Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:38:46.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Range, proportionate representation, and demise of brachiopod families through Permian Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

J. B. Waterhouse  and
G. Bonham-Carter
J. B. Waterhouse
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Mineraology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
G. Bonham-Carter
Affiliation:
Broomhall, East Anstey, Nr Tiverton, Devon, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The time range and proportional distributions of Permian brachiopod families are summarized for the Permian Period. The ‘imperfection’ of the record is calculated from the apparent absences of families known to have survived. It is shown that the phylum changed in composition during the late Middle and Late Permian, with increased importance of Orthida, Strophalosiacea, and Oldhaminida at the expense of the Productacea. Changes were over-printed by loss of families, markedly later than the extensive contraction of shelf-seas, concurrent probably with significant changes in geo chemistry and trophic resources. A number of highly significant families survived into the time of renewed transgression during the Otoceras and Ophiceras ammonoid zones, usually classed at the base of the Triassic Period. The demise of most Permian families proceeded in concert with climatic changes, but the initial deaths of families appear to have been caused by some other unknown factor, which may have severely disrupted Permian communities and biomes, and caused them to respond more than usual to climatic oscillations.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 113 , Issue 5 , September 1976 , pp. 401 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Bonham-Carter, G. F. 1967. Fortran IV program for Q-mode cluster analysis of nonquantitative data using IBM 7090/7094 computers. Kans. Univ. Geol. Surv. Comput. Contrib. 17, 1–28.Google Scholar
Boucot Arthur, J. 1975 Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls. Developments in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy 1. Elsevier & Scientific Publ Co. xv + 427 pp.Google Scholar
Dagis, A. C. 1974. Triassic Brachiopoda (Morphology, Classification, Phylogeny. Stratigraphical significance and Biogeorgraphy). Acad. Sci. USSR Siberian Branch, Trans. Inst. Geol. Geophys. 214, 1–387, 49 pl.Google Scholar
Grant, R. E. 1970. Brachiopods from Permian-Triassic Boundary beds and age of Chhidru Formation, West Pakistan. In ‘Stratigraphic Boundary Problems’. Spec. Pub. Dept. Geol. Univ. Kans. Press. 4, 117–151, 3 pls.Google Scholar
Harland, W. B., 1967. The fossil record, a symposium with documentation. Spec. Publ. R. Soc. Lond. 2.Google Scholar
Kozur, H. 1973. Beiträge zur Stratigraphie and Paläontologie der Trias. Geol. Paläont. Mitt. Innsbruck 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, A. A. 1973. Mass Biotal extinctions, world climate changes, and galactic motions: possible interrelations. Mem. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol. 2, 745–58.Google Scholar
McAlester, A. L. 1973. Phanerozoic biotic crises. Mem. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol. 2, 11–16.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. (Ed.) 1965. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part H: Brachiopoda, 2 vols. Geol. Soc. Amer. and Univ. Kansas.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1973. The very last moment of The Paleozoic Era. Mem. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol. 2, 1–10.Google Scholar
Ramsayer, G. R. & Bonham-Carter, G. F. 1974. Numerical Classification of geologic patterns characterized by binary variables. Math. Geology 6, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1974. Permian-Triassic extinctions: relation to sea-floor spreading. J. Geol. 82, 129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. S. 1974. Permo-Triassic extinctions: effects of area on biotic equilibrium. J. Geol. 82, 267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stehli, F. G. 1970. A test of the earth's magnetic field during Permian time. J. Geophys Res. 75, 3325–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tappan, H. & Loeblich, A. R. Jnr. 1973. Smaller protistan evidence and explanation of the Permian-Triassic crisis. Mem. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol. 2, 465–80.Google Scholar
Termier, H. & Termier, G. 1970. Le genre Spyridiophora (Brachiopodes Productiodes) dans le Permien asiatique. Ann. Soc. Nord. 40, 57–62.Google Scholar
Termier, G., Termier, H., de Lapparent, A. F. & Marin, P. 1974. Monographie du Permo-carbonifère de Wardak (Afghanistan central) Docum. Laborat. Geol. Fac. Sci. Lyon H.5 2, 1–67, 37 pl.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. 1967. Upper Permian (Tatarian) brachiopods from New Zealand. N.Z. Jl Geol. Geophys. 10, 74–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. 1973 (a). An Ophiceratid ammonoid from the New Zealand Permian and its implications for the Permian-Triassic boundary. Geol. Mag. 110, 305–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. 1973(b). The Permian-Triassic boundary in New Zealand and New Caledonia and its relationship to world climatic changes and extinction of Permian life. Mem. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol. 2, 445–64.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. 1973(c). Communal hierarchy and significance of environmental parameters for brachiopods: the New Zealand Permian model. Life Sci. Contrib. R. Ont. Mus. 92, 1–49.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. 1974. Upper Paleozoic era. Encyclop. Britan. 15, 921–930.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. 1975. The Rangitata Orogen. Pacific Geology 9, 35–73.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. 1976. World correlations for the marine Permian faunas. Pap. Dep., Geol. Univ. Qd. 7 (2), 1–234.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B. & Bonham-Carter, G. 1975. Global distribution and character of Permian biomes based on brachiopod assemblages. Can. J. Earth. Sci. 12: 1085–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar