Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:01:50.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ontogeny of Taihungshania miqueli (Bergeron, 1893) from the Arenig of the Montagne Noire, southern France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Pierre Berard ,
Euan N. K. Clarkson  and
Cecilia M. Taylor
Cecilia M. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The very large trilobite Taihungshania miqueli occurs abundantly in siliceous nodules in the Ordovician of the Montagne Noire, southern France, but in these, larval individuals are not preserved. At a new locality at Peret, near Cabrières, protaspid and early meraspid growth stages occur in great abundance, together with a few complete specimens belonging to meraspid degrees 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, and a single young holaspis. Although this material is largely flattened, and the originally globular protaspides crushed, it is still possible to establish the development of several axial rings before the transitory pygidium becomes liberated. In the degree 0 meraspis, the cephalon and transitory pygidium are about the same size, and the presence of a partially enrolled degree 3 meraspis indicates that protective coiling was possible by this early stage. Palpebral lobes are incipient in degree 2 meraspides, and fully formed by degree 7, otherwise the morphology of the cephalon becomes quite adult-like by degree 4. The pygidial spines begin to appear in degree 5, at which stage there are about 10 axial rings; there are about 13 in a degree 7 meraspis, and in the adult, where the posterior contour is semi-elliptical, there are some 22. The smallest hypostomes present belong to a degree 6 meraspis, and these are morphologically similar to those of adults. Observations on the later growth stages were made on material from another locality (Caramaou), as well as that from Peret. In the eye the upper lenses are large and slightly separated, but those towards the base are much diminished in size; this is a function of an unusual growth geometry.

At Peret, all stages of development, at least as far as young adults, are represented, albeit often in a fragmentary state. As with other asaphines, the protaspides are assumed to be planktic, and T. miqueli presumably left the plankton and became benthic between the protaspid and meraspid periods.

Keywords

eyeshypostomemeraspisOrdovicianpygidiumtrilobites
Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , 1999 , pp. 147 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1999

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

Berard, P. 1985. Trilobites de l'ordovicien des Monts de Cabrières (Montagne Noire-France). Thèse presentée a l'Université des Sciences et Techniques de Languedoc pour obtenir le grade de Docteur d'Université (Sciences naturelles). Montpellier, 220pp.Google Scholar
Berard, P. 1986. Trilobites de l'ordovicien inferieur des Monts de Cabrières (Montagne Noire, France). Memoires du centre d'études et recherches géologiques et hydrogéologiques 24, 1–220.Google Scholar
Bergeron, J. 1893. Notes paleontologiques. I. Crustacés. Bulletin de la société géologique de la France 21, 333–46.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E.Speyer, S. E. 1989. Larval ecology, life history strategies, and patterns of extiunction and survivorship among Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology 15, 118–32.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E.Speyer, S. E. 1997. Ontogeny. In Whittington, H. B. et al. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, 173–248. Geological Society of America & University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., Siveter, D. J., Edgecombe, G. D.Hunt, A. S. 1990. Larvae and relationships of the Calymenina (Trilobita). Journal of Paleontology 64, 255–77.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K.Taylor, C. M. 1995. Ontogeny of the trilobite Olenus wahlenbergi Westergard 1922 from the upper Cambrian Alum Shales of Andrarum, Skane, Sweden. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences 86, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K.Xi-guang, Zhang 1991. Ontogeny of the Carboniferous trilobite Paladin eichwaldi shunnerensis (King 1914). Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences 82, 277–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtessole, R., Pillet, J.Vizcaino, D. 1981. Nouvelles données sur la biostratigraphie de l'ordovicien de la Montagne Noire. Revision des Taihungshaniidae, de Megistaspis (Ekeraspis) et d'Asaphopsoides (Trilobites). Memoire de la societé des études scientifiques de l'Aude. Carcassonne, France.Google Scholar
Dean, W. T. 1966. The Lower Ordovician stratigraphy and trilobites of the Landeyran valley and the neighbouring district of the Montagne Noire, south-western France. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 12, 249–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolambi, T.Gond, P. 1991. Aocaspis, nov. gen. nouveau trilobite Nileidae de l'ordovicien inferieur de la Montagne Noire, France. Geobios 25, 213–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, W., Feist, R.Frankel, W. 1981. Le Carbonifere antestephanien de la Montagne Noire: rapports entre mise en place des nappes et sedimentation. Bulletin du B. R. G. M. 4, 341–89.Google Scholar
Evitt, W. R. 1961. Early ontogeny in the trilobite family Asaphidae. Journal of Paleontology 35, 986–95.Google Scholar
Feist, R. 1977. Le Siluro-Devonien du sud-est de la Montagne Noire (Herault, France) et ses faunes de trilobites. These presentée à l'Université des sciences et techniques du Languedoc pour obtenir le grade de Docteur d'Etat—Mention Sciences.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1981. Prospectatrix genecenta and the trilobite superfamily Cyclopygacea. Geological Magazine 118, 603–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1990. Ontogeny, hypostome attachment, and trilobite classification. Palaeontology 33, 529–76.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A.Chatterton, B. D. E. 1988. Classification of the trilobite suborder Asaphina. Palaeontology 31, 165–222.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A.Morris, S. F. 1978. Discovery of nauplius-like trilobite larvae. Palaeontology 21, 823–33.Google Scholar
Hughes, C. P. 1979. The Ordovician trilobite faunas of the Builth-Llandrindod Inlier, central Wales. Part III. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology Series 32, 109–81.Google Scholar
Hupé, P. 1955. Classification des trilobites II. Annales de Paléontologie 41, 91–304.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, T. 1951. On the Ordovician trilobites in Central China. Journal of the Faculty of Sciences of Tokyo University II 8, 1–87.Google Scholar
Lu, Yan-hao 1975. Ordovician trilobite faunas of central and southwestern China. Palaeontologica Sinica (B) 152, 1–261.Google Scholar
McCoy, F. 1949. On the classification of some British fossil Crustacea with notices of some new forms in the university collections at Cambridge. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4, 161–179, 330–335, 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, O. 1884. Zur Kenntnis der böhmischer trilobiten. Beitrcäge zur Paläontologie österreich-Ungarn und des Orients 3, 23–63.Google Scholar
Prantl, F.Príbyl, A.Some new or imperfectly known Ordovician trilobites from Bohemia. Bulletin international de l'academie tchèque des sciences 49, 1–23.Google Scholar
Rabano, I. 1989. El genero Uralichas Delgado, 1892 (Trilobita, Lichida) en el Ordovico de la Peninsula Iberica. Boletín geológico y minero 100, 21–47.Google Scholar
Sheng, Xin-fu 1958. The Ordovician trilobites of south-west China. Palaeontologica Sinica (B) 6, 183–204.Google Scholar
Snajdr, M. 1975. On the ontogeny of Bohemian representatives of the genus Parabarrandia Prantl Přibyl (Trilobita). Vestnik Ustredneho ustavu geologickeho 50, 241–4.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E.Chatterton, B. D. E. 1989. Trilobite larvae and larval ecology. Historical Biology 3, 27–60.Google Scholar
Sun, Yun-zhu 1931. Ordovician trilobites of central and southern China. Palaeontologia Sinica (B) 7, 1–243.Google Scholar
Thoral, M. 1933. Découverte de nouveaux gisements fossilifères dans le Potsdamien et dans l'Arénigien infèrieur de la Montagne Noire. Comptes rendus de l'Academie des Sciences 19, 795–6.Google Scholar
Thoral, M. 1935. Contribution à l'étude paléontologique de l'Ordovicien de la Montagne Noire et revision sommaire de la faune cambrienne. 2me thèse. Imprimerie de la Charité, Montpellier.Google Scholar
Thoral, M. 1946. Cycles géologiques et formations nodulifères de la Montagne Noire. Nouvelles archives du musée d'histoire naturelle de Lyon 1, 1–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripp, R. P.Evitt, W. R. 1986. Silicified trilobites of the family Asaphidae from the Middle Devonian of Virginia. Palaeontology 29, 705–24.Google Scholar
Whitworth, P. H. 1970. Ontogeny of the Upper Cambrian trilobite Leptoplastus crassicornis (Westergård) from Sweden. Palaeontology 13, 100–111.Google Scholar