Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:12:04.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New diminutive camerate crinoids from the Ludlow of Oklahoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

T. J. Frest  and
H. L. Strimple
T. J. Frest
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, U.S.A.
H. L. Strimple
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two new camerate crinoids from the Henryhouse (Ludlow) of Oklahoma are evolutionarily convergent on monocyclic inadunates. The prokopicrinid Nanicrinus (new) has a calyx consisting only of three basals (small basal in EA interrary) and five radials. The anal opening is bordered by two radials. Praedicticrinus (new) is a hirneacrinid with anal X as the sole interradial plate participating in the calyx and small basal located in DE interray. Assignment to the Camerata is based largely on presumed phylogenetic relationships. The similar-appearing Permian genera Plesiocrinus, Eutelecrinus, Metaeutelecrinus (new) and Paraeutelecrinus (new) are probable prokopicrinid homeomorphs derived from platycrinitid ancestors. They are assigned to the new family Eutelecrinidae. Adaptation of the definition of homeomorphy utilized by Chauff & Klapper (1978) is advocated for supposed paleontologic cases.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 117 , Issue 3 , May 1980 , pp. 255 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Arendt, Y. A. 1970. Morske lilii gipokrinidy. Akad. Nauk, USSR Trudy Paleontol. Inst. 128.Google Scholar
Austin, T. & Austin, T. Jr 1842. Proposed arrangement of the Echinodermata, particularly as regards the Crinoidea, and a subdivision of the class Adelostella (Echinidae). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1st ser. 10, 106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1975. Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Briemer, A. 1962. A monograph on Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea. Leidse geol. Mededelingen, Overdruk 27.Google Scholar
Broadhead, T. W. & Strimple, H. L. 1977. Permian platycrinitid crinoids from Arctic North America. Can. Jl Earth Sci. 14, 1166–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. 1973. Crinoids from Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeont. Am. 7, 263–499.Google Scholar
Buckmann, S. S. 1895. The Bajocian of the Mid-Cotteswalds. Q. Jl geol. Soc. London, 51, 388–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauff, K. M. & Klapper, G. 1978. New conodont genus Apatella (Late Devonian) possible homeomorph Bactrognathus (Early Carboniferous, Osagean Series), and homeomorphy in conodonts. Geo. et Paleon. 12, 151–64.Google Scholar
Cloud, P. E. 1948. Some problems and patterns of evolution exemplified by fossil invertebrates. Evolution 2, 422–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frest, T. J. & Strimple, H. L. 1977. Hirneacrinidae (new), simple Silurian camerate crinoids from the North American Continental Interior. J. Paleont. 51, 1181–1200.Google Scholar
Frest, T. J. & Strimple, H. L. 1978. Prokopicrinidae, new family of ? camerate crinoids, Silurian (Wenlockian-Ludlovian), Tennessee and Oklahoma. Jl Washington Acad. Sci. 67, 144–54.Google Scholar
Glenister, B. F. & Furnish, W. M. 1961. The Permian ammonoids of Australia. J. Paleont. 35, 673–736.Google Scholar
Haas, O. & Simpson, G. G. 1946. Analysis of some phylogenetic terms, with attempts at redefinition. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 90, 319–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Jaeckel, O. 1895. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der palaeozoischen Crinoiden Deutschlands. Paleont. Abhandl. n. ser. 3.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1921. A Natural History of the Crinoidea, or Lily-shaped Animals. Bristol.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. & Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Spec. Pap. geol. Soc. Am. 46.Google Scholar
Prokop, R. J. 1973. Elicrinus n. gen. from the Lower Devonian of Bohemia (Crinoidea). Vest. Ustred. Ustavu Geol. 48, 221–4.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. & Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Paleocrinoidea, Pt. 3. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 1886, 226–360, 62–227, pls. 4–9.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1916. Die Permischen echinodermen von Timor. Paleont. Timor, VI, Lief, 11.Google Scholar
Wanner, J. 1937. Permische Echinodermen von Timor VIII-XIII. Palaeontographica Suppl.-Bd. 4, 60–212.Google Scholar
Warn, J. 1975. Monocyclism vs. dicyclism: a primary schism in crinoid phylogeny? Bull. Am. Paleont. 67, 423–41.Google Scholar