Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T23:28:25.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rise and fall of late Paleozoic trilobites of the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

David K. Brezinski
David K. Brezinski*
Affiliation:
Maryland Geological Survey, 2300 St. Paul Street, Baltimore 21218
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on range data and generic composition, four stages of evolution are recognized for late Paleozoic trilobites of the contiguous United States. Stage 1 occurs in the Lower Mississippian (Kinderhookian-Osagean) and is characterized by a generically diverse association of short-ranging, stenotopic species that are strongly provincial. Stage 2 species are present in the Upper Mississippian and consist of a single, eurytopic, pandemic genus, Paladin. Species of Stage 2 are much longer-ranging than those of Stage 1, and some species may have persisted for as long as 12 m.y. Stage 3 is present within Pennsylvanian and Lower Permian strata and consists initially of the eurytopic, endemic genera Sevillia and Ameura as well as the pandemic genus Ditomopyge. During the middle Pennsylvanian the very long-ranging species Ameura missouriensis and Ditomopyge scitula survived for more than 20 m.y. During the late Pennsylvanian and early Permian, a number of pandemic genera appear to have immigrated into what is now North America. Stage 4 is restricted to the Upper Permian (late Leonardian-Guadalupian) strata and is characterized by short-ranging, stenotopic, provincial genera.

The main causal factor controlling the four-stage evolution of late Paleozoic trilobites of the United States is interpreted to be eustacy. Whereas Stage 1 represents an adaptive radiation developed during the Lower Mississippian inundation of North America by the Kaskaskia Sequence, Stage 2 is present in strata deposited during the regression of the Kaskaskia sea. Stage 3 was formed during the transgression and stillstand of the Absaroka Sequence and, although initially endemic, Stage 3 faunas are strongly pandemic in the end when oceanic circulation patterns were at a maximum. A mid-Leonardian sea-level drop caused the extinction of Stage 3 fauna. Sea-level rise near the end of the Leonardian and into the Guadalupian created an adaptive radiation of stentopic species of Stage 4 that quickly became extinct with the latest Permian regression.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 73 , Issue 2: Papers from the Second International Trilobite Conference, August 1997 , March 1999 , pp. 164 - 175
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

Anderson, E. J. 1971. Environmental models for Paleozoic communities. Lethaia, 4:287–302.Google Scholar
Bilal, U. H., Hardenbol, J., and Vail, P. R. 1987. Chronology of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic. Science, 235:1156–1166.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1983. Does evolution take place in a vacuum? II. Journal of Paleontology, 57:1–30.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1983a. Paleoecology of the Upper Mississippian trilobite Paladin chesterensis in southwestern Pennsylvania. The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 61:2–7.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1983b. Developmental model for an Appalachian Pennsylvanian marine incursion. Northeastern Geology, 5:92–99.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1984. Pennsylvanian trilobites as environmental indicators: an example from the Glenshaw Formation (Missourian-Virgilian) of the Appalachian Basin, p. 82–87. In Busch, R. M. and Brezinski, D. K., (eds.), Stratigraphic analysis of Carboniferous Rocks in Southwestern Pennsylvania Using a Hierarchy of Transgressive-Regressive Units. Guidebook 3, Eastern Section Meeting of American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1986a. Trilobites from the Keokuk Limestone (Mississippian) of Missouri. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 55:137–143.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1986b. Trilobite associations from the Chouteau Formation (Kinderhookian) of central Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 60:870–881.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1986c. An opportunistic Upper Ordovician trilobite assemblage from Missouri. Lethaia, 19:415–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1987. Spergenaspis: a new Carboniferous trilobite genus from North America. Annals of Carnegie Musuem, 56:245–251.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1988a. Revision and redescription of some Lower Mississippian trilobites from the Chouteau Formation (Kinderhookian) of central Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 62:103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1988b. Trilobites of the Gilmore City Limestone (Mississippian) of Iowa. Journal of Paleontology, 62:241–245.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1988c. Appalachian Carboniferous trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 62:934–945.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1989. Late Mississippian depositional patterns in the north-central Appalachian Basin, and their implications to Chesterian hierarchal stratigraphy. Southeastern Geology, 30:1–23.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1990. The trilobite genus Australosutura from the Osagean of Oklahoma. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 59:61–70.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1991. Permian trilobites from the San Andres Formation, New Mexico, and their relationship to species from the Kaibab Formation of Arizona. Journal of Paleontology, 65:480–484.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1992. Permian trilobites from West Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 66:924–943.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1998. Lower Mississippian trilobites from starved basin deposits of the south-central United States. Journal of Paleontology, 72:718–725.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K., Sturgeon, M. T., and Hoare, R. T. 1989. Pennsylvanian trilobites of Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 142, 18 p.Google Scholar
Bucurel, H. G., and Chamberlain, C. K. 1977. Status and redescription of the Lower Pennsylvanian trilobite Ditomopyge ornata (Vogdes). Journal of Paleontology, 51:405–410.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, C. K. 1969. Carboniferous trilobites: Utah species and evolution in North America. Journal of Paleontology, 41:227–239.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, C. K. 1970. Permian trilobite species from central Wyoming and west Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 44:1049–1054.Google Scholar
Cisne, J. L. 1967. Two new Mississippian trilobites of the genus Paladin. Journal of Paleontology, 41:1267–1273.Google Scholar
Cisne, J. L. 1971. Paleoecology of trilobites of the Kaibab Limestone (Permian) in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. Journal of Paleontology, 46:525–533.Google Scholar
Cowie, J. W., and Bassett, M. G. 1989. Global Stratigraphic Chart. International Union of Geological Sciences, Episodes, 12.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. J., and North, G. R. 1988. Abrupt climate change and extinction events in earth history. Science, 240:996–1002.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1978. Trilobites and evolutionary patterns, p. 305–332. In Hallam, A. (ed.), Patterns of Evolution. Elsevier, New York, 519 p.Google Scholar
Feist, R. 1991. The Late Devonian trilobite crises. Historical Biology, 5:197–214.Google Scholar
Feist, R., and Petersen, M. S. 1995. Origin and spread of Pudoproetus, a survivor of the Late Devonian trilobite crisis. Journal of Paleontology, 69:99–109.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. G. 1964. Brackish oceans as a cause of the Permo-Triassic faunal crisis, p. 566–574. In Nairn, A. E. (ed.), Problems in Palaeoclimatology. Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1993. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology, 19:185–204.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1975. Early Ordovician trilobite communities. Fossils and Strata, 4:331–352.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 1969. Revision of some of Girty's invertebrate fossils from the Fayetteville Shale (Mississippian) of Arkansas and Oklahoma-Trilobites. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 606:35–39.Google Scholar
Hahn, G, and Hahn, R. 1967. Zur phylogenie der Proetidae (Trilobita) des Karbons und Perms. Zoological Beitrag, 13:303–349.Google Scholar
Hahn, G, and Hahn, R. 1970. Trilobitae carbonici et permici II, p, 161–335, In Westphal, F. (ed.), Fossilium Catalogus 1. Animalia, s'Gravenhage 120, Ysel Press, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hahn, G, and Hahn, R. 1988. The biostratigraphical distribution of Carboniferous limestone trilobites in Belgium and adjacent areas. Bulletin de la Société beige de Géologie 97:77–93.Google Scholar
Hessler, R. R. 1963. Lower Mississippian trilobites of the family Proetidae in the United States, Pt. 1. Journal of Paleontology, 37:543–563.Google Scholar
Hessler, R. R. 1965. Lower Mississippian trilobites of the family Proetidae in the United States, Part 2. Journal of Paleontology, 39:248–265.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. 1974. Biogeographic consequences of eurytopy and stenotopy among marine bivalves and their evolutionary significance. The American Naturalist, 108:541–560.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G. 1974. Extinction of perched faunas. Geology, 2:479–482.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 Paper 23, 132 p.Google Scholar
Lieberman, B. S. 1993. Systematics and biogeography of the “Metacryphaeus Group” Calmoniidae (Trilobita, Devonian) with comments on adaptive radiations, and the geologic history of the Malvinokaffric Realm. Journal of Paleontology, 67:549–570.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology, 8:130–140.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J., and Fordham, B. G. 1981. Mid-Cautleyan (Ashgill Series) trilobites and facies in the English Lake District. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 34:137–161.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D., Rigby, J. K., Fischer, A. G., Whitman, A. J., Hickox, J. E., and Bradley, J. S. 1972. The Permian reef complex of the Guadalupian Mountains region, Texas and New Mexico. Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 236 p.Google Scholar
Owens, R. M. 1983. A review of Permian trilobite genera, p. 15–41. In Briggs, D. E. G. and Lane, P. D. (eds.), Papers in honor of H. B. Whittington. Special Papers in Palaeontology 30.Google Scholar
Owens, R. M., and Hahn, G. 1993. Biogeography of Carboniferous and Permian trilobites. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 27:1565–180.Google Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1970. Revision of non-cyrtosymbolinid trilobites from the Tournaisian-Namurian of Eurasia. Palaeontologia Polonica 23, 165 p.Google Scholar
Pabian, R. K., and Fagerstrom, J. A. 1972. Late Paleozoic trilobites from southeastern Nebraska. Journal of Paleontology, 46:789–816.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, W. H. C. 1979. Rates of transgression and regression (mesothems) in the Carboniferous of NW Europe. Journal of the Geological Society of London, 136:147–153.Google Scholar
Ross, C. A., and Ross, J. R. P. 1985a. Carboniferous and Permian biogeography. Geology, 13:27–30.Google Scholar
Ross, C. A., and Ross, J. R. P. 1985b. Late Paleozoic depositional sequences are synchronous and worldwide. Geology, 13:194–197.Google Scholar
Ross, C. A., and Ross, J. R. P. 1988. Late Paleozoic transgressive-regressive deposition, p. 227–247. In Wingus, C. K., Posamentier, H., Ross, C. A., and Kendall, C. G. St. C. (eds.), Sea-level Changes: An Integrated Approach. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 42, 407 p.Google Scholar
Sando, W. J., Bamber, E. W., and Armstrong, A. K. 1975. Endemism and similarity indices: Clues to zoogeography of North American Mississippian corals. Geology, 3:661–664.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1974. Permo-Triassic extinction: relation to sea-floor spreading. Journal of Geology, 82:129–143.Google Scholar
Signor, P. W., and Brett, C. E. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology, 10:229–245.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. S. 1974. Permo-Triassic extinctions: effects of area on biotic equilibrium. Journal of Geology, 82:267–274.Google Scholar
Sloss, L. L. 1963. Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 45:178–181.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1984. Marine mass extinctions: a dominant role for temperature, p. 69–117. In Nitecki, M. H. (ed.), Extinctions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 354 p.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. H. 1971. Distribution and diversity of Pennsylvanian marine faunas relative to water depth and distance from shore. Lethaia, 4:403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, D. H. 1964. Late Mississippian rhythmic sediments of the Mississippi Valley. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 48:637–658.Google Scholar
Vail, P. R., Mitchum, R. M., and Thompson, S. 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes in sea level, p. 83–97. In Payton, C. E. (ed.), Seismic Stratigraphy: Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26.Google Scholar
Weller, J. M. 1935. Adolescent development of Ditomopyge. Journal of Paleontology, 9:503–513.Google Scholar
Weller, J. M. 1936. Carboniferous trilobite genera. Journal of Paleontology, 10:704–714.Google Scholar
Weller, J. M. 1937. Evolutionary tendencies in American Carboniferous trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 11:337–346.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1954. Two silicified Carboniferous trilobites from West Texas. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 122:1–16.Google Scholar