Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-pt5lt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T00:37:04.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taphonomic bias and the evolutionary history of the family Cidaridae (Echinodermata: Echinoidea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Benjamin J. Greenstein
Benjamin J. Greenstein*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts 01063
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The class Echinoidea apparently originated during the Ordovician Period and diversified slowly through the Paleozoic Era. The clade then mushroomed in diversity beginning in Late Triassic time and continued expanding into the present. Although this evolutionary history is generally accepted, the taphonomic overprint affecting it has not been explored. To gain a more accurate perception of the evolutionary history of the group, I have compared the diversity history of the family Cidaridae (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) with the preservational style of fossil type species using literature-derived data. The Cidaridae apparently originated in Middle Triassic time and diversified slowly through the Neocomian (Early Cretaceous). Diversity was maintained through the remainder of the Cretaceous and Tertiary Periods, reflecting the diversity history of the subclass. Characterization of the preservational style of type fossil material for the family revealed the following breakdown of preservational states: 60% of species were described on the basis of disarticulated skeletal material, primarily spines; 20% based on intact coronas denuded of spines, apical system, Aristotle's lantern and peristomial plates; 10% based on large coronal fragments; and 10% based on other skeletal elements. This distribution may represent the effect of a disarticulation threshold on the condition of echinoid carcasses before final burial and suggests that preservation of intact specimens may be very unlikely. For cidaroids, previous work has suggested that this threshold is likely to be reached after 7 days of decay.

Comparison of the diversity history of the Cidaridae with the preservation data reveals that characteristic patterns of taphonomic overprint have affected the group since its origination in Middle Triassic time, and the nature of that overprint has changed over time: the early diversity history of the group is characterized by occurrences of fragmented fossil material, with spines predominant; further radiation of the group in mid-Jurassic time coincided with an increase in modes of preservation, ranging between exceptionally well-preserved material and disarticulated skeletal elements. Finally, type material is more rarely described from younger stratigraphic intervals (Miocene–Pleistocene) and consists predominantly of disarticulated skeletal elements and coronal fragments larger than an interambulacrum in size. Intact, denuded coronas are noticeably lacking.

The number of type species of Cidaridae described in each stratigraphic interval has not been consistent during post-Paleozoic time. Middle Triassic, Malm (Upper Jurassic), Senonian (Upper Cretaceous) and Eocene series yielded significantly (α = .05) higher numbers of type specimens per million years, while the Lias (Lower Jurassic), Dogger (Mid-Jurassic), Lower Cretaceous and Paleocene yielded significantly (α = .05) lower numbers of type specimens per million years. This may be the result of a combination of taxonomic, sampling, and geographical biases.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , Winter 1992 , pp. 50 - 79
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

Literature Cited

Aslin, C. J. 1968. Echinoid preservation in the Upper Estuarine Limeston of Bilsworth, Northamptonshire. Geological Magazine 105:506–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1985. Classes and adaptive variety: the ecology of diversification in marine faunas through the Phanerozoic. Pp. 191–253In Valentine, J. W., ed. Phanerozoic diversity patterns, profiles in macroevolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Bantz, H. U. 1969. Echinoidea aus Plattenkalken der Altmühlalb und ihre Biostratinomie. Erlanger Geologische Abhandlungen 78:1–35.Google Scholar
Bloos, G. 1973. Ein fund von Seeigeln der Gattung Diademopsis aus dem Hettangium Württembergs und ihr Lebensraum. Stuttgarter Beitrage Naturklasse (B) 5:1–25.Google Scholar
Fell, H. B. 1966. Cidaroids. Pp. 4312–4338In Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Part U: Echinodermata 3. University of Kansas Press and the Geological Society of America, Lawrence, Kans.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B. J. 1990. Taphonomic biasing of subfossil echinoid populations adjacent to St. Croix, U. S. V. I. Pp. 290–300In Larue, D. K. and Draper, G., eds. Transactions of the 12th Caribbean Geological Conference, St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands. Miami Geological Society, South Miami, Fla.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B. J. 1991. An integrated study of echinoid taphonomy: predictions for the fossil record of four echinoid families. Palaios 6:519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harland, W. B., Cox, A. V., Llewellyn, P. G., Pickton, C.A.G., Smith, A. G., and Walters, R. 1989. A geologic time scale. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hawkins, H. L., and Hampton, S. M. 1927. The occurrence, structure and affinities of Echinocystis and Palaeodiscus. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 83:574–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Baumiller, T. K. 1990. Experimental disintegration of regular echinoids: roles of temperature, oxygen, and decay thresholds. Paleobiology 16:247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1958. New American Paleozoic echinoids. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 135.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1965. Evolutionary trends in Paleozoic echinoids. Journal of Paleontology 39:436–465.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1966. A new echinoid from the Cretaceous Pierre Shale of eastern Wyoming. Pp. A62–A65In Gill, J. R. and Cobban, W. A., eds. The Red Bird section of the Upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 393-A, U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1968. Triassic echinoids of North America. Journal of Paleontology 42:1000–1006.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1974. Evolutionary trends and their functional significance in the post-Paleozoic echinoids. Paleontological Society Memoir 5:1–95.Google Scholar
Kier, P. M. 1977. The poor fossil record of the regular echinoid. Paleobiology 3:168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kier, P. M., and Lawson, M. L. 1978. Index of living and fossil echinoids, 1924-1970. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 34. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Lambert, J. M., and Thièry, P. 1909-1925. Essai de nomenclature raisonée des Échinides. Librairie L. Ferrière, Chaumont.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1979. Biases in the fossil record of species and genera. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 12:85–91.Google Scholar
Richter, R. 1931. Tierwelt und Umwelt im Hunsrückschiefer; zur Entstehung eines schwarzen Schlammsteins. Senckenbergiana 13:299–342.Google Scholar
Rosenkranz, D. 1971. Zur Sedimentologie und Ökologie von Echinodermen-Lagerstätten. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 138:221–258.Google Scholar
Schäfer, W. 1972. Ecology and palaeoecology of marine environments. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1976. Palökologie, Konstruktionen, Sedimentologie, Diagenese und Vergesellschaftung von Fossilien. Zentralblatt für Geologie und Pälontologie 2:227–233.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1974. Quantified coefficients of association and measurement of similarity. Mathematical Geology 6:135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology 7:35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1984. Echinoid paleobiology. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1990. Echinoid evolutions from the Triassic to Lower Liassic. Cahiers de l'Institut Catholique de Lyon, Séries Science 3:79–115.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. and Wright, C. W. 1989. British Cretaceous echinoids Part I. General introduction and Cidaroida. Monograph of the Palaeontological Society:1–101 (Publication No. 578, Part of Volume 141 for 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Wright, T. W. 1855-1880. Monograph of the British fossil Echinodermata of the Oolitic Formations. I. Echinoidea. Palaeontographical Society Monograph, London.Google Scholar