Chaetognath grasping spines from the Upper Mississippian of Arkansas [USA]

• Autorzy: Doguzhaeva L A , Mutvel H. , Mapes R.H.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Previously unidentified tiny (about 0.5 mm in length), hollow, gently curved, serrated spines probably originally composed of horny, organic fibers from the Upper Mississippian (Middle Chesterian = Namurian A equivalent or lower Serpukhovian) of Arkansas (USA) are described, and their probable chaetognath affinities are discussed. The specimens are preserved in an oval accumulation (about 15 mm long and 6 mm wide) of approximately 200 specimens within a small (about 25 mm in length) phosphatic concretion. For comparison, the grasping spines of the Recent chaetognath Eukrohnia hamata were examined. The Arkansas specimens are named Eoserratosagitta serrata gen. et sp. nov., and this genus is assigned to the Phylum Chaetognatha. The Upper Mississippian spines are also compared with protoconodonts. This comparison supports the hypothesis that the chaetognaths may have existed in the Cambrian.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

grasping spine; fossil; USA; protoconodont; organic spine; phosphatized fossil; morphology; Arkansas; ultrastructure; Chaetognatha; paleontology; chaetognath

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
• Rocznik: 2002
• Tom: 47
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.421-430,fig.

Twórcy

autor

Doguzhaeva L A

• Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 123868, Russia

autor

Mutvel H.

autor

Mapes R.H.

Bibliografia

• Abaimova, G.P. 1980. Aparatuses of Cambrian conodonts from Kazakhstan [in Russian]. Paleontologičeskij žurnal 2: 143–146.
• Aldridge, R.J., Briggs, D.E.G., Clarkson, E.N.K., and Smith, M.P. 1986. The affinities of conodonts—new evidence from the Carboniferous of Edinburgh, Scotland. Lethaia 19: 279–291.
• Beklemishev, V.N. [Beklemišev, V.N.] 1952. Osnovy sravnitel'noj anatomii bespozvonočnyh (2nd edition). 698 pp. Sovetskaâ Nauka, Moskva.
• Bengtson, S. 1976. The structure of some Middle Cambrian conodonts, and the early evolution of conodont structure and function. Lethaia 9: 185–206.
• Bengtson, S. 1983. The early history of the Conodonta. Fossils and Strata 15: 5–19.
• Bieri, R. 1991. Systematics of the Chaetognatha. In: Q. Bone, H. Kapp, and A.C. Pierrot−Bults (eds.), The Biology of Chaetognaths, 122–136. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford.
• Bone, Q., Ryan K.P., and Pulsford, A.L. 1983. The structure and composition of the teeth and grasping spines of chaetognaths. Journal of Marine Biological Association UK 63 (2): 929–939.
• Briggs, D.E., Clarkson, E.N. K., and Aldridge, R.J. 1983. The conodont animal. Lethaia 16: 1–14.
• Buzhinskaya, H.N. [Bužinskaâ, G.N.] and Lebskiy, V.K. [Lebskij, V.K.] 1974. The ultrastructure of the chaethous in polychaetes and chaetognaths [in Russian]. In: Otčetnaâ naučnaâ sessiâ po itogam rabot Zoologičeskogo Instituta AN SSSR, 64–74. Nauka, Leningrad.
• Buzhinskaya, H.N. [Bužinskaâ, G.N.], Bubko, O.N., and Lebskiy, V.K. [Lebskij, V.K.] 1980. “Annelid type” of chaetae; ultrastructure and phylogenetic bearing [in Russian]. In: V.L. Vagin (ed.), Voprosy èvolûcjonnoj morfologii životnyh, 64–74. Kazanskij Universitet, Kazan'.
• Conway−Morris, S. 1977. A redescription of the Middle Cambrian worm Amiskwia sagittiformis Walcott from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 51: 271–287.
• Doguzhaeva, L.A., Mapes, R.H., and Mutvei, H. 1997. Beaks and radulae of Early Carboniferous goniatites. Lethaia 30: 305–313.
• Donoghue, P.C.J., Forey, P.L., and Aldridge, R.J. 2000. Conodont affinity and chordate philogeny. Biological Review 75:191–251.
• Dzik, J. and Drygant, D. 1986. The apparatus of panderodontid conodonts. Lethaia 19: 133–141.
• Ghirardelli, E. 1968. Some aspects of the biology of the chaetognaths. In: F.W. Russel and C.M. Yonge (eds.), Advances Marine Biology 6: 271–375.
• Gordon, M., Jr. 1964. Carboniferous cephalopods of Arkansas. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 460: 1–322.
• Hekker, R.F. [Gekker, R.F.] 1964. Phylum Chaetognatha [in Russian]. In: Û.A. Orlov (ed.), Osnovy paleontologii, 10, 369–372. Nedra, Moskva.
• Jäger, M. and Fraaye, R. 1997. The diet of the early Toarcian ammonite Harpoceras falciferum. Palaeontology 40 (2): 557–574.
• Kasatkina, A.P. 1982. Ŝetinkočelustnyje morej SSSR i sopredel'nyh vod. 136 pp. Nauka, Leningrad.
• Kraft, P. and Mergl, M. 1989. Worm−like fossils (Palaeoscolecida; ?Chaetognatha) from the Lower Ordovician of Bohemia. Sborník Geologických Věd, Paleontologie 30: 9–36.
• Kraft, P., Lehnert, O., and Fryda, J. 1999. Titerina, a living fossil in the Ordovician: a young protoconodont (?) and the oldest chaetognath animal. Acta Universitatis Carolinae—Geologica 43, (1/2): 410–454.
• Lehmann, U. 1988. On the dietary habits and locomotion of fossil cephalopods. In: J. Wiedmann and J. Kullmann (eds.), Cephalopods—Past and Present, 633–640. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
• Lehmann, U. and Weitschat, W. 1973. Zur anatomie und Ökologie von Ammoniten: Funde von Kroph und Kiemen. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 47 (1/2): 69–76.
• Lund, R. and Mapes, R.H. 1984. Carcharopsis wortheni from the Fayetteville Formation (Mississippian) of Arkansas. Journal of Paleontology 58 (3): 709–717.
• Mapes, R.H. 1979. Carboniferous and Permian Bactritoidea (Cephalopoda) in North America. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions 64: 1–75.
• Mapes, R.H. 1987. Upper Paleozoic mandibles: frequency of occurrence, modes of preservation, and paleoecological implications. Journal of Paleontology 61: 521–538.
• Mapes, R.H., Sims, M.S., and Boardman, D.R. 1995. Predation on the Pennsylvanian ammonoid Gonioloboceras and its implications for allochthonous vs. autochthonous accumulations of goniatites and other ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 69 (3): 441–446.
• McIlroy, D. and Szaniawski, H. 2000. Alower Cambrian protoconodont apparatus from the Placentian of southeastern Newfoundland. Lethaia 33: 95–102.
• Meeks, L.K. and Manger, W.L. 1999. Rediagnosis of the middle Carboniferous (Chesterian, Mississippian) ammonoid Fayettevillea planorbus Gordon, 1960 based on mature specimens from the type area. In: A.Yu. Rozanov and A.A. Shevyrev (eds.), Fossil Cephalopods; Recent Advances in Their Study, 139–153. Russian Acadamy of Sciences, Paleontological Institute, Moscow.
• Mikulic, D.G., Briggs, D.E.G., and Kluessendorf, J. 1985. A Silurian soft−bodied fauna. Science 228: 715–717.
• Morris, C. 1977. A redescription of the Middle Cambrian worm Amiskwia sagittiformis Walcott from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 51 (3/4): 271–287.
• Müller, K.J. 1981. Morphology of elements: internal structure. In: R.A. Robinson (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part W (Miscellanea), Supplement 2 (Conodonta), W20–W41. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder.
• Müller, K.J. and Anders, D.1976. Eine Conodontengrouppe von Prooneotodus tenuis (Müller, 1959) in natürlichen Zusammenhang aus dem Oberen Kambrium von Sweden. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 50: 193–200.
• Müller, K.J. and Nogami, Y. 1971. Über den Feinbau der Conodenten. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Series of Geology and Mineralogy 38 (1): 1–87.
• Nielsen, C. 1995. Animal Evolution. Interrelationships of the Living Phyla. 467 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Nixon. M. 1988. The feeding mechanisms and diets of cephalopods—living and fossil. In: J. Wiedmann and J. Kullmann (eds.), Cephalopods—Past and Present, 641–652. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
• Nixon, M. 1996. Morphology of the jaws and radula in ammonoids. In: N.H. Landman, K. Tanabe, and R.A. Davis (eds.), Ammonoid Paleobiology, 23–42. Plenum Press, New York.
• Owre, H.B. and Bayer, F.M. 1962. The systematic position of the Middle Cambrian fossil Amiskwia Walcott. Journal of Paleontology 36 (6): 1361–1363.
• Repetski, J.E. and Szaniawski, H. 1981. Paleobiologic interpretation of Cambrian and earliest Ordovician conodont natural assemblages. In: M.E. Taylor (ed.), Short papers for the Second International Symposium on the Cambrian System. 1981, 81–743, 169–172. U.S. Geological Survey Open−file report.
• Rietschel, S. 1973. Zur Deutung der Conodonten. Natur und Museum 103: 409–418.
• Schram, F.R. 1973. Pseudocoelomates and a nemertine from the Illinois Pennsylvanian. Journal of Paleontology 47: 985–989.
• Szaniawski, H. 1980. Fused clusters of paraconodonts. In: H.P. Schonlaub (ed.), Second European Conodont Symposium, Guidebook, Abstracts. Abhandlungen Geologischen Bundesanstalt (Austria) 35: 211–213.
• Szaniawski, H. 1982. Chaetognath grasping spines recognized among Cambrian protoconodonts. Journal of Paleontology 56: 806–810.
• Szaniawski, H. 1983. Structure of protoconodont elements. Fossils and Strata 15: 21–27.
• Szaniawski, H. 1987. Preliminary structural comparisons of protoconodont, paraconodont, and euconodont elements. In: R.J. Aldridge (ed.), Palaeobiology of Conodonts, 35–47. Ellis Horwood Limited Publishers, Chichester.
• Szaniawski, H. 1996. New evidence of protoconodont−chaetognath relationship. In: Sixth International Conodont Symposium (ECOS VI), Abstracts, Warsaw.
• Szaniawski, H. 2002. New evidence for the protoconodont origin of chaetognaths. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 47: 405–419.
• Sweet, W.C. 1988. The Conodonta. Morphology, Taxonomy, Paleoecology, and Evolutionary History of a Long−Extinct Animal Phylum. 212 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Tanabe, K. and Mapes, R.H. 1995. Jaws and radula of the Carboniferous ammonoid Cravenoceras. Journal of Paleontology 69 (4): 703–707.
• Vinogradov, M.E. 1968. Vertikal'noe raspredelenie okeaničeskogo zooplanktona. 320 pp. Nauka, Moskva.
• Walcott, C. 1911. Cambrian geology and paleontology. II. Middle Cambrian annelids. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 57: 109–144.