Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T13:56:57.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparability of modern and ancient marine faunal provinces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Cathryn A. Campbell  and
James W. Valentine
Cathryn A. Campbell
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge, England, and Department of Genetics, University of California, Davis, California 95616
James W. Valentine
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616 Direct reprint requests to this author
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the fossil record, biogeographic data at the species level are normally not adequately preserved to be utilized in the reconstruction of marine paleoprovinces; consequently, higher taxa are employed. Thus it is cogent to question whether modern marine provinces, which are generally recognized by their species content, are still distinctive at higher taxonomic levels. Similarity coefficients computed from the bivalve and gastropod faunas of six contiguous and five spatially separated modern provinces indicate that the present-day marine provinces are in fact recognizable at the generic and in most cases at the familial level. The deficiencies and biases of the fossil record obscure the distinctiveness and reduce the precision with which ancient provinces can be delimited. Nevertheless, paleoprovinces that are recognized from the distribution patterns of genera and families are clearly comparable to modern provinces that are determined by species distributions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Winter 1977 , pp. 49 - 57
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

Anonymous. 1951. Inventaire de la faune marine de Roscoff mollusques. 80 pp. Supplément 5 aux Trauvaux de la Station Biologique de Roscoff.Google Scholar
Bennett, I. and Pope, E. C. 1953. Intertidal zonation of the exposed rocky shores of Victoria, together with a rearrangement of the biogeographical provinces of temperate Australian shores. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 4:105–109.Google Scholar
Bernard, F. R. 1970. A distributional checklist of the marine Mollusca of British Columbia: based on faunistic surveys since 1950. Syesis. 3:75–94.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1975. Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls. 427 pp. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Burch, J. Q. 1944–46. Distributional list of the west American molluscs from San Diego, California to the Polar Sea. Conch. Club of S. Calif. Minutes, numbers 33–63.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. and Hazel, J. E. 1969. Binary (presence-absence) similarity coefficients. J. Paleontol. 43:1130–1136.Google Scholar
Coomans, H. E. 1962. The marine mollusk fauna of the Virginia area as a basis for defining zoogeographical provinces. Beaufortia. 9:83–104.Google Scholar
Curtis, M. A. 1975. The marine benthos of arctic and southwest arctic continental shelves. Polar Record. 17:595–626.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1969. Faunal realms and facies in the Jurassic. Paleontology. 12:1–18.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1973. Atlas of Paleobiogeography. 531 pp. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hazel, J. E. 1970. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States—ostracode zoogeography in the southern Nova Scotian and northern Virginian faunal provinces. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 529-E; v + 21 pp.Google Scholar
Henrard, J. Th. and Van Regteren, C. O. 1947. Altena Basteria. Tijdschrift van de Nederlandsche Malacologische Veneering. 11:1–87.Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. K. and Emerson, W. K. 1961. Shells of the New York City Area. 142 pp. Argonaut Books, Inc.; Larchmont, N. Y.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. S. and Spärch, R. 1934. Bløddyr II. Salvandsmuslinger. 206 pp. G.E.C. Gads Forlag; København.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G. 1971. A quantitative approach to faunal province analysis. Am. J. Sci. 270:257–280.Google Scholar
Keen, A. M. 1937. An Abridged Checklist and Bibliography of West North American Marine Mollusca. 87 pp. Stanford University Press; Stanford, Cal.Google Scholar
Keen, A. M. 1971. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Second Edition. 1064 pp. Stanford University Press; Stanford, Cal.Google Scholar
Laverach, M. S. and Blackler, M. 1974. Fauna and Flora of St. Andrews Bay. 310 pp. Scottish Academic Press; Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Macpherson, J. H. and Gabriel, C. J. 1962. Marine Molluscs of Victoria. 475 pp. Melbourne University Press; Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
McLean, J. H. 1969. Marine shells of southern California. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Sci. Ser. 24, Zool. 11, 104 pp.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Papers. 89:63–91.Google Scholar
Rowell, A. J., McBride, D. J., and Palmer, A. R. 1973. Quantitative study of Trempealeauian (Latest Cambrian) trilobite distribution in North America. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 84:3429–3442.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. C. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. Am. Nat. 102:243–282.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: the Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. 573 pp. W. H. Freeman and Co.; San Francisco, Cal.Google Scholar
Stehli, F. G. 1970. A test of the earth's magnetic field during Permian time. J. Geophys. Res. 75:3325–3342.Google Scholar
Stehli, F. G., McAlester, A. L., and Helsley, C. E. 1967. Taxonomic diversity of recent bivalves and some implications for geology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 78:455–466.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. A. and Stephenson, A. 1952. Life between tide-marks in North America. 2. Northern Florida and the Carolinas. J. Ecol. 40:1–49.Google Scholar
Thiele, J. 1931. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde. 1154 pp. Verlag von Gustav Fischer; Jena, West Germany.Google Scholar
Thorson, G. 1957. Bottom communities (sublittoral or shallow shelf). pp. 461–534. In: Hedgpeth, J. W., ed., Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 67. Vol. 1. 1296 pp.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1965. Quaternary Mollusca from Port Fairy, Victoria, Australia, and their paleoecologic implications. Proc. R. Soc. of Victoria. 78:15–73.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1966. Numerical analysis of marine molluscan ranges on the extratropical northeastern Pacific shelf. Limnol. Oceanog. 11:198–211.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1969. Patterns of taxonomic and ecological structure of the shelf benthos during Phanerozoic time. Paleontology. 12:684–709.Google Scholar
Winkworth, R. 1932. The British marine Mollusca. J. Conchology. 19:211–252.Google Scholar
Winkworth, R. 1951. A list of the marine Mollusca of the British Isles: additions and corrections. J. Conchology. 23:131–134.Google Scholar