Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-xklcj Total loading time: 0.227 Render date: 2021-09-27T08:23:58.348Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Evolution of shell morphology and suture complexity in Paleozoic prolecanitids, the rootstock of Mesozoic ammonoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

W. Bruce Saunders
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010. E-mail: wsaunder@brynmawr.edu
David M. Work
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Abstract

The ammonoid order Prolecanitida constitutes a relatively small (43 genera, ~250 species) but long-ranging lineage (Lower Carboniferous—Triassic, ~108 m.y.), which narrowly survived the P/Tr extinctions and provided the stock from which were derived all later Mesozoic ammonoids. Prolecanitids were a minority among Late Paleozoic ammonoids, which were dominated by the Goniatitida, and showed many features that set them far apart from their contemporaries, including (1) long-term, gradual changes in shell geometry (W-D-S); (2) the most strongly constrained morphospace of any Paleozoic ammonids examined to date; (3) an eight-fold increase in mean suture complexity (three times that of Pennsylvanian goniatitids); (4) high correlations between shell geometry, shell and septal thickness, and suture complexity; (5) short body chambers and, as a consequence, high aperture orientations; (6) indications that cameral liquid may have been used for buoyancy control; and (7) a genus longevity that averaged 14.7 m.y. compared with 5.7 m.y. in Upper Carboniferous goniatitids, and that appears to have been unrelated to suture complexity. Prolecanitids showed a pervasive tendency to increase suture complexity (in the clade as a whole as well as within subclades and in more than 90 percent of ancestor-descendant genera), thus arguing a case for a driven complexity trend. The uniqueness of the prolecanitids calls into question whether they and their Mesozoic descendants, ceratites and ammonites, were strictly analogous to Paleozoic goniatites.

Type
Articles
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

Becker, R. T. 1993. Anoxia, eustatic changes, and Upper Devonian to lowermost Carboniferous global ammonoid diversity. Pp. 115163In House, M. R., ed. The Ammonoidea: environment, ecology, and evolutionary change. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Boardman, D. R. II, Work, D. M., Mapes, R. H., and Barrick, J. E. 1994. Biostratigraphy of Middle and Late Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian–Virgilian) ammonoids. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 232:1121.Google Scholar
Bogoslovskaya, M. F., Leonova, T. B., and Shkolin, A. A. 1995. The Carboniferous–Permian boundary and ammonoids from the Aidaralash section, southern Urals. Journal of Paleontology 69:288301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyajian, G., and Lutz, T. 1992. Evolution of biological complexity and its relation to taxonomic longevity. Geology 20:983986.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, T. L., Helmuth, B. S., Saunders, W. B., and Ward, P. D. In press. Septal complexity in ammonoid cephalopods increases mechanical risk and limits depth. Paleobiology.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., Laurin, B., and Meister, C. 1996. Evolution of ammonoid morphospace during the Early Jurassic radiation. Paleobiology 22:219240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1993. The great Paleozoic crisis: life and death in the Permian. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Glenister, B. F., and Furnish, W. M. 1981. Permian ammonoids. Pp. 4964In House and Senior 1981.Google Scholar
Glenister, B. F., and Furnish, W. M. 1988. Terminal progenesis in late Paleozoic ammonoid families. Pp. 5166In Weidmann, J. and Kullmann, J., eds. Cephalopods, present and past. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1996. Full house. Harmony, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harland, W. B., Armstrong, R. L., Cox, A. V., Craig, L. E., Smith, A. G., and Smith, D. G. 1990. A geologic time scale 1989. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hewitt, R. A., and Westermann, G. E. G. 1986. Function of complexly fluted septa in ammonoid shells I. Mechanical principles and functional models. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie 172:4769.Google Scholar
Hewitt, R. A., and Westermann, G. E. G. 1987. Function of complexly fluted septa in ammonoid shells II. Septal evolution and conclusions. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie 174:135169.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, K. A. 1965. The late Paleozoic ammonoid families Prolecanitidae and Daraelitidae. . University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
House, M. R., and Senior, J. R. 1981. The Ammonoidea: the evolution, classification, mode of life and geological usefulness of a major fossil group. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Jacobs, D. K. 1990. Sutural pattern and shell stress in Baculites with implications for other cephalopod shell morphologies. Paleobiology 16:336348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. J. 1988. Comments on some Australian, British and German isotopic age data for the Carboniferous System. Newsletter on Carboniferous Stratigraphy 6:2629.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20:141151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoll, A. H., Bambach, R. K., Canfield, D. E., and Grotzinger, J. P. 1996. Comparative earth history and Late Permian mass extinction. Science 273:452457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonova, T. B. 1989. Lower Permian ammonoids of southeastern Pamir. Academy of Sciences USSR, Paleontological Institute, Trudy 235:1198. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Lutz, T. M., and Boyajian, G. E. 1995. Fractal geometry of ammonoid sutures. Paleobiology 21:329342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. 1991. Complexity and evolution: what everybody knows. Biology and Philosophy 6:303324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. 1992. A metric for the study of evolutionary trends in the complexity of serial structures. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 45:3955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. 1993. Evolutionary change in the morphological complexity of the mammalian vertebral column. Evolution 47:730740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McShea, D. W. 1994. Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution 48:17471763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manger, W. L., and Saunders, W. B. 1982. An ammonoid-based Middle Carboniferous boundary. Pp. 95100In Ramsbottom, W. H. C., Saunders, W. B., and Owens, B., eds. Biostratigraphic data for a mid-Carboniferous boundary. I.U.G.S. Subcommission on Carboniferous Stratigraphy. University of Leeds, Leeds, England.Google Scholar
Menning, M. 1992. Numerical time scale for the Permian. Permophiles 20:25.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Furnish, W. M. 1940a. Permian ammonoids of the Guadalupe Mountain region and adjacent areas. Geological Society of America Special Paper 26:1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Furnish, W. M. 1940b. Studies of Carboniferous ammonoids, Parts 1–4. Journal of Paleontology 14:356377.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., Furnish, W. M., and Schindewolf, O. H. 1957. Paleozoic Ammonoidea. Pp. L11L79in Arkell, W. J., Furnish, W. M., Kummel, B., Miller, A. K., Moore, R. C., Schindewolf, C. H., Sylvester-Bradley, P. C., and Wright, C. W., eds. Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea. Part L ofMoore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Nassichuk, W. W. 1975. Carboniferous ammonoids and stratigraphy in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 237:1240.Google Scholar
Nassichuk, W. W., Furnish, W. M., and Glenister, B. F. 1965. The Permian ammonoids of Arctic Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 131:156.Google Scholar
Pfaff, E. 1911. Über Form und Bau der Ammonitensepten und ihre Beziehungen zur Suturlinei. Jahresbericht Niedersächsen geologische Vereins Hannover 4:208222.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, W. H. C., and Saunders, W. B. 1985. Evolution and evolutionary biostratigraphy of Carboniferous ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 59:123139.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41:4365.Google Scholar
Riley, N. J. 1996. Mid Dinantian ammonoids from the Craven Basin, northwest England. Palaeontological Association Special Paper 53:187.Google Scholar
Roberts, J., Claoue-Long, J. C., and Jones, P. J. 1991. Calibration of the Carboniferous and Early Permian of the southern New England orogen by SHRIMP ion microprobe zircon analyses. Newsletter on Carboniferous Stratigraphy 9:1517.Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1949. Systematics and evolution of the families Pronoritidae Frech and Medlicottidae Karpinsky. Academy of Sciences USSR, Paleontological Institute, Trudy 19:1204. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1950. Upper Carboniferous ammonoids of the Urals. Academy of Sciences USSR, Paleontological Institute, Trudy 29:1223. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1960. Ammonoid classification problems. Journal of Paleontology 34:609619.Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1962. Superorder Ammonoidea. Pp. 243424In Orlov, Yu. A., ed. Fundamentals of Paleontology, Vol. 5, Mollusca-Cephalopoda 1. Academy of Sciences USSR, Moscow(translated by Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1974).Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E., and Bogoslovskaya, M. F. 1971. Namurian time in ammonoid evolution: early Namurian ammonoids. Academy of Sciences USSR, Paleontological Institute, Trudy 133:1382. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E., and Bogoslovskaya, M. F. 1978. Namurian time in ammonoid evolution: late Namurian ammonoids. Academy of Sciences USSR, Paleontological Institute, Trudy 167:1336. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B. 1995. The ammonoid suture problem: relationships between shell- and septal thickness and suture complexity in Paleozoic ammonoids. Paleobiology 21:343355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Shapiro, E. A. 1986. Calculation and simulation of ammonoid hydrostatics. Paleobiology 12:6479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Swan, A. R. H. 1984. Morphology and morphologic diversity of mid-Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology 10:195228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1996. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology 22:189218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A., and LaBarbera, M. 1995. Ammonites as cartesian divers. Palaios 10:493506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spath, L. 1919. Notes on ammonites. Geological Magazine 56:2735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinosa, C., Furnish, W. M., and Glenister, B. F. 1975. The Xenodiscidae, Permian ceratitoid ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 49:239283.Google Scholar
Swan, A. R. H. 1984. A revision of some Silesian goniatites using cluster analysis. . University of Leeds, Leeds, England.Google Scholar
Swan, A. R. H., and Saunders, W. B. 1987. Function and shape in Late Paleozoic (mid-Carboniferous) ammonoids. Paleobiology 13:297311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1981a. Triassic Ammonoidea: classification, evolution and relationship with Permian and Jurassic forms. Pp. 65100In House and Senior 1981.Google Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1981b. Triassic Ammonoidea: geographic and stratigraphic distribution. Pp. 397431In House and Senior 1981.Google Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1994. Canadian Triassic ammonoid faunas. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 467:1663.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1980. Comparative shell shape distributions in Jurassic–Cretaceous ammonites and Jurassic–Tertiary nautilids. Paleobiology 6:3243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1971. Form, structure and function of shell and siphuncle in coiled Mesozoic ammonoids. Life Science Contributions of the Royal Ontario Museum 78:139.Google Scholar
Weyer, D. 1972. Trilobiten und Ammonoideen aus der Entogonites nasutus-Zone (Unterkarbon) des Büchenberg-Sattels (Elbingeröder Komplex, Hartz), Teil 2, Zur Phylogenie und Systematik der älteren Prolecanitina. Geologie 21:318349.Google Scholar
37
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.

Evolution of shell morphology and suture complexity in Paleozoic prolecanitids, the rootstock of Mesozoic ammonoids
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.

Evolution of shell morphology and suture complexity in Paleozoic prolecanitids, the rootstock of Mesozoic ammonoids
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.

Evolution of shell morphology and suture complexity in Paleozoic prolecanitids, the rootstock of Mesozoic ammonoids
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? *