Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-zts5g Total loading time: 0.509 Render date: 2021-10-16T02:15:20.690Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Evaluation of corallite size as a criterion for species discrimination in favositids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

D. J. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton E3B 5A3, Canada
J. P. A. Noble
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton E3B 5A3, Canada

Abstract

Of all the morphologic characters used in favositid taxonomy, corallite size has most frequently been given more weight than others because of its relative ease of measurement and because it has been generally believed to be less variable. This study evaluates the reliability of corallite size as a criterion by a statistical treatment of several populations of favositids in the Upper Silurian West Point Reef Complex in Gaspé, Québec. Calculation of corallite cross-sectional area was made feasible by computer-based image analysis which provides a quick and accurate measure of size. The present study shows that the mean of the largest 10 percent corallite areas in mature parts of colonies with a minimum sample size of 100 corallites per cross section is the best approximation available of mean adult corallite size.

It is suggested that intraspecific variability of corallite size is often too large for this character to be used in practice, probably due to phenotypic plasticity. The same may be true of most other morphologic characters. In some cases, however, one or two characters remain invariate within a species and can be used diagnostically. The same characters may be extremely variable in other species.

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

Alexander, R. R. 1977. Growth, morphology, and ecology of Paleozoic and Mesozoic opportunistic species of brachiopods from Idaho-Utah. Journal of Paleontology, 51:11331149.Google Scholar
Bourque, P.-A., and Lachambre, G. 1980. Stratigraphie du Silurien et du Dévonien basal du la Sud de la Gaspésie, Québec. Ministère de l'Énergie et des Ressources, Gouvernement du Québec, 123 p.Google Scholar
Brakel, W. H. 1977. Corallite variation in Pontes and the species problem in corals. 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium Proceedings, 1:457462.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1979a. Environmental variation in a fossil scleractinian coral. Lethaia, 12:245264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1979b. Phenotypic plasticity in the reef coral Montastraea annularis (Ellis and Solander) and Siderastrea siderea (Ellis and Solander). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 39:2554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1980. Environmental variation in skeletal morphology within Caribbean reef corals Montastraea annularis and Siderastrea siderea. Bulletin of Marine Science, 30:678709.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1984. The species concept in fossil hermatypic corals: a statistical approach. Palaeontologica Americana, 54:5869.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1985. Variation within coral colonies and its importance for interpreting fossil species. Journal of Paleontology, 59:13591381.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1972. Models involving population dynamics, p. 6280. In Schopf, T. J. M. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper & Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. J. 1983. Opportunistic behavior in stromatoporoids. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 15:409.Google Scholar
Jones, O. A. 1936. The controlling effect of environment upon the corallum in Favosites; with a revision of some massive species on this basis. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 10, 17:124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laub, R. S. 1979. The corals of the Brassfield Formation (Mid-Llandovery: Lower Silurian) in the Cincinnati Arch region. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 75:7433.Google Scholar
Levinton, J. S. 1970. The paleoecological significance of opportunistic species. Lethaia, 3:6978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne-Edwards, H., and Haime, J. 1850-1855. A monograph of the British fossil corals. Palaeontological Society, London, 322 p.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. 1879. On the Structure and Affinities of the “Tabulate Corals” of the Palaeozoic Period. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 342 p.Google Scholar
Oliver, W. A. Jr. 1966. Description of dimorphism in Stratipora flexuosa Hall. Palaeontology, 9:448454.Google Scholar
Oliver, W. A. Jr. 1975. Dimorphism in two new genera of Devonian tabulate corals. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 743-D, 11 p.Google Scholar
Powell, J. H., and Scrutton, C. T. 1978. Variation in the Silurian tabulate coral Paleofavosites asper, and the status of Mesofavosites. Palaeontology, 21:307319.Google Scholar
Scrutton, C. T. 1981. The measurement of corallite size in corals. Journal of Paleontology, 55:687688.Google Scholar
Scrutton, C. T., and Powell, J. H. 1980. Periodic development of dimetrism in some favositid corals. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 25:477491.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B. S. 1955. Tabulyaty paleozoya Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Vvedenie “Obshchie voprosy sistematiki i istorii razvitiya tabulyat (s kharakteristikoi morfologicheski blizkikh grupp).” Trudy Vsesoyuznogo Neftyanogo Nauchno-Issledovatel'skogo Geologo-Razvedochnogo Instituta, Novaya Seriya, Vol. 85, 528 p.Google Scholar
Stearn, C. W. 1956. Stratigraphy and paleontology of the Interlake Group and Stonewall Formation of southern Manitoba. Geological Society of Canada Memoir 281, 162 p.Google Scholar
Stel, J. 1979. Environment and quantitative morphology of some Silurian tabulates from Gotland (Sweden). Scripta Geologica, 47, 75 p.Google Scholar
Stel, J., and Oekentorp, K. 1976. On the solenid growth habit of Paleofavosites. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 55:163174.Google Scholar
Sutton, I. D. 1966. The value of corallite size in the specific determination of the tabulate corals Favosites and Palaeofavosites. Mercian Geologist, 1:255263.Google Scholar
Swann, D. H. 1941. Wall structure of Favosites. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 52:1975.Google Scholar
Tesakov, Yu. E. 1972. Izmenchivost' diametra korallitov i por Favosites gothlandicus i yeye suyazi s usloviyami obitaniya, p. 8492. In Betekhtina, O. A. et al. (eds.), Sreda i Zhizn'v Geologicheskom Proshlom. Trudy Instituta Geologii i Geofiziki.Google Scholar
Warme, J. E., Ekdale, A. A., and Peterson, C. H. 1976. Raw material of the fossil record, p. 143170. In Scott, R. W. and West, R. R. (eds.), Structure and Classification of Paleocommunities. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
8
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.

Evaluation of corallite size as a criterion for species discrimination in favositids
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.

Evaluation of corallite size as a criterion for species discrimination in favositids
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.

Evaluation of corallite size as a criterion for species discrimination in favositids
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? *