Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T12:04:05.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Column regeneration in an Ordovician crinoid (Echinodermata): paleobiologic implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

William I. Ausich  and
Tomasz K. Baumiller
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 43210
Tomasz K. Baumiller
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The crinoid column is a paradox of crinoid paleontology. The crown is required for taxonomic identification and, therefore, prerequisite for phylogenetic, paleoecologic, or other studies. However, column elements (columnals and pluricolumnals) are by far the most common crinoidal fossil remains. The biostratigraphic utility of crinoid columns has been demonstrated in some cases (e.g., Donovan, 1984), but this is done with the risk of developing a parataxonomy among crinoids because in most cases columnals are not associated with crowns and, therefore, cannot be assigned to crown species with certainty.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 67 , Issue 6 , November 1993 , pp. 1068 - 1070
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

Amemiya, S., and Oji, T. 1991. Behavior of a recent stalked crinoid, Metacrinus rotundus, kept in an aquarium, p. 357. In Yanagisawa, T., Yasumasu, I., Oguru, C., Suzuki, N., and Motokawa, Y. (eds.), Biology of Echinodermata. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Amemiya, S., and Oji, T. 1992. Regeneration in sea lilies. Nature, 357:546–547.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Ausich, W. I. 1992a. The “broken stick” model as a null hypothesis for crinoid stalk taphonomy and as a guide to the distribution of connective tissue in fossils. Paleobiology, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Ausich, W. I. 1992b. Cantilever beam theory as applied to crinoid stalks: what can stalk architecture tell us about function? Proceedings of the International Geological Congress, Japan.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D. J., and Ausich, W. I. 1986. Phanerozoic development of tiering in soft substrata suspension-feeding communities. Paleobiology, 12:400–420.Google Scholar
Burke, J. J. 1973. Four new pirasocrinid crinoids from the Ames Limestone, Pennsylvanian of Brooke County, West Virginia. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 44(10):157–169.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1984. Biostratigraphy and evolution of crinoid columnals from the Ordovician of Britain, p. 19–24. In Keegan, B. F. and O'Connor, B. D. S. (eds.), Echinodermata. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1989. The improbability of a muscular crinoid column. Lethaia, 22:307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1992. Paleoecology of hardground encrusting and commensal crinoids, Middle Ordovician, Tennessee. Journal of Paleontology 66:129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattin, D. E. 1958. Regeneration in a Pennsylvanian crinoid spine. Journal of Paleontology, 32:701–702.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. H. 1955. The Invertebrates: Echinodermata. McGraw-Hill, New York, 763 p.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Webster, G. D. 1966. New Permian crinoid fauna from southern Nevada. University of California Publications in the Geological Sciences, 63, 87 p.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B. Jr., and Meyer, D. L. 1974. Feeding posture of modern stalked crinoids. Nature, 247:394–396.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1880. Description of four new species and a new variety of Silurian fossils, and remarks upon others. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 3:232–236.Google Scholar
Oji, T., and Amemiya, S. 1991. Aquarium experiments, regeneration, and functional and taphonomic significance of stalked crinoid Metacrinus rotundus Carpenter [translation from Japanese]. Abstracts of the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Palaeontological Society of Japan:60.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Institution Publication, 2501, 486 p.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L., and Frest, T. J. 1979. Points of generation and partial regeneration of the column of Euonychocrinus simplex (Crinoidea: Flexibilia). Journal of Paleontology, 53:216–220.Google Scholar
Warn, J., and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate super-families Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician–Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72(296) 138 p.Google Scholar