Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:29:19.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paleobiologic and taphonomic aspects of the “granulosa” trilobite cluster, Kope Formation (Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Region)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Nigel C. Hughes  and
Dan L. Cooper
Nigel C. Hughes
Affiliation:
Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California 92521,
Dan L. Cooper
Affiliation:
5170 DeAlba Drive, Fairfield, Ohio 45014,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new, low-density trilobite body cluster from an Upper Ordovician Kope Formation mudstone in the Cincinnati region is characterized by well-preserved, articulated specimens. This cluster is polytaxic, size-segregated, and shows an unusual variety of flexure postures in the most common taxon, Flexicalymene aff. granulosa. Specimens show internal pyritization and associated pyritefilled tubular burrows, and were preserved by rapid deposition of mud from a sediment-laden flow. Size-segregation among species, but size-consistency within species, coupled with sedimentological data and apparently haphazard body orientation data, suggest that the trilobites represent a biological association, rather than the product of mechanical sorting. While the majority of specimens are inverted, many are dorsal-up, and some are inclined to bedding. Postures include prone (i.e., nonflexed), simple dorsal or ventral flexure, and complex stances that combine both dorsal and ventral flexure. Flexure pattern appears largely unrelated to sediment compaction. We interpret the cluster as an association of live trilobites that were entombed in situ. Specimens may have inverted prior to burial as a behavioral posture, or as a response to onset of burial. The animals were likely preserved in the process of escaping, as they tried to free themselves from being buried. This is in contrast to the tightly enrolled stance in some trilobites, especially other Flexicalymene, commonly associated with rapid burial events, and indicates a new behavioral aspect of trilobite paleobiology. The distribution of associated burrows suggests that the rotting carcasses attracted scavengers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 73 , Issue 2: Papers from the Second International Trilobite Conference, August 1997 , March 1999 , pp. 306 - 319
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

Allison, P. A., and Brett, C. E. 1995. In situ benthos and paleo-oxygenation in the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale, British Columbia, Canada. Geology, 23:1079–1082.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. E., and Speyer, S. E. 1987. Enrolled trilobites from the Alden Pyrite Bed, Ledyard Shale (Middle Devonian) of western New York. Journal of Paleontology, 61:539–548.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1919. The Cambrian and Ordovician Deposits of Maryland. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 424 p.Google Scholar
Bergström, J. 1973. Organisation, life, and systematics of trilobites. Fossils and Strata, 2:1–69.Google Scholar
Brandt, D. S. 1980. Phenotypic Variation and Paleoecology of Flexicalymene [Arthropoda: Trilobita] in the Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) near Cincinnati, Ohio. Unpubl. , , 148 p.Google Scholar
Brandt, D. S. 1985. Ichnologic, taphonomic, and sedimentologic clues to the deposition of Cincinnatian shales (Upper Ordovician), Ohio, U.S.A., p. 299–307. In Curran, H. A. (ed.), Biogenic Structures: Their Use in Interpreting Depositional Environment. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 35.Google Scholar
Brandt, D. S., Meyer, D. L., and Lask, P. B. 1995. Isotelus (Trilobita) “hunting burrow” from Upper Ordovician strata, Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 69:1079–1083.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Baird, G. C., and Speyer, S. E. 1997. Fossil Lagerstätte: Stratigraphic record of paleontological and taphonomic events, p. 3–40. In Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C. (eds.), Paleontological Events: Stratigraphic, Ecological and Evolutionary Implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bruton, D. L., and Haas, W. 1997. Functional morphology of Phacopinae (Trilobita) and the mechanics of enrollment. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 245:1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, K. S. W. 1975. The functional morphology of Cryptolithus. Fossils and Strata, 4:65–86.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Campbell, M. 1993. Enrolling in trilobites: a review and some new characters. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, 15:103–123.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Ludvigsen, R. 1998. Upper Steptoean (Upper Cambrian) trilobites from the McKay Group of southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Paleontology, Paleontological Society Memoir 49:1–43.Google Scholar
Cisne, J. L. 1981. Triarthrus eatoni (Trilobita): anatomy of its exoskeletal, skeletomuscular, and digestive systems. Palaeontographica Americana, 9:99–141.Google Scholar
Dalvé, E. 1948. The Fossil Fauna of the Ordovician of the Cincinnati Region. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati. 56 p.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., and Bottjer, D. J. 1986. A semiquantitative field classification of ichnofabric. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 56:558–559.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1909. Preliminary notes on the Cincinnatian and Lexington fossils. Bulletin of the Scientific Laboratories of Denison University, 14:289–334.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1910. Preliminary notes on Cincinnatian and Lexington fossils of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Denison University Science Laboratory Bulletin, 16:17–87.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1924. Upper Ordovician faunas of Ontario and Quebec. Canadian Geological Survey, Memoir 138:255.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1990. Nearest-neighbor analysis of trilobite morphospace. Systematic Zoology, 39:371–382.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1975. Early Ordovician trilobite communities. Fossils and Strata, 4:331–360.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1990. Ontogeny, hypostome attachment and trilobite classification. Palaeontology, 33:529–576.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Hughes, N. C. 1998. Brood pouches in trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 72:638–649.Google Scholar
Hartnoll, R. G. 1978. The effect of salinity and temperature on postlarval growth of the crab Rhitropanopeus harrisii, p. 349–358. In McLusky, D. S. and Berry, A. J. (eds.), Physiology and Behaviour of Marine Organisms. Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hartnoll, R. G. 1982. Growth, p. 111–196. In Abele, L. G. (ed.), Embryology, Morphology and Genetics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hickerson, W. J. 1997. Middle Devonian (Givetian) trilobite clusters from eastern Iowa and northwestern Illinios, p. 224–246. In Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C. (eds.), Paleontological Events, Stratigraphic, Ecological and Evolutionary Implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Datillo, B. F., Meyer, D. L., and Diekmeyer, S. L., 1997. Cycle anatomy and variability in the stormdominated type Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician): coming to grips with cycle delineation and genesis. Journal of Geology, 105:135–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, N. C. 1994. Ontogeny, intraspecific variation, and systematics of the Late Cambrian trilobite Dikelocephalus. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 79:1–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, N. C., and Chapman, R. E. 1995. Growth and variation in the Silurian proetide trilobite Aulacopleura konincki and its implications for trilobite palaeobiology. Lethaia, 28:333–353.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C., and Fortey, R. A. 1995. Sexual dimorphism in trilobites, with an Ordovician case study, p. 419–421. In Cooper, J. C., Droser, M. L. and Finney, S. C. (eds.), Ordovician Odyssey. SEPM Pacific Section, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Jennette, D. C., and Pryor, W. A. 1993. Cyclic alternation of proximal and distal storm facies: Kope and Fairview Formations (Upper Ordovician), Ohio and Kentucky. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 63:183–203.Google Scholar
Jensen, S. 1990. Predation by early Cambrian trilobites on infaunal worms—evidence from the Swedish Mickwitzia Sandstone. Lethaia, 23:29–42.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1843. Notice of a new trilobite, Ceraurus crosotus. American Journal of Science, 44:346.Google Scholar
Manton, S. M. 1977. The Arthropoda: Habits, Functional Morphology, and Evolution. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 527 p.Google Scholar
Myrow, P. M., and Hiscott, R. N. 1991. Shallow-water gravity-flow deposits, Chapel Island Formation, southeast Newfoundland, Canada. Sedimentology, 38:935–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, R. G. Jr. 1970. Trace fossils of the Cincinnati area. Palaeontgraphica Americana, 41:281–439.Google Scholar
Pimentel, R. A. 1994. Bioσtat III, an ecological statistics toolbox, version 2.0. Sigma Soft, San Luis Obispo. 117 p.Google Scholar
Raymond, P. E. 1920. The appendages, anatomy, and relationships of trilobites. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Sciences, 7:1–169.Google Scholar
Ross, R. J. Jr. 1979. Additional trilobites from the Ordovician of Kentucky. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1066-D:1–13.Google Scholar
Ross, R. J. Jr., Nolan, T. B., and Harris, A. G. 1979. The Upper Ordovician and Silurian Hanson Creek Formation of Central Nevada. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1126-C:1–22.Google Scholar
Savrda, C. E., and Bottjer, D. J. 1987. The exaerobic zone, a new oxygen-deficient marine biofacies. Nature, 327:54–56.Google Scholar
Schumacher, G. A., and Shrake, D. L. 1997. Paleoecology and comparative taphonomy of an Isotelus (Trilobita) fossil Lagerstätten from the Waynesville Formation (Upper Ordovician, Cincinnatian Series) of southwestern Ohio, p. 131–161. In Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C. (eds.), Paleontological Events: Stratigraphic, Ecological and Evolutionary Implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sekiguchi, K., Yamamichi, Y., Seshimo, H., and Sugita, H. 1988. Normal development, p. 133–224. In Sekiguchi, K. (ed.), Biology of Horseshoe Crabs. Science House, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Sheldon, P. R. 1988. Trilobite size-frequency distributions, recognition of instars, and phyletic size changes. Lethaia, 21:293–306.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E. 1985. Moulting in phacopid trilobites. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 76:239–253.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E. 1987. Comparative taphonomy and paleoecology of trilobite Lagerstätten. Alcheringa, 11:205–232.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E., and Brett, C. E. 1985. Clustered trilobite assemblages in the Middle Devonian Hamilton Group. Lethaia, 18:85–103.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E., and Brett, C. E. 1986. Trilobite taphonomy and Middle Devonian taphofacies. Palaios, 1:312–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. T., and Lane, P. D. 1984. Autecology of Silurian trilobites. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 32:55–69.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. E. 1982. The Field Description of Sedimentary Rocks. Geological Society of London Handbook Series. Open University Press, Milton Keynes. 112 p.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1924. Notes on structure of Neolenus. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 67:365–456.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1980. Exoskeleton, moult stage, appendage morphology, and habits of the Middle Cambrian trilobite Olenoides serratus. Palaeontology, 23:171–204.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1990. Articulation and exuviation in Cambrian trilobites. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 329:27–49.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1993a. Anatomy of the Ordovician trilobite Placoparia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 339:109–118.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1993b. Morphology, anatomy and habits of the Silurian homalonotid trilobite Trimerus. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, 15:69–83.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1997. Illaenidae (Trilobita): Morphology of the thorax, classification, and mode of life. Journal of Paleontology, 71:878–896.Google Scholar
Zell, P. D. 1988. Burrowed Phacops rana from the Moscow Formation of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 62:311–312.Google Scholar