Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:51:03.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cladistic assignment of specimens to species of the cystoporate bryozoan genera Strotopora Ulrich and Cliotrypa Ulrich and Bassler using gap-coded characters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Joseph F. Pachut  and
Alan Stanley Horowitz
Joseph F. Pachut
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Indiana University-Purdue University, 723 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5132, USA,
Alan Stanley Horowitz
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Indiana University, 1005 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gap-coding permits the use of continuous metric characters in cladistic analyses. Character means are converted to integer equivalents by placing character state divisions in the locations of phenetic breaks between specimen clusters, under the assumption that these breaks represent the locations of bottlenecks in character distributions. Similarities and differences between specimens from closely related species of cystoporate bryozoans were evaluated for the first time by converting continuous morphometric measurements into gap-coded binary and multistate characters and analyzing them cladistically, rather than just phenetically, across multiple species of Strotopora, Cliotrypa ramosa and Fistulipora compressa.

Our results demonstrate that cladistic analysis of gap-coded morphological characters can be effective in resolving phylogenetic relationships at low taxonomic levels (within and among genera) while objectively highlighting both the morphological features that specimens (taxa) share and those characteristics that differentiate them. Differences in cystiphragm abundances and sizes, especially in the proximal portions of colonies, discriminate between species of Strotopora. Colony size and growth form, abundances and lengths of hemiphragms, and sizes of cystopores discriminate between Strotopora and the closely related genus Cliotrypa. Cladistic patterns indicate that Strotopora foveolata Ulrich is a valid species with Strotopora dermata as its junior subjective synonym. Fistulipora compressa is reassigned to the genus Strotopora whereas a decision on the taxonomic status of Cliotrypa ramosa requires a broader cladistic analysis of fistuliporine genera.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , March 2013 , pp. 197 - 210
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

Anstey, R. L. and Pachut, J. F. 2004. Cladistic and phenetic recognition of species in the Ordovician bryozoan genus Peronopora. Journal of Paleontology, 78:651–674.Google Scholar
Astrova, G. G. 1964. A new order of Paleozoic Bryozoa. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 2:22–31.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1978. Community organization, paleontology, and sedimentology of the Lower Mississippian Borden delta platform (Edwardsville Formation, southern Indiana). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, xiv + 433 p.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Gurrola, R. A. 1979. Two boring organisms in the Lower Mississippian community of southern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 53:335–344.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Lane, N. G. 1980. Field Trip 1; platform communities and rocks of the Borden siltstone delta (Mississippian) along the south shore of Monroe Reservoir, Monroe County, Indiana, p. 36–67. InShaver, R. H.(ed.), Fields Trips 1980 from the Indiana University Campus, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Lane, N. G. 1982. Crinoids from the Edwardsville Formation (Lower Mississippian) of southern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 56:1343–1361.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Smith, D. P. 1982. Crinoids from the Edwardsville Formation (Lower Mississippian) of southern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 56:1223–1229.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1929. The Permian Bryozoa of Timor. Palaontologie von Timor nebst kleineren Beitragen zur Palaontologie einiger anderen Inseln des Ostindischen Archipels Ergebnisse der Expeditionen G. A. F. Molengraaff, J. Wanner und F. Weber. Stuttgart, E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Leiferung XVI, 27:35–90.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1936. Nomenclatorial notes on fossil and recent Bryozoa. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 26:156–162.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1953. Bryozoa. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part G. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas, xiii + 253 p.Google Scholar
Bigsby, J. J. 1878. Thesaurus Devonico–Carboniferus. The flora and fauna of the Devonian and Carboniferous periods. The genera and species arranged in tabular form, showing their horizons, recurrences, localities and other facts. With large addenda (from recent acquisitions).John Van Voorst, London, 447p.Google Scholar
Boardman, R. S. 1984. Origin of the post-Triassic Stenolaemata (Bryozoa): a taxonomic oversight. Journal of Paleontology, 58:19–39.Google Scholar
Borg, F. 1926. Studies on Recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zoologiska Bidrag Från Uppsala 10:181–507.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1831. Symbolae Physicae, seu Icones et descriptiones Corporum Naturalium novorum aut minus cognitorum, quae ex itineribus per Libyam, Aegyptum, Nubiam, Dongalam, Syriam, Arabiam et Habessiniam … studio annis 1820–25 redirerunt. Pars Zoologica, v. 4. Animalis Evertebrata exclusis Insectis. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D., 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4, 9p. <http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm>Google Scholar
Hansman, R. H. and Scott, H. W. 1967. Catalog of Worthen type and figured specimens at the University of Illinois. Journal of Paleontology, 41:1013–1028.Google Scholar
Horowitz, A. S. 1968. The ectoproct (bryozoan) genus Actinotrypa Ulrich. Journal of Paleontology, 42:356–373.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Basinal and prodeltaic communities of the Early Carboniferous Borden Formation in northern Kentucky and southern Indiana (U.S.A.). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 49:79–121.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Ausich, W. I., and Lane, N. G. 1983. Paleontology and stratigraphy of the Borden delta of southern Indiana and northern Kentucky (Field Trip 2), p. 37–71. InShaver, R. H.(ed.), Field Trips in Midwestern Geology, volume 1. Indiana Geological Survey.Google Scholar
Kachigan, S. K. 1991. Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Radius Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. M. and Horowitz, A. S. 1987. Growth forms and paleoecology of Mississippian bryozoans: critical application of Stach's 1936 model, eastern United States, p. 137–144. InRoss, J. R. P.(ed.), Bryozoa: Present and Past. Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.Google Scholar
Kent, L. S. 1982. Type and figured fossils in the Worthen Collection at the Illinois State Geological Survey. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 524, 65p.Google Scholar
Keyes, C. R. 1894. Paleontology of Missouri (Part II). Missouri Geological Survey, 5:1–266.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. Q. Sr., Taylor, A. R., and Wier, G. W. 1973. Geologic map of the Eubank quadrangle, south-central Kentucky. United States Geological Survey Map GQ-1096.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P. and Maddison, D. R. 1992. MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, Version 3.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1877. The American Palaeozoic fossils: a catalogue of the genera and species, with names of authors, dates, places of publication, groups of rocks in which found, and the etymology and signification of the words, and an introduction devoted to the stratigraphical geology of the Palaeozoic rocks. Cincinnati, Ohio, published by author, xv + 253 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1889. North American geology and palaeontology for the use of amateurs, students, and scientists. Press of the Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, Ohio, 664p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Dudley, R. M., 1944. Cheilotrypid bryozoans from Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks of the midcontinent region. State Geological Survey of Kansas Bulletin, 52:229–408.Google Scholar
Nickles, J. M. and Bassler, R. S., 1900. A synopsis of American fossil Bryozoa including bibliography and synonymy. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey, 173:1–663.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F. and Anstey, R. L. 2002. Phylogeny, systematics, and biostratigraphy of the bryozoan Ordovician genus Peronopora. Journal of Paleontology, 76:607–637.Google Scholar
Rominger, C. 1866. Observations on Chaetetes and some related genera, in regard to their systematic position; with an appended description of some new species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 18:113–123.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C., Dall, W. H., Stanton, T. W., and Bassler, R. S. 1905. Catalogue of the type specimens of fossil invertebrates in the Department of Geology, U.S. National Museum. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, No. 53, Pt. I, 704p.Google Scholar
Sigma Scan ProTM, Version 5.0. 1999. SPSS Science, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. B. 1897. A handbook of the genera of North American Palaeozoic Bryozoa. University of the State of New York New York State Museum 48th Annual Report of the Regents, 1894, 2:403–669. (Also identically reprinted as: Fourteenth Annual Report of the State Geologist for the Year 1894).Google Scholar
Swofford, D.L. 2000. PAUP∗. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (∗ and Other Methods). Version 4.0b4a.Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. and Maddison, W. P. 1987. Reconstructing ancestral character states under Wagner parsimony. Mathematical Bioscience, 87:199–229.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1882. American Paleozoic Bryozoa. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, 5:121–175.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1890. Paleozoic Bryozoa. Illinois Geological Survey, 8:285–688.Google Scholar
Utgaard, J. 1973. Mode of colony growth, autozooids, and polymorphism in the bryozoan Order Cystoporata, p. 317–360. InBoardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Oliver, W. A. Jr. (eds.), Animal Colonies Development and Function Through Time. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Utgaard, J. 1983. Systematic descriptions for the order Cystoporata, p. 358–439. InRobison, R. A.(ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 1, Pt. Bryozoa, Grevised.The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Warner, D. J. and Cuffey, R. J., 1973. Fistuliporacean bryozoans of the Wreford Megacyclothem (Lower Permian) of Kansas. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, 65:1–24.Google Scholar
Weller, S. 1898. A bibliographic index of North American Carboniferous invertebrates. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey, 153:1–653.Google Scholar
Wier, G. W. 1972. Geologic map of the Halls Gap quadrangle, Lincoln County, Kentucky. United States Geological Survey Map GQ–1009.Google Scholar