Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:10:52.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shell structure and its bearing on the phylogeny of Late Ordovician–Early Silurian strophomenoid brachiopods from Anticosti Island, Québec

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Keith Dewing
Keith Dewing*
Affiliation:
Geological Survey of Canada, 3303 33rd Street NW, Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A7,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four shell types are recognized from strophomenide brachiopods from Anticosti Island based on their fibrous or laminar character and on the type of taleolae. The shell types consistently co-vary with the types of cardinal process and style of socket plates. Treating shell structure as a conservative, non-reversing character implies that there are four groups of strophomenide brachiopod. The laminar-shell strophomenoids probably originated two separate times; one origination giving rise to two groups within the Strophomenida and one origination producing the Orthotetida. This matches the Treatise classification with only minor variation. The fourth group, that with fibrous shell and trilobed cardinal process and which includes the Plectambonitoidea, does not clearly fit into the Strophomenata and may be more closely related to the Clitambonitoidea. A limited cladistic analysis supports the idea that shell structure should be an important factor in establishing evolutionary kinship and points to ways of optimizing the Treatise classification.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , March 2004 , pp. 275 - 286
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

Arber, M. A. 1939. The nature and significance of the pedicle-foramen of Leptaena Dalman. Geological Magazine, 76:82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arber, M. A. 1942. The pseudodeltidium of the strophomenid brachiopods. Geological Magazine, 79:179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. 1968. Analysis of the function of the diductor muscles in articulate brachiopods. Neues Jarhbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie, Monatshefte, 11:641–654.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C. 1972. The shell structure of chonetaean brachiopods and their ancestors. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, 21:3–25.Google Scholar
Dewing, K. 1999. Late Ordovician and Early Silurian Strophomenid Brachiopods of Anticosti Island, Quebec, Canada. Palaeontographica Canadiana, no. 17, 143 p.Google Scholar
Dewing, K. 2001. Hinge modifications and musculature of strophomenoid brachiopods: examples across the Ordovician-Silurian boundary, Anticosti Island, Québec. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 38:125–141.Google Scholar
Grant, R. E. 1968. Structural adaptation in two Permian brachiopod genera, Salt Range, West Pakistan. Journal of Paleontology, 42:1–33.Google Scholar
Jin, J., and Zhan, R.-B. 2001. Late Ordovician Articulate Brachiopods from the Red River and Stony Mountain Formations, Southern Manitoba. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Canada, 117 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, L. R., and Maples, C. G. 2000. Determining utility of morphologically variable characters with an example from the strophomenide cardinal process. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 32(4):23.Google Scholar
Manankov, I. N. 1979. Pseudopunctae in Strophomenids. Paleontological Journal, 13:332–338.Google Scholar
Racheboeuf, P. R., and Copper, P. 1986. The oldest chonetacean brachiopods (Ordovician-Silurian, Anticosti Island, Quebec). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 23:1297–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, J. K. 1976. Comparative morphology and shell histology of the Ordovician Strophomenacea (Brachiopoda). Palaeontographica Americana, 8:129–209.Google Scholar
Rong, J.-Y., and Cocks, L. R. M. 1994. True Strophomena and a revision of the classification and evolution of strophomenoid and ‘strophodontoid’ brachiopods. Palaeontology, 37:651–694.Google Scholar
Rong, J.-Y., Zhan, R.-B., and Xu, H.-K. 1999. The oldest known strophomenoid from the Sandaokan Formation (Late Arenig, Ordovician) of Inner Mongolia, North China. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 38(1):32–45.Google Scholar
Spjeldnaes, N. 1957. The Middle Ordovician of the Oslo Region, Norway 8. Brachiopoda of the suborder Strophomenoidea. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 37:1–214.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1992. PAUP, Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Version 3.1. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.Google Scholar
William, A. 1956. The calcareous shell of the Brachiopoda and its importance to their classification. Biological Reviews, Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31:243–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 1968a. Evolution of the shell structure of articulate brachiopods. Paleontological Association, Special Paper in Paleontology, 2:1–55.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 1968b. A history of skeletal secretions among articulate brachiopods. Lethaia, 1:268–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 1970. Origin of laminar-shelled articulate brachiopods. Lethaia, 3:329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 1971. Comments on the growth of the shell of articulate brachiopods, p. 47–67. In Dutro, J. T. (ed.), Paleozoic Perspectives: A Paleontological Tribute to G. Arthur Cooper. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 3.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 1990. Biomineralization in the Lophophorates, p. 67–82. In Carter, J. G. (ed.), Skeletal Biomineralization: Patterns, Processes and Evolutionary Trends. Volume 1. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 1997. Shell structure, p. 267–320. In Kaesler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Brunton, C. H. C. 1993. Role of shell structure in the classification of the Orthotetidine brachiopods. Palaeontology, 36:931–966.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Harper, D. A. T. 2000. Billingellida, p. H689–708. In Williams, A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Brachiopoda, Part H.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J. 1965. Morphology, p. H57–H138. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Brunton, C. H. C., and Cocks, L. R. M. 2000. Strophomenata, p. H215–216. In Williams, A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Brachiopoda, Part H.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Carlson, S. J., and Brunton, C. H. C. 2000. Brachiopod classification, p. H1–27. In Williams, A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Brachiopoda, Part H.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Carlson, S. J., Brunton, C. H. C., Holmer, L. E., and Popov, L. 1996. A supra-ordinal classification of the Brachiopoda. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (series B), 351:1171–1193.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D., and Rubel, M. 1996. A review of the morphological features affecting the classification of clitambonitidine brachiopods. Palaeontology, 39:53–76.Google Scholar