Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mcfzb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T04:15:10.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weird things from the Middle Ordovician of North America interpreted as conulariid fragments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Jeffery G. Richardson  and
Loren E. Babcock
Jeffery G. Richardson
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210,
Loren E. Babcock
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Small phosphatic fossils recovered from acid residues of the Galena Group Middle (Ordovician) of Wisconsin were recently described by Clark et al. (1999) as weird things. Here, we report that specimens identified by those authors as Thing 3 and Thing 6 are fragments of conulariids belonging to two species that occur widely through Middle Ordovician strata of eastern North America. Similarly disintegrated, conspecific specimens from the Trenton Limestone of northwestern Indiana, and articulated, conspecific specimens from Ohio and New York, are introduced for comparison.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , March 2002 , pp. 391 - 393
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

Babcock, L. E. 1991. The enigma of conulariid affinities, p. 133–144. In Simonetta, A. M. and Conway Morris, S. (eds.), The Evolutionary Significance of Metazoa and the Significance of roblematic Taxa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. E. 1997. Phylum Conulariida, p. 66–67. In Feldmann, R. M. (ed.), Fossils of Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin, 70.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. E., and Feldmann, R. M. 1986a. The phylum Conulariida, p. 135–147. In Hoffman, A. and Nitecki, M. H. (eds.), Problematic Fossil Taxa. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. E., and Feldmann, R. M. 1986b. Devonian and Mississippian conulariids of North America. Part B. Paraconularia, Reticulaconularia, new genus, and organisms rejected from Conulariida. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 55:411–479.Google Scholar
Bergström, S. M. 1971. Conodont biostratigraphy of the Middle and Upper Ordovician of Europe and eastern North America, P. 83–163. In Sweet, W. C. and Bergström, S. M. (eds.), Symposium on Conodont Biostratigraphy. Geological Society of America Memoir, 127:83–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brood, F. 1979. Conulariids, p. 183–184. In Jaannusson, V., Laufeld, S., and Skoglund, R. (eds.), Lower Wenlockian faunal and floral dynamics—Vattenfallet section, Gotland. Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, C762.Google Scholar
Clark, D. L., Sorenson, J. K., Ladd, A. N., and Freheit, J. R. 1999. Probable microvertebrates, vertebrate-like fossils, and weird things from the Wisconsin Ordovician. Journal of Paleontology, 73:1201–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldmann, R. M., and Babcock, L. E. 1986. Exceptionally preserved conulariids from Ohio—reinterpretation of their anatomy. National Geographic Research, 2:464–472.Google Scholar
Hughes, N., Gunderson, G. O., and Weedon, M. J. 2000. Late Cambrian conulariids from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 74:828–838.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerre, F. 1993. Conulariid microfossils from the Lower Silurian Visy Beds of Gotland, Sweden. Palaeontology, 36:403–424.Google Scholar
Jerre, F. 1994. Anatomy and phylogenetic significance of Eoconularia loculata, a conulariid from the Silurian of Gotland. Lethaia, 27:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. A., and Dyer, C. B. 1878. Contributions to paleontology. Cincinnati Society of Natural History Journal, 7:24–39.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. G. 1998. Conodont Biostratigraphy and Facies Relations of the Trenton Limestone in Indiana and Northwest Ohio. Unpublished M.S. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 105 p.Google Scholar
Savage, N. M. 1988. The use of sodium polytungstate for conodont separations. Journal of Micropaleontology, 7:30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, G. W. 1948. The Biology of Conularida. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montreal, 442 p.Google Scholar
Sinclair, G. W., and Richardson, E. S. Jr. 1954. A bibliography of the Conularida. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 34(145), 143 p.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1984. Graphic correlation of the upper Middle and Upper Ordovician rocks, North American Midcontinent Province, U.S.A., p. 23–35. In Bruton, D. L. (ed.), Aspects of the Ordovician System. Paleontological Contributions from the University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C., and Bergström, S. M. 1984. Conodont provinces and biofacies of the Late Ordovician, p. 69–87. In Clark, D. L. (ed.), Conodont Biofacies and Provincialism. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 196.Google Scholar
Van Iten, H. 1991. Evolutionary affinities of conulariids, p. 145–156. In Simonetta, A. M. and Conway Morris, S. (eds.), The Early Evolution of Metazoa and Significance of Problematic Taxa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Van Iten, H., Fitzke, J. A., and Cox, R. S. 1996. Problematic fossil cnidarians from the Upper Ordovician of the north-central United States. Palaeontology, 39:1037–1064.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1879. The Utica Slate and related formations of the same geological horizon, and fossils of the Utica Slate. Albany, 38 p. American Journal of Science, series 3, 18:152–190.Google Scholar
Webers, G. F. 1966. The Middle and Upper Ordovician conodont faunas of Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey Special Publication 4, 123 p.Google Scholar