Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:18:40.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cupulocrinus angustatus (Meek and Worthen, 1870), a cladid crinoid from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the northern midcontinent of the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 13244-1070
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cupulocrinus angustatus (Meek and Worthen, 1870) is common and widely distributed in the Maquoketa Formation of the northern midcontinent of the United States, and specimens are known from the Isotelus and Vogdesia Zones of the Elgin, the Clermont, Fort Atkinson, and Brainard Members. Cluster significance tests indicate that crinoids from all stratigraphic horizons are conspecific. The most numerous primibrachs are located in the A and B rays, whereas the C ray exhibits the fewest plates. The largest and smallest numbers of secundibrachs occur in the B and C rays, respectively. The number of brachs is independent of stratigraphic position and the size of the crinoids. Correlation coefficients for the numbers of brachs demonstrate that the arms are divided into two overlapping and covarying levels: the proximal arms from the primibrachs to tertibrachs, and distal arms ranging from the tertibrachs to quintibrachs. Growth of the aboral cup is generally isometric or roughly so. Conversely, the width:height ratios of brachs typically increase in progressively larger individuals. Similarly, most deposition of calcite on the columnals affects their width rather than height. The correlations for the aboral cup and its plates generally exceed those of brachs and stem plates. The contrasts in allometry and integration and coordination between the aboral cup versus the brachs and column are attributed to differences in basic geometry and developmental constraints. Similar patterns are seen in other Paleozoic and perhaps all or most crinoids.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 109 - 122
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

Ausich, W. I. 1996. Chapter 17 Phylum Echinodermata, p. 242–261. In Feldmann, R. M. and Hackathorn, M. (eds.), Fossils of Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey Bulletin, 70, Columbus.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S. 1915. Bibliographic index of American Ordovician and Silurian fossils. United States National Museum Bulletin 92:1–1521.Google Scholar
Bassler, R. S., and Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 45:1–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, E. 1859. On the Crinoideae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains, Decade IV, p. 7–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, T. E. 1971. Geological map and notes on the Ordovician and Silurian litho- and biostratigraphy, Anticosti Island, Quebec. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 71–19, 44 p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1978. Postlarval ontogeny of fossil crinoids, camerates, p. T244–T263. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992a. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992b. Hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:973–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1994. Camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 68:570–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1995a. Eoparisocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 69:351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1995b. Dendrocrinid crinoids from the Ordovician of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 69:939–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1996. Carabocrinid crinoids from the Ordovician of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 70:614–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1997. Homocrinid crinoids from the Upper Ordovician of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 71:442–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2001. Flexible crinoids from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the northern midcontinent and the evolution of early flexible crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 75:370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Kile, K. M. 1994. Paleoautecology and ontogeny of Cupulocrinus levorsoni Kolata, a Middle Ordovician crinoid from the Guttenberg Formation of Wisconsin, p. 25–44. In Landing, E. (ed.), Studies in Stratigraphy and Paleontology in Honor of Donald W. Fisher. New York State Museum Bulletin, 481.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Strimple, H. L. 1983. Ordovician calceocrinids from northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 57:1261–1281.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1978. Middle Ordovician crinoids from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 74(304):372–506Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, (second edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York, 646 p.Google Scholar
Draper, N., and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis (second edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York, xiv and 709 p.Google Scholar
Green, P. E. 1978. Analyzing Multivariate Data. Dryden Press, Hinsdale, Illinois, 519 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New York. Volume I. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower Division of the New York System (equivalent of the Lower Silurian rocks of Europe). New York Natural History Survey, C. van Benthuysen, Albany, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hayami, I., and Matsukuma, A. 1970. Variation of bivariate characters from the standpoint of allometry. Palaeontology, 13:588–605.Google Scholar
Imbrie, J. 1956. Biometrical methods in the study of invertebrate fossils. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 108:211–252.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society, Memoir 7, (Journal of Paleontology, Volume 49, number 3 supplement), 74 p.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R., and Graese, A. M. 1983. Lithostratigraphy and depositional environments of the Maquoketa Group (Ordovician) in northern Illinois. Illinois Geological Survey, Circular 528, 49 p.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R., Brower, J. C., and Frest, T. J. 1987. Upper Mississippi Valley Champlainian and Cincinnatian echinoderms. Minnesota Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, 35:179–181.Google Scholar
Levorson, C. O., Gerk, A. J., Sloan, R. E., and Bisagno, L. A. 1987. General section of the Middle and Late Ordovician strata of northeastern Iowa. Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations, 35:25–39.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. 1873. Fossils of the Cincinnati Group. Geological Survey of Ohio, v. 1, Pt. 2 (Palaeontology), 175 p.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1870. Descriptions of new species and genera of fossils from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western states. Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia, Proceedings, 22:22–56.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1875. Description of invertebrates. Illinois Geological Survey, Geology and Paleontology, 6:489–532.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A natural history of the Crinoidea or lily-shaped animals, with observation on the genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites . Bryan & Company, Bristol, 150 p.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 46:1–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orbigny, A. D. D'. 1850. Prodome du paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques et rayonnés faisant suite au cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphique, 1:1–392. Victor Masson, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simms, M. J., and Sevastopulo, G. D. 1993. The origin of articulate crinoids. Palaeontology, 36:91–109.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. 1977. A method for testing the distinctness of clusters: a test of the disjunction of two clusters in euclidean space as measured by their overlap. Mathematical Geology, 9:123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. 1979. The sampling distribution of the W-Statistic of Disjunction for the arbitrary division of a Random Rectangular Distribution. Mathematical Geology, 11:423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton echinoderm fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario. Canada Geological Survey, Memoir 15-P:1–50.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Institution Publication 2501:1–486.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids, p. T58–T216. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1880. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Pt. 1, The families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Proceedings for 1879:226–378 (1–153).Google Scholar
Warn, J. M., and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate super-families Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician-Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72:1–138.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., and Bunker, B. J. 1996. Relative sea-level changes during Middle Ordovician through Mississippian deposition in the Iowa area, North American craton, p. 307–330. In Witzke, B. J., Ludvigson, G. A., and Day, J. (eds.). Paleozoic Sequence Stratigraphy: Views from the North American Craton. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar