Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:22:09.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standardization of the Anatomical Orientation of Receptaculitids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2017

Daniel C. Fisher  and
Matthew H. Nitecki
Daniel C. Fisher
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Matthew H. Nitecki
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much of the controversy that has surrounded the study of receptaculitids has been associated, in one way or another, with difficulties in reconstructing their mode of growth. Many of these difficulties, in turn, result from inadequate comparative morphological analysis and a consequent ambiguity in relating the results of work on one taxon to arguments framed in the context of another. In order to deal with this aspect of the controversy, we propose a standardization of anatomical orientation for receptaculitids, based on features that we argue are homologous, taxonomically widespread, and useful as criteria of polarity. These include: overall thallus shape; morphology and arrangement of intercalary meroms; latitudinal gradients in number of meroms per whorl; articular relationships of stellate structures; and imbrication of merom plates. This standardization will contribute to an understanding of growth and life orientation in receptaculitids by acting as an arbiter of the consistency of growth analyses performed on morphologically disparate taxa.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 56 , Issue S13: Paleontological Society Memoir 13. Standardization of the anatomical orientation of Receptaculitids , January 1982 , pp. 1 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by The Paleontological Society, Inc. 

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

Alberstadt, L. P. and Walker, K. R. 1976. A receptaculitid-echinoderm pioneer community in a Middle Ordovician reef. Lethaia 9:261–272.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. A. 1909. The cement resources of Virginia west of the Blue Ridge. Virg. Geol. Surv. Bull. 2-A:1–309.Google Scholar
Brummer, G. J. A. 1979. Paleobiology of Tetragonis sulcata d'Eichwald, 1860, an Ordovician receptaculite in erratics from the northern Netherlands. Scripta Geol. 53, 40 p.Google Scholar
Byrnes, J. G. 1968. Notes on the nature and environmental significance of the Receptaculitaceae. Lethaia 1:368–381.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. S. W., Holloway, D. J. and Smith, W. D. 1974. A new receptaculitid genus, Hexabactron, and the relationships of the Receptaculitaceae. Palaeontographica Abt. A 146:52–77.Google Scholar
Defrance, J. L. M. 1827. Réceptaculite, p. 5–7, pl. 68. In, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, 45, Re-Rocher, Paris.Google Scholar
Eichwald, E. 1842. Die Urwelt Russlands, durch Abbildungen erlaeutert. vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 84 p.Google Scholar
Finney, S. C. and Nitecki, M. H. 1979. Fisherites n. gen. reticulatus (Owen, 1844), a new name for Receptaculites oweni Hall, 1861. J. Paleontol. 53:750–753.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. and Nitecki, M. H. 1977. Life orientation and morphogenesis of receptaculitids. Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs 9(7):974–975.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. and Nitecki, M. H. 1978. Morphology and arrangement of meromes in Ischadites dixonensis, an Ordovician receptaculitid. Fieldiana: Geol. 39:17–31.Google Scholar
Foster, M. 1973. Ordovician receptaculitids from California and their significance. Lethaia 5:35–65.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Katz, M. 1975. Disruption of ideal geometry in the growth of receptaculitids: a natural experiment in theoretical morphology. Paleobiology 1:1–20.Google Scholar
Hinde, G. J. 1884. On the structure and affinities of the family of the Receptaculitidae. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 40:795–849.Google Scholar
James, J. F. 1885. Remarks on the genera Lepidolites, Anomaloides, Ischadites and Receptaculites, from the Cincinnati Group. J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist. 8:163–166.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. and Graham, A. 1962. Ischadites is a dasycladacean alga. J. Paleontol. 36:943–952.Google Scholar
Miagkova, E. I. 1965. Soanity-novaja grupa oganizmov [Soanites—a new group of organisms]. Paleontol. Zhurnal (1965; 3):16–22.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. and Gurley, W. F. E. 1896. New species of Paleozoic invertebrates from Illinois and other states. Ill. State Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 11:8–50.Google Scholar
Murchison, R. I. 1839. The Silurian System, founded on geological research in the counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, and so forth. J. Murray, London, 768 p.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H. 1969a. Surficial pattern of receptaculitids. Fieldiana: Geol. 16:361–376.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H. 1969b. Redescription of Ischadites koenigii Murchison, 1839. Fieldiana: Geol. 16:341–359.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H. 1971. Ischadites abbottae, a new North American Silurian species (Dasycladales). Phycologia 10:263–275.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H. 1972. North American Silurian receptaculitid algae. Fieldiana: Geol. 28:1–108.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H. and Dapples, C. C. 1975. Silurian Ischadites tenuis n. sp. (Receptaculitids) from Indiana. Fieldiana: Geol. 35:11–20.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H. and Toomey, D. F. 1979. Nature and classification of receptaculitids. Bull. Cent. Rech. Explor.-Prod. Elf-Aquitaine 3(2):725–732.Google Scholar
Nitecki, M. H., Zhuravleva, I. T., Miagkova, E. I. and Toomey, D. F. 1981. An affinity of Soanites bimuralis to archaeocyathids and receptaculitids. Paleontol. Zhurnal. (1981;1):5–19 [In Russian].Google Scholar
Owen, D. D. 1844. Report of a geological exploration of part of Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. 2nd ed., U.S. 28th Congr., Senate Exec. Doc. 407:1–191.Google Scholar
Owen, D. D. 1852. Report of a geological survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota and incidentally of a portion of Nebraska Territory. Lippincott, Grambo & Co., Philadelphia, 683 p.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. 1841. Figures and descriptions of the Palaeozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devon and West Somerset; observed in the course of the Ordnance Geological Survey of the district. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London, 231 p.Google Scholar
Rauff, H. 1892. Untersuchungen über die Organisation und systematische Stellung der Receptaculitiden. Abh. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., Math.-Phys. Cl. 17:645–722.Google Scholar
Rietschel, S. 1969. Die Receptaculiten. Eine Studie zur Morphologie, Organisation, Ökologie und Überlieferung einer problematischen Fossil-Gruppe und die Deutung ihrer Stellung im System. Senckenbergiana Lethaea 50:465–517.Google Scholar
Rietschel, S. 1970. Rekonstruktionen als Hilfsmittel bei der Untersuchung von Receptaculiten (Receptaculitales, Thallophyta). Senckenbergiana Lethaea 51:429–447.Google Scholar
Salter, J. W. 1859. Figures and descriptions of Canadian organic remains. Decade I: Fossils from the base of the Trenton Group. Geol. Surv. Can., 47 p.Google Scholar
Toomey, D. F. and Nitecki, M. H. 1979. Organic buildups in the Lower Ordovician (Canadian) of Texas and Oklahoma. Fieldiana: Geology. N. S. No. 2, 181 p.Google Scholar
Zhuravleva, I. T. and Miagkova, E. I. 1970. Cysshij razdel Archaeata, p. 2. In, Materialyk sh Kollokviumu po archaeatsiatam. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 52 p. Google Scholar