Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T02:57:50.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional analysis of archaeocyathan skeletal morphology and its paleobiological implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Michael Savarese
Michael Savarese*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A biomechanical study of archaeocyathan (phylum Archaeocyatha) skeletal construction was undertaken in order to compare its function with that of poriferans. Flume experiments were conducted on three cylindrical, brass models of regular archaeocyathans. Two of these, the porous-septate and aporous-septate models (i.e., possessing septa either with or without pores), represent an ontogenetic series; regular archaeocyathans (class Regulares) typically exhibit a reduction in septal porosity as they grow and many have aporous septa as adults. The third model is aseptate and represents a morphology that is not found in the fossil record. All models exhibit passive entrainment of flow during flume testing, a phenomenon on which modern sponges depend for suspension feeding. Flow direction through the models is consistent with predictions of the spongiomorph-affinity hypothesis. The three models behave quite differently, however. The aseptate model is least effective at passive entrainment. Although some fluid exits the top of the central cavity (or osculum), a great deal of fluid is entrained out the top of the intervallum and also leaks out the outer wall. Flow induction from the oscula of the septate models is augmented when compared to the aseptate model. The porous-septate model exhibits slight leakage from the outer wall, and a dye-rich plume exits the top of the intervallum. Alternatively, the aporous-septate model exhibits no outer-wall leakage and no entrainment from the intervallum. These differences in flow pattern between the porous- and aporous-septate models suggest a hitherto unknown function for septa. Imperforate septa prohibit the migration of fluid through the intervallum to the low-pressure, downstream side where leakage occurs. The ontogenetic shift in septal porosity, common to many archaeocyathan species, may be a mechanism by which outer-wall leakage is avoided later in life. Archaeocyathans would have encountered progressively higher ambient current velocities as their height increased through growth. Outer-wall leakage is not a problem at low velocities or small sizes, but leakage becomes serious at higher velocities when tall, adult morphologies are attained.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , Fall 1992 , pp. 464 - 480
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

Literature Cited

Alexander, D. E., and Ghiold, J. 1980. The functional significance of the lunules in the sand dollar, Mellita quinquiesperforata. Biological Bulletin 159:561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balsam, W. L., and Vogel, S. 1973. Water movement in archaeocyathids: evidence and implications of passive flow in models. Journal of Paleontology 47:979–984.Google Scholar
Bergquist, P. R. 1978. Sponges. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bergquist, P. R., and Sinclair, M. E. 1968. The morphology and behaviour of larvae of some intertidal sponges. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 2:426–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidder, G. P. 1923. The relation of the form of a sponge to its currents. Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society 67:292–323.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1861. New species of Lower Silurian fossils: on some new or little-known species of Lower Silurian fossils from the Postdam Group (Primordial zone). Geological Survey of Canada (Montreal).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, E. 1865. On some new or little-known species of Lower Silurian fossils from the Potsdam group (Primordial zone). Geological Survey of Canada (Montreal) 1:1–18.Google Scholar
Bornemann, J. G. 1884. Bericht iiber die Fortsetzung seiner Untersuchungen cambrischer Archaeocyathus-Formen und verwandter Organismen von der Insel Sardinien. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft 36:702–706.Google Scholar
Bornemann, J. G. 1886. Die Versteinerungen des Cambrischen Schichten-systems der Insel Sardinien nebst vergleichenden Untersuchungen iiber analoge Vorkommisse aus andern Landern. Erste Abteilung iii. Archaeocyathinae. Nova Acta Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae 51:28–78.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. W. 1865. On the structure of certain organic remains in the Laurentian limestones of Canada. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 21:51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debrenne, F., and Rozanov, A. Yu. 1983. Paleogeographic and stratigraphic distribution of regular Archaeocyatha (Lower Cambrian fossils). Geobios 16:727–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debrenne, F., and Vacelet, J. 1984. Archaeocyatha: is the sponge model consistent with their structural organization? Palaeontographica Americana 54:358–369.Google Scholar
Debrenne, F., and Voronin, Yu. 1971. The significance of septal perforation for the classification of ajacicyathids. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal 3:26–31. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Debrenne, F., and Wood, R. 1990. A new Cambrian sphinctozoan sponge from North America, its relationship to archaeocyaths and the nature of early Cambrian sphinctozoans. Geological Magazine 127:435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debrenne, F., Rozanov, A. Yu., and Webers, G. F. 1984. Upper Cambrian Archaeocyatha from Antarctica. Geological Magazine 121:291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLaubenfels, M. W. 1949. The sponges of Woods Hole and adjacent waters. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 103:1–55.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C., and Nitecki, M. H. 1982. Problems in the analysis of receptaculitid affinities. Third North American Paleontological Convention 1:181–186.Google Scholar
Gravestock, D. I. 1984. Archaeocyatha from lower parts of the Lower Cambrian carbonate sequence in South Australia. Association of Australasian Palaeontologists Memoir 2:1–139.Google Scholar
Handfield, R. C. 1971. Archaeocyatha from the Mackenzie and Cassiar Mountains, Northwest Territory and British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 201:1–119.Google Scholar
Hill, D. 1965. Archaeocyatha from Antarctica and a review of the Phylum, Trans-Antarctic Expedition (1955-1958). Scientific Reports no. 10, Geology 3, London.Google Scholar
Hill, D. 1972. Archaeocyatha. Part Ein Teichert, C., ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo, and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kans.Google Scholar
Hinde, G. J. 1889. On Archaeocyathus Billings, and on other genera, allied to or associated with it, from the Cambrian strata of North America, Spain, Sardinia and Scotland. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 45:125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruse, P. D. 1982. Archaeocyathan biostratigraphy of the Gnalta Group at Mount Wright, New South Wales. Palaeontographica, Abteilung A 177:129–212.Google Scholar
LaBarbera, M. 1977. Brachiopod orientation to water movement. I. Theory, laboratory behavior, and field orientations. Paleobiology 3:270–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, E. G. 1971. Adaptation and diversity; natural history and the mathematics of evolution. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. 1868. Preliminary notice of a remarkable new genus of corals, probably typical of a new family. American Journal of Science, Ser. 2 45:62–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, G. R., and Vogel, S. 1978. Hydrodynamic induction of water flow in a keyhole limpet (Gastropoda, Fissurellidae). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 61A:227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitecki, M. H., Zhuravleva, I. T., Myagkova, Y. I., and Tumi, D. F. 1981. Similarity of Soanites bimuralis to Archaeocyatha and receptaculitids. Paleontological Journal 1:5–9.Google Scholar
Okulitch, V. J. 1935. Cyathospongia—a new class of Porifera to include the Archaeocyathinae. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Ser. 3, Sec. 4. 29:75–106.Google Scholar
Okulitch, V. J. 1937. Some changes in nomenclature of Archaeocyathi (Cyathospongia). Journal of Paleontology 11:251–252.Google Scholar
Okulitch, V. J. 1943. North American Pleospongia. Geological Society of America Special Publication 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okulitch, V. J. 1946. Intervallum structure of Cambrocyathus amourensis. Journal of Paleontology 20:275–276.Google Scholar
Okulitch, V. J. 1950. Review of a paper by Vologdin on the structure of living tissue of the Regular Archaeocyathi. Journal of Paleontology 24:513–515.Google Scholar
Okulitch, V. J., and DeLaubenfels, M. W. 1953. The systematic position of Archaeocyatha (Pleosponges). Journal of Paleontology 27:481–485.Google Scholar
Reiswig, H.M. 1971. In situ pumping activities of tropical Demospongiae. Marine Biology 9:38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, S. M., and Gangloff, R. A. 1988. Structure and paleoecology of Lower Cambrian reefs. Palaios 3:111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozanov, A. Yu. 1973. Regularities in the morphological evolution of Archaeocyatha and problems of stage division of the Lower Cambrian. Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Trudy Geologicheskii Institut 241:1–164. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Rozanov, A. Yu., and Debrenne, F. 1974. Age of Archaeocyathid assemblages. American Journal of Science 274:833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savarese, M. 1988. Functional analysis of archaeocyathan skeletal morphology: implications for the group's paleobiology. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 20(7):A201.Google Scholar
Savarese, M., and Signor, P. W. 1989. New archaeocyathan occurrences in the upper Harkless Formation (Lower Cambrian of western Nevada). Journal of Paleontology 63:539–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telford, M. 1981. A hydrodynamic interpretation of sand dollar morphology. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:605–622.Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1983. An experimental analysis of lunule function in the sand dollar Mellita quinquiesperforata. Marine Biology 76:125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toll, E. von. 1899. Beiträge zur Kenntniss des sibirischen Cambrium. Mémoires de l'Academie Imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, Sér. 8, Classe des Sciences Physiques et Mathematique 8:1–57.Google Scholar
Vacelet, J. 1979. Description et affinités d'une Eponge Sphinctozoaire actuelle. Pp. 483–493in Lévi, C. and Boury-Esnault, N., eds. Biologie des spongiaires. Colloques Internationaux, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Vol. 291. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. 1974. Current-induced flow through the sponge, Halichondria. Biological Bulletin 147:443–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, S. 1977a. Flows in organisms induced by movement of the external medium. Pp. 285–297in Pedley, T. J., ed. Scale effects in animal locomotion. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. 1977b. Current-induced flow through living sponges in situ. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 74:2069–2071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, S. 1978a. Organisms that capture currents. Scientific American 239:128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, S. 1978b. Evidence for one-way valves in the water flow system of sponges. Journal of Experimental Biology 76:137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, S. 1981. Life in moving fluids. Willard Grant, Boston.Google Scholar
Vogel, S., and Bretz, W. L. 1972. Interfacial organisms: passive ventilation in the velocity gradients near surfaces. Science (Washington, D.C.) 175:210–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, S., Ellington, C. P. Jr., and Kilgore, D. C. Jr. 1973. Windinduced ventilation of the burrow of the prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus. Journal of Comparative Physiology 84:1–14.Google Scholar
Vologdin, A. G. 1948. On the structure of the soft parts of the regular Archaeocyatha. Izvestiya Akademiia Nauk SSSR. Biologic Series 1:93–99. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Weir, J. S. 1973. Air flow, evaporation and mineral accumulation in mounds of Macrotermes subhyalinus (Rambur). Journal of Animal Ecology 41:509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, R. A. 1986. The biology and taxonomy of Mesozoic stromatoporoids. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Zhuravlev, A. Yu. 1985. Recent Archaeocyatha? Pp. 24–33in Sokolov, B. S. and Zhuravleva, I. T., eds. Problematiki pozdnego dokembriya i paleozoya. Trudy Instituta Geologii i Geofiziki, Vol. 632. Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoe Otdelenie. “Nauka,” Moscow. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Zhuravlev, A. Yu. 1989. Poriferan aspects of archaeocythan skeletal function. Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, Memoir 8:387–399.Google Scholar
Zhuravlev, A. Yu., and Elkina, V. N. 1974. Archaeocyatha from Siberia. Academiia Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Trudy Instituta Geologii i Geofiziki 230:1–167. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Zhuravleva, I. T. 1959. On the position of the Archaeocyatha in a phylogenetic system. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal 4:30–40. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Zhuravleva, I. T. 1960. Archaeocyatha from the Siberian Platform. Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Zhuravleva, I. T. 1970. Porifera, Sphinctozoa, Archaeocyathi—their connections. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 25:41–59.Google Scholar
Zhuravleva, I. T., and Miagkova, E. I. 1972. Archaeata—a new group of Paleozoic organisms. Pp. 7–14in Paleontologiya Myezhdunarodnyy Geologicheskiy Kongress, XXIV Sessiya, Nauka, Moscow. [In Russian.]Google Scholar