Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-pc5cw Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2021-09-28T02:56:03.251Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Conodonts: Past, present, future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Walter C. Sweet
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210,
Philip C. J. Donoghue
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK,

Abstract

Conodonts were mostly small, elongate, eel-shaped marine animals that inhabited a variety of environments in Paleozoic and Triassic seas. Although long enigmatic, conodonts are now regarded as vertebrates and their closely controlled fossil record is not only the most extensive of all vertebrates, but it also makes conodonts the fossils of choice in upper Cambrian through Triassic biostratigraphy. Conodonts were soft-bodied except for a variety of phosphatic elements that formed a distinctive feeding apparatus. Post-mortal dissociation of the apparatus and subsequent jumbling of its elements on the sea floor led, from 1856 to about 1966, to development of an artificial, form-based taxonomy that was utilitarian, but clearly unsatisfactory as a vehicle for understanding the group in biologic terms. Natural assemblages of elements, discovered between 1879 and 1952, have been interpreted as undisturbed skeletal apparatuses, and in the mid-1960s it was determined that original composition of the apparatuses of many species could be reconstructed and statistically evaluated from collections of disjunct elements by various grouping procedures. These determinations led to an emphasis on multielement taxonomy by most (but not all) students of conodonts. Even so, only about a third of the approximately 550 valid conodont genera, have been established (or re-interpreted) in multielement terms and this makes any of the several extant schemes of suprageneric classification phylogenetically suspect. We comment on a recent scheme that recognizes 41 families assigned to some 7 orders, and suggest how it might be modified so as to square with principles of phylogenetic systematics.

Type
Research Article
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

Aguinaldo, A. M. A., Turbeville, J. M., Linford, L. J., Rivera, M. C., Garey, J. R., Raff, R. A., and Lake, J. A. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature, 387:489493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aldridge, R. J., and Smith, M. P. 1993. Conodonta, p. 563572. In Benton, M. J. (ed.), The Fossil Record 2. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., and Theron, J. N. 1993. Conodonts with preserved soft tissue from a new Upper Ordovician Konservat-Lagerstätte. Journal of Micropalaeontology, 12:113117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, J. R., Briggs, D. E. G., Clarkson, E. N. K., and Smith, M. P. 1986. The affinities of conodonts—new evidence from the Carboniferous of Edinburgh, Scotland. Lethaia, 19:279291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., Briggs, D. E. K., Smith, M. P., Clarkson, E. N. K., and Clark, N. D. L. 1993. The anatomy of conodonts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B, 340:405421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., Purnell, M. A., Gabbott, S. E., and Theron, J. N. 1995. The apparatus architecture and function of Promissum pulchrum Kovács-Endrödy (Conodonta, Upper Ordovician) and the prioniodontid plan. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B, 347:275291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, R. J., Smith, M. P., Norby, R. D., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1987. The architecture and function of Carboniferous polygnathacean conodont apparatuses, p. 6375. In Aldridge, R. J. (ed.), Paleobiology of conodonts. Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester.Google Scholar
Bengtson, S. 1976. The structure of some Middle Cambrian conodonts and the early evolution of conodont structure and function. Lethaia, 9:185206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtson, S. 1983. The early history of the Conodonta. Fossils and Strata, 15:519.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. (ed.). 1993. The Fossil Record 2. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 2001. Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews, 76 (in press).Google Scholar
Bergström, S. M., and Sweet, W. C. 1966. Conodonts from the Lexington Limestone (Middle Ordovician) of Kentucky and its lateral equivalents in Ohio and Indiana. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 50(229):271441Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Clarkson, E. N., and Aldridge, R. J. 1983. The conodont animal. Lethaia, 16:114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D. L., Sweet, W. C., Bergström, S. M., Klapper, G., Austin, R. L., Rhodes, F. H. T., Müller, K. J., Ziegler, W., Lindström, M., Miller, J. F., and Harris, A. G. 1981. Conodonta. In Robison, R. A., (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. W, Supplement 2, W1-W202. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, 202 p.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S. 1989. Conodont paleobiology: recent progress and unsolved problems. Terra Nova, 1:135150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieckwisch, T. G. H., and Vahadi, R. 1997. Do hagfish have teeth? Journal of Morphology, 232:247.Google Scholar
Donoghue, P. C. J. 1998. Growth and patterning in the conodont skeleton. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B, 353:633666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, P. C. J. 2001. Conodonts meet cladistics: recovering relationships and assessing the quality of the fossil record. Palaeontology, 44 (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, P. C. J., Forey, P. L., and Aldridge, R. J. 2000. Conodont affinity and chordate phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 75:191251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, P. C. J., Purnell, M. A., and Aldridge, R. J. 1998. Conodont anatomy, chordate phylogeny and vertebrate classification. Lethaia, 32:211219.Google Scholar
Dzik, J. 1991. Evolution of the oral apparatuses in the conodont chordates. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 21:265323.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1976. Phylogenetic classification of fossils with Recent species. Systematic Zoology, 25:271282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbott, S. E., Aldridge, R. J., and Theron, J. N. 1995. A giant conodont with preserved muscle tissue from the Upper Ordovician of South Africa. Nature, 374:800803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinde, G. J. 1879. On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati group of the Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton and Genesee-shale divisions of the Devonian in Canada and the United States. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 35:351369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckriede, R. 1958. Die Conodonten der Mediterranen Trias und ihr stratigraphischer Wert. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 32:141175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janvier, P. 1981. The phylogeny of the Craniata, with particular reference to the significance of fossil ‘agnathans'. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1:121159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferies, R. P. S. 1986. The Ancestry of the Vertebrates. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 376 pp.Google Scholar
Kasatkina, A. P., and Buryi, G. I. 1996a. On the relation of chaetognaths and conodonts. Albertiana, 18:2123.Google Scholar
Kasatkina, A. P., and Buryi, G. I. 1996b. About the relationship of the Chaetognatha with conodonts. In Dzik, J. (ed.), Sixth European Conodont Symposium (ECOS XI), Abstracts, p. 27. Instytut Paleobiologii, Warszawa.Google Scholar
Kasatkina, A. P., and Buryi, G. I. 1997. Chaetodonta, a new animal superphylum and its position in animal systematics. Doklady Biological Sciences, 356:503505.Google Scholar
Kasatkina, A. P., and Buryi, G. I. 1999. The position of the phyla Chaetognatha and Euconodontophylea in the classification of Metazoa. Zoosystematica Rossica, 8(1):2126Google Scholar
Klapper, G. 1989. Frasnian species of the Late Devonian conodont genus Ancyrognathus. Journal of Paleontology, 64:9981025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klapper, G., and Foster, T. 1993. Shape analysis of Frasnian species of the Late Devoian conodont genus Palmatolepis. Paleontological Society Memoir, 32:35 p. [issued as supplement to Journal of Paleontology, 67(4) July 1993.]Google Scholar
Kleffner, M. A. 1995. A conodont- and graptolite-based Silurian chronostratigraphy. In Mann, K. O., Lane, H. R., and Scholle, P. A., (eds.), Graphic Correlation. SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geoloogy, Special Publication 53:159176.Google Scholar
Kohut, J. J. 1969. Determination, statistical analysis and interpretation of recurrent conodont groups in Middle and Upper Ordovician strata of the Cincinnati Region (Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana). Journal of Paleontology, 43(2):392412Google Scholar
Kron, K. A. 1997. Exploring alternative systems of classification. Aliso, 15:105112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, M. 1970. A suprageneric classification of the conodonts. Lethaia, 3:427445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, D. T. J., Telford, M. J., Clough, K. A., and Rohde, K. 1998. Gnathostomulida—an enigmatic metazoan phylum from both morphological and molecular perspectives. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 9:7279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. R. 1980. Taxonomic revisions of some Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician conodonts, with comments on their evolution. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 99:44 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. R. 1984. Cambrian and earliest Ordovician conodont evolution, biofacies, and provincialism. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 196:4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, K. J. 1956. Taxonomy, nomenclature, orientation and stratigraphic evaluation of conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 30:13241340.Google Scholar
Pander, C. H. 1856. Monographie der fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvernements. Akademie der Wissenschaften, St. Petersburg, 191.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E. (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 21:21–74. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Pridmore, P. A., Barwick, R. E., and Nicoll, R. S. 1997. Soft anatomy and the affinities of conodonts. Lethaia, 29:317328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purnell, M. A. 1995a. Large eyes and vision in conodonts. Lethaia, 28:187188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purnell, M. A. 1995b. Microwear on conodont elements and macrophagy in the first vertebrates. Nature, 374:798800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purnell, M. A., Donoghue, P. C. J., and Aldridge, R. J. 2000. Orientation and anatomical notation in conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 74:113122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, F. H. T. 1952. A classification of Pennsylvanian conodont assemblages. Journal of Paleontology, 26:886901.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1988. Fundamentals of comparative biology. Burkhäuser, Basel.Google Scholar
Rigby, J. K. Jr. 1983. Conodonts and the early evolution of the vertebrates [Abstract]. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 15(6):671.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S. 1933. Eurypterid influence on vertebrate history. Science, 78:114117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, H. 1934. Conodonten-Funde in ursprünglichem Zusammenhang. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 16:7685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, H. W. 1934. The zoological relationships of the conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 8:448455.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1998. Adequacy of the fossil record. Nature debates [on line]. http://helix.nature.com/debates/index.html.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 2000. Stratigraphy in phylogeny reconstruction. Journal of Paleontology, 74:763766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauffer, C. R. 1930. Conodonts from the Decorah Shale. Journal of Paleontology, 4:121128.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1970. Uppermost Permian and Lower Triassic conodonts of the Salt Range and Trans-Indus ranges, West Pakistan. In Kummel, B. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Stratigraphic Boundary Problems: Permian and Triassic of West Pakistan. Department of Geology, University of Kansas, Special Publication 4:207275.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1988. The Conodonta: Morphology, Taxonomy, Paleoecology, and evolutionary history of a long-extinct animal phylum. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics, No. 10, 212 p. Clarendon Press, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1989. A quantitative conodont biostratigraphy for the Lower Triassic. Senckenbergiana lethaea, 69:253273.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1995. Graphic assembly of a conodont-based composite standard for the Ordovician System of North America. In Mann, K. O., Lane, H. R., and Scholle, P. A. (eds). Graphic Correlation. SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology, Special Publication 53:1319–150.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C., and Bergström, S. M. 1969. The generic concept in conodont taxonomy. Proceedings North American Paleontological Convention, 1:2942.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C., Turco, C. A., Warner, E. Jr., and Willkie, L. 1959. The American Upper Ordovician standard. I, Eden conodonts from the Cincinnati Region of Ohio and Kentucky. Journal of Paleontology, 33:10291068.Google Scholar
Szaniawski, H. 1982. Chaetognath grasping spines recognized among Cambrian protoconodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 56:806810.Google Scholar
Szaniawski, H. 1987. Preliminary structural comparisons of protoconodont, paraconodonts, and euconodont elements, p. 3547. In Aldridge, R. J. (ed.), Paleobiology of Conodonts. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O., and Bassler, R. S. 1926. A classification of the toothlike fossils, conodonts, with descriptions of American Devonian and Mississippian species. United States National Museum Proceedings, 68, Art. 12:63 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Bitter, P. H. 1972. Environmental control of conodont distribution in the Shawnee Group (Upper Pennsylvanian) of eastern Kansas. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 59:105 p.Google Scholar
Walliser, O. H. 1964. Conodonten des Silurs. Abhandlungen der Hessischen Landesamtes Bodenforschung, 41:1106.Google Scholar
Webers, G. F. 1966. The Middle and Upper Ordovician conodont faunas of Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Suvey Special Publication Series, 4:123 p.Google Scholar
Ziegler, W., and Weddige, K. 1998. Zur Biologie, Taxonomie und Chronologie der Conodonten. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 73:138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Conodonts: Past, present, future
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Conodonts: Past, present, future
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Conodonts: Past, present, future
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *