeny of Cincinnaticrinus varibrachialus Warn and Strimple, 1977 from the Middle Ordovician (Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 79(1):152–174.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Kile, K. M. 1994. Paleoautecology and ontogeny of Cupulocrinus levorsoni Kolata, a Middle Ordovician crinoid from the Guttenberg Formation of Wisconsin, p. 25–44. In Landing, E. (ed.), Studies in Stratigraphy and Paleontology in Honor of Donald W. Fisher. New York State Museum Bulletin, 481.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1982. Long-armed cladid inadunates, p. 129–144. In Sprinkle, J. (ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H., and West, G. B. (eds.). 2000. Scaling in Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 352 p.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H., West, G. B., and Enquist, B. J. 2000. Scaling in biology: Patterns and processes, causes and consequences, p. 1–24. In Brown, J. H. and West, G. B. (eds.), Scaling in Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Byrne, M., and Fontaine, A. R. 1981. The feeding behavior of Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 59:11–18.Google Scholar
Byrne, M., and Fontaine, A. R. 1983. Morphology and function of the tube-feet of Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Zoomorphology, 102:175–187.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology (second edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York, 646 p.Google Scholar
Fishelson, L. 1974. Ecology of the northern Red Sea crinoids and their epi- and endozoic fauna. Marine Biology, 26:183–192.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41:587–640.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 498 p.Google Scholar
Green, P. E. 1978. Analyzing Multivariate Data. Dryden Press, Hinsdale, Illinois, 519 p.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1984. Echinodermata of the Middle Ordovician Lebanon Limestone, central Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 86(19):1–100.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. Pt. 6. D. Appleton & Company, New York, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hayami, I., and Matsukuma, A. 1970. Variation of bivariate characters from the standpoint of allometry. Palaeontology, 13:588–605.Google Scholar
Hemmingsen, A. M. 1960. Energy metabolism as related to body size and respiratory surfaces, and its evolution. Reports of the Steno Memorial Hospital and the Nordisk Insulinlaboratorium, 9(2):6–110.Google Scholar
Holland, N. D., Strickler, J. R., and Leonard, A. B. 1986. Particle interception, transport and rejection by the feather star Oligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), studied by frame analysis of video tapes. Marine Biology, 93:111–126.Google Scholar
Holterhoff, P. E. 1997. Paleocommunity and evolutionary ecology of Paleozoic crinoids, p. 69–106. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Imbrie, J. 1956. Biometrical methods in the study of invertebrate fossils. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 108:211–252.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7 (Journal of Paleontology, 49[3] Supplement), 74 p.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1986. Crinoids of the Champlainian (Middle Ordovician) Guttenberg Formation—upper Mississippi Valley region. Journal of Paleontology, 60:711–718.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. 1987. A Functional Biology of Echinoderms. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 340 p.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. M., and Lane, J. M. 1982. The utilization of nutrients by post-metamorphic echinoderms, p. 331–371. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Leonard, A. B. 1989. Functional response in Antedon mediterranea (Lamarck) (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): The interaction of prey concentration and current velocity on a passive suspension-feeder. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 127:81–103.Google Scholar
Leonard, A. B., Strickler, J. R., and Holland, N. D. 1988. Effects of current speed on filtration during suspension feeding in Oligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Marine Biology, 97:111–125.Google Scholar
Longman, M. W. 1982. Depositional environments, p. 17–30. In Sprinkle, J. (ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1865. Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea, &c., from the Palaeozoic rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Proceedings, 17:143–155.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G. 1997. Living comatulids, p. 3–30. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Marine Biology, 51:361–369.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982a. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982b. Food composition and feeding behavior of sympatric species of comatulid crinoids from the Palau Islands (western Pacific), p. 43–49. In Lawrence, J. M. (ed.), Echinoderms: Proceedings of the International Conference, Tampa Bay. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1997. Implications of research on living stalked crinoids for paleobiology, p. 31–43. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F. 2002. Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region. Journal of Paleontology, 76:725–732.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology. Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, Ohio, 664 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962. Ray structures of some inadunate crinoids. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 5, 47 p.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 1960. The histology and activities of the tube-feet of Antedon bifida . Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society, 101:105–117.Google Scholar
Peters, R. H. 1983. The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge University Press, London, 329 p.Google Scholar
Rutman, J., and Fishelson, L. 1969. Food composition and feeding behavior of shallow-water crinoids at Eilat (Red Sea). Marine Biology, 3:46–57.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: Why Is Animal Size So Important? Cambridge University Press, London, 241 p.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1997. Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment (fifth edition). Cambridge University Press, London, 607 p.Google Scholar
Slocom, A. W. 1924. New echinoderms from the Maquoketa beds of Fayette County, Iowa. Pt. 1. Iowa Geological Survey, 29 (Annual Reports for 1919 and 1920):320–344.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical Methods (seventh edition). Iowa State University Press, Ames, 507 p.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. (ed.). 1982. Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1, 369 p.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J., and Guensburg, T. E. 2004. Crinozoan, blastozoan, echinozoan, asterozoan, and homalozoan echinoderms, p. 266–280. In Webby, B. D., Paris, F., Droser, M. L., and Percival, I. G. (eds.), The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Turcotte, D. L. 1997. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics (second edition). Cambridge University Press, London, 398 p.Google Scholar
Turcotte, D. L., Pelletier, J. D., and Newman, W. I. 1998. Networks with side branching in biology. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 193:577–592.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1969. Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs, n. gen., n. sp., le plus ancien crinoïde dicyclique connu. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 38, 25 p.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1925. New classification of the “Heterocrinidae.” Geological Survey of Canada Memoir, 138:82–101.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1884. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Trenton Group of New York. Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the New York State Museum of Natural History, p. 207–214 (advanced print, October 1883, p. 1–8).Google Scholar
Warn, J. M., and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate super-families Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician-Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72:1–138.Google Scholar
West, G. B., Brown, J. H., and Enquist, B. J. 1997. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 276:122–126.Google Scholar
West, G. B., Brown, J. H., and Enquist, B. J. 2000. The origin of universal scaling laws in biology, p. 87–112. In Brown, J. H. and West, G. B. (eds.), Scaling in Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., and Bunker, B. J. 1996. Relative sea-level changes during Middle Ordovician through Mississippian deposition in the Iowa area, North American craton, p. 307–330. In Witzke, B. J., Ludvigson, G. A., and Day, J. (eds.), Paleozoic Sequence Stratigraphy: Views from the North American Craton. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 306.Google Scholar