Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:25:56.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bryozoan fauna from the Koněprusy Limestone (Pragian, Lower Devonian) of Zlatý Kůň near Koněprusy (Czech Republic)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Andrej Ernst  and
Andreas May
Andrej Ernst
Affiliation:
1Institut für Geowissenschaften der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Ludewig-Meyn-Str. 10, D-24118 Kiel, Germany,
Andreas May
Affiliation:
2C/Cañada 69, 5 B, E-28850 Torrejón de Ardoz (Madrid), Spain,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the bryozoan fauna from the upper Koněprusy Limestone (kindlei Conodont Zone, middle Pragian, Lower Devonian) exposed in two quarries at Zlatý Kuň near Koněprusy in Central Bohemia, and discusses its paleoecology and paleobiogeography. The studied fauna is dominated by encrusting fistuliporine and trepostome bryozoans (eight species), accompanied mainly by reticulate fenestrates (four species), branching ramose trepostomes and cryptostomes (three species), and one massive trepostome species. The richest bryozoan association comes from reef core/margin facies (13 species), followed by crinoid-bryozoan facies of the ramp (eight species). The reef-terrace facies and the crinoid-bryozoan-algal facies contain three and two species respectively. Seven species are described taxonomically, three fistuliporines and four trepostomes. The following taxa are new: Koneprusiella armata n. gen. n. sp., Fistulipora rarivesiculata n. sp., Fistulipora hladili n. sp. and Leptotrypa varia n. sp. Paleobiogeographic patterns of the bryozoan fauna from the Koněprusy Limestone are similar to those of stromatoporoids, comprising widely distributed genera but mainly endemic species. This supports a relative geographic isolation of the Koněprusy reef. The bryozoan fauna from the Koněprusy Limestone shows paleogeographic affinities with that from the Lower Devonian (Pragian) of Morocco and the Middle Devonian of Michigan (USA).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , September 2009 , pp. 767 - 782
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

Astrova, G. G. 1964a. Novyi otryad paleozoiskikh mshanok [New order of the Paleozoic Bryozoa]. Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal, 1:22–31. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Astrova, G. G. 1964b. Mshanki borschovskogo i chortkovskogo gorizontov Podolii [Bryozoa of the Borschov and Chortkov horizons of Podolia]. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 98:1–52. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Astrova, G. G. 1965. Morfologia, istoria razvitia i sistema ordovikskikh i siluriiskikh mshanok [Morphology, history of development and system of the Ordovician and Silurian Bryozoa]. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 106:1–432. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Astrova, G. G. 1970. Lower Devonian trepostomatous bryozoans from Czechoslovakia. Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal, 4(2):197–201. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Astrova, G. G. 1978. Istoriya razvitiya, sistema i filogenia mshanok: Otryad Trepostomata [The history of development, system, and phylogeny of the Bryozoa: Order Trepostomata]. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 169:1–240. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Barrande, J. 1894. Systeme silurien du centre de la Boheme. Recherches paleontologiques. V. 8. Bryozoaires. Hydrozoares et partie Anthozoaires, 1–230, Prague/Paris.Google Scholar
Bigey, F. P. 1972. Presence de Ptilopora aff. bohemica (bryozoaire cyclostome) dans le devonién du sud-est du Massif Armoricain. Bulletin de la Société d'Etudes Scientifiques d'Anjou, 8:15–22.Google Scholar
Bigey, F. P. 1973. Presence d'Utropora aff. nobilis (Bryozoaire cryptostome) dans le Devonien du Sud-Est du Massif Armoricain [The presence of Utropora aff. nobilis (Cryptostome Bryozoa) in the Devonian of southeastern Armorican Massif, France]. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France, 14(1-5):315–319.Google Scholar
Bigey, F. 1983. Devonian, a transitional period for bryozoans. Terra Cognita, 3:210.Google Scholar
Bigey, F. P. 1985. Biogeography of Devonian Bryozoa, p. 9–23. In Nielsen, C. and Larwood, G. P. (eds.), Bryozoa: Ordovician to Recent. Fredensborg.Google Scholar
Bigey, F. P. 1994. Bryozoans as components of a Devonian fauna in the Safi area (Morocco), p. 15–21. In Hayward, P. J., Ryland, J. S. and Taylor, P. D. T. (eds.), Biology and Paleobiology of Bryozoans. Fredensborg.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1960. Trepostomatous Bryozoa of the Hamilton Group of New York State. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 340:1–87.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1926. Studies on Recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zoologiska Bidrag fran Uppsala, 10:181–507.Google Scholar
Bornemann, S. 1884. Cyclopelta, eine Bryozoe aus dem Eifeler Mitteldevon. Zeitschrift der Deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft, 36:864–865.Google Scholar
Chlupáč, I. 1993. Geology of the Barrandian: A field trip guide. Senckenberg Buch, 69:1–163.Google Scholar
Cuffey, R. J. and McKinney, F. K. 1979. Devonian Bryozoa. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 23:307–311.Google Scholar
Dunaeva, N. N. and Morozova, I. P. 1967. Osobennosti razvitia i sistemaitechskoe polozhenie nekotorykh verkhnepaleozoiskikh trepostomat [Peculiarities of development and systematical position of some Upper Paleozoic Trepostomata]. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 4:86–94. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Duncan, H. 1939. Trepostomatous Bryozoa from the Traverse Group of Michigan. University of Michigan Paleontology Contributions, 5(10):171–270.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1831. Symbolae Physicae, seu Icones et descptiones Corporum Naturalium novorum aut minus cognitorum, quae ex itineribus per Libyam, Aegiptum, Nubiam, Dongalaam, Syriam, Arabiam et Habessiniam, studia annis 1820-25, redirent. Pars Zoologica, 4, Animalia Evertebrata exclusis Insectis. Berolini, 10 pls.Google Scholar
Ernst, A. 2008. Trepostome and cryptostome bryozoans from the Koněprusy Limestone (Lower Devonian, Pragian) of Zlatý Kuň (Czech Republic). Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 114(3):329–348.Google Scholar
Ernst, A. and Königshof, P. 2008. The role of bryozoans in fossil reefs—An example from the Middle Devonian of the Western Sahara. Facies, 54:613–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, A. and Schroeder, S. 2007. Devonian bryozoans of Rhenish Massif. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, 246(2):205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golonka, J. 2000. Cambrian-Neogene plate tectonic maps. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, Kraków, 125 p.Google Scholar
Gorjunova, R. V. 1996. Phylogeny of the Paleozoic Bryozoa. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta Rossiskoi Akademii Nauk, 267:1–161(In Russian)Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1858. Report on the Geological Survey of Iowa, embracing the results of investigations made during portions of the years 1855, 1856, 1857. Geological Survey of Iowa, 1, Pt. 2, Paleontology, 1–724.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1883. Bryozoans of the Upper Heidelberg and Hamilton groups. Transactions of the Albany Institute, 10:145–197.Google Scholar
Hladil, J. 1995. Basic information about the sedimentology and diagenesis of the Koneprusy Reef (Lower Devonian, Pragian, SW segment of the Central Barrandian Synform). Fossil Cnidaria and Porifera, 24(1):26–41.Google Scholar
Hladil, J. 1997. Lower Devonian open-sea elevation of Koneprusy: Evolution of reef facies. In Cejchan, P. and Hladil, J. (eds), Field Trip Book; Final Conference IGCP 335 “Recoveries '97” Prague: 31-36; Prague (Malak Press).Google Scholar
Hladil, J. 1998. Facie koněpruskych vápencu ve Velkolomu Čertovy Schody (1994-1997). Česky kras, 24:70–74; Beroun.Google Scholar
Hladil, J. and Slavík, L. 1997. Facie a stratigrafie koněpruskych vapencu (Koněprusy, Velkolom Čertovy schody, spodní devon, stupen prag). Česky kras, 23:5–18, 9 Abb.; Beroun.Google Scholar
Kettner, R. 1919. Palepntologicke Studie z celechovickeho devonu. I. Mechovky (Bryozoa). Časopis Moravskeho Musea v Brne, 17:354–377.Google Scholar
Kiepura, M. 1973. Devonian Bryozoa of the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Part II. Cyclostomata. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 18:323–400.Google Scholar
Kulich, J. 1984. Trepostomatous bryozoans from the Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian of the Barrandian Basin. Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii, 29:225–233.Google Scholar
May, A. 2002. Bisher noch nicht bekannte Stromatoporen aus dem Pragium (Unterdevon) von Koněprusy (Böhmen). Coral Research Bulletin, 7:115–140.Google Scholar
May, A. 2005. Die Stromatoporen des Devons und Silurs von Zentral-Böhmen (Tschechische Republik) und ihre Kommensalen. Zitteliana, B25:117–250.Google Scholar
M'Coy, F. 1849. On some new genera and species of Palaeozoic Corals and Foraminifera. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 3:119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. and Kříž, J. 1986. Lower Devonian Fenestrata (Bryozoa) of the Prague Basin, Barrandian Area, Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Fieldiana, Geology new series, Nr 15, 1–90.Google Scholar
Naimark, E. B., Markov, A. V., and Gorjunova, R. V. 1997. Dynamic of the regional diversification of the Palaeozoic order Rhabdomesida. Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal, 1:49–58.Google Scholar
Nekhoroshev, V. P. 1948. Devonian Bryozoa of the Altai. Paleontology of the USSR, 3(2):1–172 p.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. 1879. On the structure and affinities of the “Tabulate Corals” of the Paleozoic period, with critical descriptions of illustrative species. 342 pp.; Edinburgh (William Blackwood and Sons).Google Scholar
Počta, P. 1894. Bryozoaires, Hydrozoares et partie des Anthozoaries. In Systême Silurien du Centre de la Bohême par Joachim Barrande. Recherches Paleontologiques, 8(1), 230 pp.Google Scholar
Prantl, F. 1928. Some Bryozoa from the Koněprusy Limestone (Bohemia). Bulletin international de l'Academie des Sciences de Boheme, 10:1–3.Google Scholar
Prantl, F. 1932. Revise Českých devonských fenestellid. Palaeontographica bohemiae, 15:1–70.Google Scholar
Prantl, F. 1933. Contribution to the knowledge of the Trepostomata from the Devonian of the Bohemia. Czechoslovakia Věstník Státního geologického ústavu, 9:97–104Google Scholar
Prantl, F. 1935. New cyclostomatous Bryozoa from Branik-Limestone (Bohemia). Bulletin international de l'Academie des Sciences de Boheme, 36:1–10.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C. 1889. Anthozoen des rheinischen Mittel-Devon. Abhandlungen zur geologischen Specialkarte von Preussen und den Thüringischen Staaten, 8(4):I–X, 259-465, 16 pls.Google Scholar
Slavík, L. 1998. Early Devonian conodont succession from the section of the Čertovy schody Quarry (Koněprusy, Barrandian, Czech Republic). Věstnik Českého geologického ústavu, 73:157–172.Google Scholar
Slavík, L. 2004. A new conodont zonation of the Pragian Stage (Lower Devonian) in the stratotype area (Barrandian, central Bohemia). Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 40(1/2): 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez Andrés, J. L. 1998. Briozoos fenestrados de la Formacion Moniello (Devonico) en el area de Arnao (Asturias, Espana); I, Fenestellidae. Revista Espanola de Paleontologia, 13(2):187–196.Google Scholar
Suárez Andrés, J. L. 1999. Briozoos fenestrados de la Formación Moniello (Devónico) en Arnao (Asturias, Espana). II: Septoporidae, Polyporidae y Acanthocladiidae. Revista Espanola de Paleontologia, N. Extraordinario, Homanje al Prof. J. Truyols: 185–193.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1882. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. The Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 5:121–175, 233-257.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1883. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. The Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 6:245–279.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1890. Palaeozoic Bryozoa: III. Report of the Geological Survey of Illinois, 8:283–688.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. and Bassler, R. S. 1904. A revision of the Palaeozoic Bryozoa. Part II: On genera and species of Trepostomata. Bulletin of the US Geological Survey, 173:15–55.Google Scholar