Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:40:28.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Origin and spread of Pudoproetus, a survivor of the Late Devonian trilobite crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Raimund Feist  and
Morris S. Petersen
Raimund Feist
Affiliation:
Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution, U.R.A. 327, Université des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, 34095 Montpellier, France
Morris S. Petersen
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the most severe restrictions in taxonomic diversity of trilobites coincides with the Late Devonian “Hangenberg” Event, which is characterized by a pronounced eustatic low-stand. One of the survivors of this event is Pudoproetus, which, being adapted to shallow water conditions, experienced an opportunistic worldwide spread during this time. The oldest representatives of this genus are reported from the pre-Hangenberg Late Famennian of the Urals and Kazakhstan. Other known occurrences of this genus, midcontinent U.S.A., Utah, southern China, and southern France, occur at the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary, shortly after the Hangenberg event, and in the earliest Carboniferous. This pattern of distribution suggests that neither climatic nor geographic migration barriers existed around the Old Red landmass at that time. On the other hand, the Hangenberg crisis severely affected outer shelf benthic habitats, whereas nearshore trilobites were largely unaffected by the event.

A proetine origin of Pudoproetus, as originally proposed by Hessler (1963), is emphasized on the basis of paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and morphological arguments. In particular, the presence of ancestral features, such as the possession of 10 thoracic segments and lateral occipital lobes still occurring in early Pudoproetus species, points to a phylogenetic link with proetines rather than with phillipsiids. Within this group two new species are named: P. priscus and P. mediterraneus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 99 - 109
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

Alberti, H. 1979. Devonian trilobite stratigraphy, p. 313–324. In House, M. R., Scrutton, C. T., and Bassett, M. G. (eds.), The Devonian System. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 23.Google Scholar
Brauckmann, C., Chlupáč, I., and Feist, R. 1993. Trilobites at the Devonian–Carboniferous boundary. Annales de la Société géologique de Belgique, 115(2):507–518.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1988. Appalachian Carboniferous trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 62:934–945.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Fortey, R. A., and Clarkson, E. N. K. 1988. Extinction and the fossil record of the arthropods, p. 171–209. In Larwood, G. P. (ed.), Extinction and Survival in the Fossil Record. Systematics Association Special Volume, 34. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, C. K. 1969. Carboniferous trilobites: Utah species and evolution in North America. Journal of Paleontology, 43:41–68.Google Scholar
Chlupáč, I. 1966. The Upper Devonian and Lower Carboniferous trilobites of the Moravian Karst. Sbornik geologických věd, řad P, 7:5–163.Google Scholar
Clausen, C.-D., Leuteritz, K., and Ziegler, W. 1989. Ausgewählte Profile an der Devon/Karbon-Grenze im Sauerland (Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Fortschritte in der Geologie von Rheinland und Westfalen, Krefeld, 35:161–226.Google Scholar
Engel, B. A., and Morris, N. 1984. Conophillipsia (Trilobita) in the Early Carboniferous of eastern Australia. Alcheringia, 8:23–64.Google Scholar
Feist, R. 1991. The late Devonian trilobite crises. Historical Biology, 5:197–214.Google Scholar
Feist, R. 1992. Trilobiten aus dem Devon/Karbon-Grenzprofil an der Grünen Schneid (Zentrale Karnische Alpen, Österreich), p. 21–47. In Schönlaub, H.-P. and Daurer, A. (eds.), Neuergebnisse aus dem Paläozoikum der Ost- und Südalpen. Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundes-Anstalt, Wien, 135(1).Google Scholar
Feist, R., and Clarkson, E. N. K. 1989. Environmentally controlled phyletic evolution, blindness and extinction in Late Devonian tropido-coryphine trilobites. Lethaia, 22:359–373.Google Scholar
Flajs, G., and Feist, R. 1988. Index conodonts, trilobites and environment of the Devonian–Carboniferous boundary beds at La Serre (Montagne Noire, France), p. 53–107. In Flajs, G., Feist, R., and Ziegler, W. (eds.), Devonian–Carboniferous Boundary—Results of Recent Studies. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 100.Google Scholar
Gutschick, R. C., and Rodriguez, J. 1979. Biostratigraphy of the Pilot Shale (Devonian-Mississippian) and contemporaneous strata in Utah, Nevada and Montana. Brigham Young University, Geology Studies, 26(1):37–63.Google Scholar
Hahn, G., Hahn, R., and Brauckmann, C. 1980. Die Trilobiten des belgischen Kohlenkalkes (Unter-Karbon). Geologica et Palaeontologica, 14:165–188.Google Scholar
Hahn, G., Hahn, R., and Brauckmann, C. 1988. Zur Phylogenie der Bollandiinae (Trilobita, Karbon–Perm). Jahresberichte des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Wuppertal, 41:119–131.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1862. Preliminary notice on the trilobites and other Crustacea of the upper Helderberg, Hamilton and Chemung Groups. 15th Annual Report of the Regents University, State of New York, p. 82–112.Google Scholar
Hessler, R. R. 1963. Lower Mississippian trilobites of the family Proetidae in the United States, Part I. Journal of Paleontology, 37:543–563.Google Scholar
Hessler, R. R. 1965. Lower Mississippian trilobites of the family Proetidae in the United States, Part II. Journal of Paleontology, 39:248–264.Google Scholar
House, M. R. 1985. Correlation of mid-Palaeozoic ammonoid evolutionary events with global sedimentary perturbations. Nature, 313:17–22.Google Scholar
Jell, P. A. 1977. A new subgenus of Proetus (Trilobita) from the Lower Carboniferous of Queensland. Journal of Paleontology, 51:169–176.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G., Klapper, G., and Sandberg, C. A. 1985. Devonian eustatic fluctuations in Euramerica. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 96:567–587.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G., Klapper, G., and Sandberg, C. A. 1988. Devonian eustatic events in the western United States and their biostratigraphic responses, p. 171–178. In McMillan, N. J., Embry, A. F., and Glass, D. J. (eds.), Devonian of the World, Volume III. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 14.Google Scholar
Klapper, G., Sandberg, C. A., Collinson, C., Huddle, J. W., Orr, R. W., Rickard, L. V., Schumacher, D., Seddon, G., and Uyeno, T. T. 1971. North American Devonian conodont biostratigraphy, p. 285–316. In Sweet, W. C. and Bergstrom, S. M. (eds.), Symposium on Conodont Biostratigraphy. Geological Society of America, Memoir 127.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, T., and Hamada, T. 1978. On some Lower Carboniferous trilobites from the Hina Limestone, Okayama Prefecture, West Japan. Proceedings Japan Academy, Series B, 54(1):5–9.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, T., and Hamada, T. 1980. Carboniferous trilobites of Japan in comparison with Asian, Pacific and other faunas. Palaeontological Society of Japan, Special Papers, 23, I-VII:1–132.Google Scholar
Korn, D., Clausen, C. D., Belka, Z., Leuteritz, K., Luppold, F. W., Feist, R., and Weyer, D. 1994. Die Devon/Karbon-Grenze bei Drewer (Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Geologie und Paläontologic Westfalen, Münster, 29:97–147.Google Scholar
Lütke, F. 1990. Contribution to a phylogenetical classification of the subfamily Proetinae SALTER, 1864 (Trilobita). Senckenbergiana lethaea, 71:1–83.Google Scholar
Maximova, S. A. 1955. Trilobity srednego i verchnego devona Urala i severnych Mugodschar [Trilobites of the Middle and Upper Devonian from the Urals and northern Mugodschar]. Trudy VSEGEI, Moscow, 3:1–263 [in Russian].Google Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1962. Famennian and Lower Carboniferous Cyrtosymbolinae (Trilobita) from the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 7:53–222.Google Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1970. Revision of non-cyrtosymbolinid trilobites from the Tournaisian–Namurian of Eurasia. Palaeontologica polonica, 23:1–165.Google Scholar
Owens, R. M. 1973. British Ordovician and Silurian Proetidae (Trilobita). Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 98 p.Google Scholar
Paproth, E., Feist, R., and Flajs, G. 1991. Decision on the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary stratotype. Episodes, 14:331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitlinger, E. A., Semichatova, S. V., Byvsheva, T. V., Chizhova, V. A., Kononova, L. I., and Lipina, O. A. 1979. The Devonian–Carboniferous boundary in the U.S.S.R., p. 23–42. In Wagner, R. H., Higgins, A. C., and Meyen, S. (eds.), The Carboniferous of the U.S.S.R. Yorkshire Geological Society (Occasional Publication Number 4), Leeds.Google Scholar
Richter, R., and Richter, E. 1926. Die Trilobiten des Oberdevons. Beiträge zur Kenntnis oberdevonischer Trilobiten, 4. Abhandlungen der Preussischen geologischen Landes-Anstalt, Neue Folge, 99:1–314.Google Scholar
Richter, R., and Richter, E. 1933. Die letzten Phacopidae. Bulletin du Musée royal d'Histoire naturelle, Volume 9, 21:1–19.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. A., and Johnson, J. G. 1989. Upper Devonian of western United States, p. 183–220. In McMillan, N. J., Embry, A. F., and Glass, D. J. (eds.), Devonian of the World, Volume I. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 14.Google Scholar
Schindler, E. 1990. Die Kellwasser-Krise (hohe Frasne-Stufe, Ober-Devon). Göttinger Arbeiten zur Geologie und Paläontologie, 46, 115 p.Google Scholar
Schönlaub, H. P., Attrep, M., Boeckelmann, K., Dreesen, R., Feist, R., Fenninger, A., Hahn, G., Klein, P., Korn, D., Kratz, R., Magaritz, M., Orth, Ch. J., and Schramm, J.-M. 1992. The Devonian/ Carboniferous boundary in the Carnic Alps (Austria)—a multidisciplinary approach, p. 57–98. In Schönlaub, H. P. and Daurer, A. (eds.), Neuergebnisse aus dem Paläozoikum der Ost- und Südalpen, Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundes-Anstalt, Wien, 135 (1).Google Scholar
Scotese, C. R., and McKerrow, W. S. 1990. Revised world maps and introduction, p. 1–21. In McKerrow, W. S. and Scotese, C. R. (eds.), Palaeozoic Palaeogeography and Biogeography. Geological Society Memoir, 12.Google Scholar
Shumard, B. F. 1855. Description of a geological section, on the Mississippi River, from St. Louis to Commerce. Paleontology: Geological Survey of Missouri, 1st and 2nd Annual Reports, 2:185–208.Google Scholar
Walliser, O. H. 1984. Pleading for a natural D/C-boundary, p. 241–246. In Paproth, E. and Streel, M. (eds.), The Devonian–Carboniferous Boundary. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 67.Google Scholar
Weber, V. N. 1937. Trilobites of the Carboniferous and Permian System of the U.S.S.R. 1. Carboniferous trilobites. Paleontology of U.S.S.R. Monographs, 71(1):1–160.Google Scholar
Weller, S. 1909. Kinderhook faunal studies; V. The fauna of the Fern Glen formation. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 20:265–332.Google Scholar
Williams, J. S. 1943. Stratigraphy and fauna of the Louisiana Limestone of Missouri. U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 203, 133 p.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J. 1990. Palaeoclimatic constraints for Palaeozoic palaeolatitudes of Laurentia and Euramerica, p. 57–73. In McKerrow, W. S. and Scotese, C. R. (eds.), Palaeozoic Palaeogeography and Biogeography. Geological Society Memoir, 12.Google Scholar
Yuan, J. L. 1988. Proetiden aus dem jüngeren Oberdevon von Süd-China. Palaeontographica A, 201:1–102.Google Scholar
Zhao-Ling, Zhu. 1988. Trilobites, p. 199–208. In Chang-Min, Yu (ed.), Devonian-Carboniferous Boundary in Nanbiancun, Guilin, China—Aspects and Records. Science Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
Ziegler, W., and Sandberg, C. A. 1984. Important candidate sections for stratotype of conodont based Devonian-Carboniferous boundary, p. 231–239. In Paproth, E. and Streel, M., The Devonian-Carboniferous Boundary. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M. 67.Google Scholar