Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:59:01.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches to systematic and evolutionary studies of perplexing groups: an example using fenestrate Bryozoa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Steven J. Hageman
Steven J. Hageman*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recognition of discrete taxa is an enduring problem in the biological sciences, especially for taxonomists who work with groups that display a great degree of homeomorphy at low taxonomic levels. Selection of the type and number of characters used to make taxonomic distinctions is important because it reflects taxonomic concepts for a group as a whole. Often the validity of characters used to develop classifications is not documented and resulting classifications are therefore suspect. However, classifications can be tested for their objectivity with numerical analysis and characters can be evaluated for their relative value for making taxonomic splits by a variety of statistical techniques. In addition, evaluation of the distribution of character states can lead to insights into evolutionary histories of any group. This study provides such an analysis.

Fenestrate cryptostome Bryozoa are abundant and diverse in many upper Paleozoic rocks, and are therefore potentially highly useful for a variety of paleontologic studies. However, study of fenestrates is hampered by necessary complex preparation techniques and problems encountered with homeomorphy. In addition, inconsistent applications of inadequate methodologies have contributed to an unsatisfactory taxonomy. Results from cluster and discriminant analyses demonstrate that fenestrate species can be objectively recognized. Species distinctions are most clear when all available characters are used, although some characters are more diagnostic than others.

Results from cluster and discriminant analyses suggest that fenestrate genera represent major evolutionary shifts associated with the development of key character(s) that allowed entry into new adaptive zones. Key characters allow for an oligothetic classification of genera, which is not merely an artifact created to simplify taxonomic analysis. Diversification of species within adaptive zones resulted in a natural hierarchy of genus-level and species-level characters. Iterative evolution at the species level within separate adaptive zones resulted in a great deal of homeomorphy.

Morphometric analysis provides insights into several aspects of the paleobiology of this traditionally problematic group. Similar comprehensive studies may prove equally productive for other groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , July 1991 , pp. 630 - 647
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

Bancroft, A. J. 1986a. The Carboniferous fenestrate bryozoan Hemitrypa hibernica M'Coy. Irish Journal of Earth Sciences, 7:111–124.Google Scholar
Bancroft, A. J. 1986b. A new Carboniferous fenestrate bryozoan genus. Scottish Journal of Geology, 22:99–106.Google Scholar
Bancroft, A. J. 1986c. Secondary nanozooecia in some upper Paleozoic fenestrate Bryozoa. Palaeontology, 29:207–212.Google Scholar
Bancroft, A. J. 1986d. Ovicells in the Paleozoic bryozoan order Fenestrata. Palaeontology, 29:155–164.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1953. Bryozoa, p. G2–G253. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. G. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Blake, D. B. 1975. The Cryptostomata resurrected, p. 211–223. In Pouyet, S. (ed.), Bryozoa 1974, Proceedings of the Third International Conference—Lyon. Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie de la Faculté des Sciences de Lyon, hors serie 3.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Cook, P. L. 1983. Introduction to the Bryozoa, p. G3–G48. In Robison, R. A. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. G, Bryozoa Revised. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Burckle, L. H. 1960. Some Mississippian fenestrate Bryozoa from central Utah. Journal of Paleontology, 34:1077–1098.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1986. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: rates of morphologic change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology, 12:190–203.Google Scholar
Condra, G. E., and Elias, M. K. 1944. Study and revision of Archimedes (Hall). Geological Society of America Special Paper 53, 243 p.Google Scholar
Crockford, J. M. 1944. Bryozoa from the Wandagee and Noonkanbah Series (Permian) of Western Australia. Journal of Proceedings from the Royal Society of West Australia, 28:165–185.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R. 1906. Descriptions of the Bryozoa of the Salem Limestone of southern Indiana. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources Annual Report, 30:1274–1296.Google Scholar
Elias, M. K., and Condra, G. E. 1957. Fenestella from the Permian of West Texas. Geological Society of America Memoir 70, 158 p.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1984. The species concept in fossil hermatypic corals: a statistical approach. Palaeontographica Americana, 54:58–69.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1985. Variation within coral colonies and its importance for interpreting fossil species. Journal of Paleontology, 59:1359–1381.Google Scholar
Foster, D. W., and Kaesler, R. L. 1988. Analysis of heterochrony; shape analysis; ideas from the Ostracoda, p. 53–69. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution; A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, New York.Google Scholar
Ghent, A. W. 1974. Theory and application of some nonparametric statistics III. Spearman's Rho and the “rankit” substitution as measures of rank-order correlation. The Biologist, 56:130–151.Google Scholar
Gorjunova, R. V. 1975. Permskie mshanki Pamira. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta 148, 128 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1857. Observations of the genus Archimedes, or Fenestella, with descriptions of species. American Association for the Advancement of Science Proceedings, 10:176–180.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H. 1990. Evolutionary significance of morphospecies: a test with cheilostome Bryozoa. Science, 248:579–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, R. A., and Wichern, D. W. 1988. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 607 p.Google Scholar
King, W. 1849. On some families and genera of corals. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History Including Zoology, Botany, and Geology, Second Series, 3:388–390.Google Scholar
Koenig, J. W. 1958. Fenestrate Bryozoa in the Chouteau Group of central Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 32:126–143.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. 1839. Corals, p. 675–694. In Murchison, R. I. (ed.), The Silurian System, Part II—Organic Remains. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
M'Coy, R. 1844. A Synopsis of the Characters of the Carboniferous Limestone Fossils of Ireland. McGlashan & Gill, Dublin, 207 p.Google Scholar
Malone, P. G., and Perry, T. G. 1965. Fenestellid bryozoans from oncolites in Sappington Sandstone of southwestern Montana. Journal of Paleontology, 39:41–44.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1980. The Devonian fenestrate bryozoan Utropora Pocta. Journal of Paleontology, 54:241–252.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Boardman, R. S. 1985. Zooidal biometry of Stenolaemata, p. 193–203. In Nielsen, C. and Larwood, G. P. (eds.), Bryozoa: Ordovician to Recent. Olsen and Olsen, Fredensborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Jackson, J. B. C. 1989. Bryozoan Evolution. Unwin-Hyman Press, Winchester, Massachusetts, 238 p.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K., and Kriz, J. 1986. Lower Devonian Fenestrata (Bryozoa) of the Prague Basin, Barrandian area, Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Fieldiana, Geology New Series No. 15, 90 p.Google Scholar
McNair, A. H. 1942. Upper Devonian Bryozoa. Journal of Paleontology, 16:343–350.Google Scholar
Miller, T. G. 1961. Type specimens of the genus Fenestella from the lower Carboniferous of Great Britain. Palaeontology, 4:221–242.Google Scholar
Morozova, I. P. 1962. K sistematike i filogenii Fenestelloidei. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 4:104–115.Google Scholar
Morozova, I. P. 1974. Revision of the bryozoan genus Fenestella. Paleontological Journal, 8:167–180.Google Scholar
Morozova, I. P. 1981. Pozdnepaleozoiskie mshanki severo-bostoka SSSR. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta 188, 120 p.Google Scholar
Neff, N. A., and Marcus, L. F. 1980. A Survey of Multivariate Methods for Systematics. Privately published, New York, 243 p.Google Scholar
Nekhoroshev, V. P. 1928. Istoriya razvitiya Paleozoiskikh mshakok semeistva Fenestellidae. Izvestiya Geologicheskii Komitet, 47:479–518.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A., and Lydekker, R. 1889. A Manual of Palaeontology. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1624 p.Google Scholar
Owen, D. D. 1838. Report of a geological reconnaissance of the state of Indiana made in the year 1837. Indianapolis, 34 p.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. 1841. Figures and descriptions of the Palaeozoic Fossils of Cornwall, Devon, and West Somerset. Longmans, Brown, Green and Longmans, London, 231 p.Google Scholar
Prout, H. A. 1858. Second series of descriptions of Bryozoa from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western states and territories. Transactions of the St. Louis Academy of Science, 1:266–273.Google Scholar
Prout, H. A. 1859. Third series of descriptions of Bryozoa from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western states and territories. Transactions of the St. Louis Academy of Science, 1:443–452.Google Scholar
Prout, H. A. 1860. Fourth series of descriptions of Bryozoa from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western states and territories. Transactions of the St. Louis Academy of Science, 1:571–581.Google Scholar
Shulga-Nesterenko, M. I. 1949. Opyt philogeneticheskogo analiza mshanok sem. Fenestellidae. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, 20:293–316.Google Scholar
Simonsen, A. H., and Cuffey, R. J. 1980. Fenestrate, pinnate, and ctenostome bryozoans and associated barnacle borings in the Wreford Megacyclothem (Lower Permian) of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 101, 38 p.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. M. 1984. Taxonomy, functional morphology and paleoecology of the Fenestellidae and Polyporiidae (Fenestelloidea, Bryozoa) of the Warsaw Formation (Valmeyeran, Mississippian) of the Mississippi Valley. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 802 p.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. M. 1991. Revised taxonomic procedures and paleoecological applications for some North American Mississippian Fenestellidae and Polyporidae (Bryozoa). Palaeontographica Americana, 57.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 776 p.Google Scholar
Stratton, J. F., and Horowitz, A. S. 1977. Variability in Seven Devonian Species of Polypora M'Coy. Privately published, Bloomington, Indiana, 23 p.Google Scholar
Tavener-Smith, R. 1966. The micrometric formula and the classification of fenestrate cryptostomes. Palaeontology, 9:413–425.Google Scholar
Tavener-Smith, R. 1971. Fenestrate Bryozoa from the Visean of county Fermanagh, Ireland. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology, 23:389–493.Google Scholar
Termier, H., and Termier, G. 1971. Bryozoaires du Paleozoique superieur de 1' Afghanistan. Documents des Laboratories de Geologie de la Faculte des Sciences de Lyon 47, 52 p.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1888. A list of the Bryozoa of the Waverly Group in Ohio. With descriptions of new species. Bulletin of Denison University Science Laboratories, 4:63–96.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1890. Palaeozoic Bryozoa, Illinois Geological Survey Bulletin, 8:283–688.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1971. Adaptive zones and the orders of mammals. Evolution, 25:420–428.Google Scholar
Vine, G. R. 1880. Report of the committee, consisting of Professor P. M. Duncan and Mr. G. R. Vine, appointed for the purpose of reporting on the Carboniferous Polyzoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science, 50th Meeting (Swansea, 1880):76–87.Google Scholar
Vine, G. R. 1884. Fourth report of the committee consisting of Dr. H. C. Sorby and Mr. G. R. Vine, appointed for the purpose of reporting on fossil Bryozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science, 53rd Meeting (Southport, 1883):161–209.Google Scholar
Wei, K. Y. 1988. Multivariate morphometric differentiation of chronospecies in the late Neogene planktonic foraminiferal lineage Globoconella. Marine Micropaleontology, 12:183–202.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1977. Feeding in marine bryozoans, p. 233–271. In Woollacott, R. M. and Zimmer, R. L. (eds.), The Biology of Bryozoans. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1978. Polypide morphology and feeding behavior in marine ectoprocts. Bulletin of Marine Science, 28:1–31.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1981. Feeding behavior of modern bryozoans, p. 1–21. In Broadhead, T. W. (ed.), Lophophorates: notes for a short course. University of Tennessee Department of Geological Sciences Studies in Geology 5.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Hu, Z., and Xia, F. 1988. Bryozoans from Late Devonian and Early Carboniferous of central Hunan. Palaeontologica Sinica 174, 197 p.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 718 p.Google Scholar