Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:15:14.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary significance of sexual and asexual modes of propagation in Neogene species of the bryozoan Metrarabdotos in tropical America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Alan H. Cheetham ,
Jeremy B. C. Jackson  and
Joann Sanner
Alan H. Cheetham
Affiliation:
1Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, District of Columbia 20650,
Jeremy B. C. Jackson
Affiliation:
2Geoscience Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California 92093,
Joann Sanner
Affiliation:
1Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, District of Columbia 20650,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three new Miocene-Pliocene species of the cheilostome bryozoan Metrarabdotos from Venezuela are atypical in showing significant evidence that as many as half the colonies originated asexually (clonally) by “regeneration” from previously existing colonies, rather than almost exclusively from ancestrular zooids (products of metamorphosis of sexually produced larvae), as is characteristic of the genus. The extremely low proportion of zooids (less than two percent) recognizably committed to producing larvae (ovicelled) in these Venezuelan species agrees with that reported in a variety of Danian (Paleocene) genera in which clonal propagation has been reported to predominate. However, all but two of 17 other living and fossil species of Metrarabdotos also have fewer than two percent of their zooids ovicelled, even though all but one of more than 250 colony bases examined originated from ancestrulae. The lack of significant correlation in Metrarabdotos between frequencies of ovicelled zooids and of ancestrular colonies suggests that clonal propagation may not have diverted resources from sexual reproduction. This inference is supported by the retention in these species of a level of heritable morphologic variation (estimated by partitioning among-colonies and within-colonies variance in zooid characters) that is commensurate with that estimated for species of Metrarabdotos in which propagation was apparently entirely by sexual means. Thus, sexual reproduction throughout the genus was apparently sufficient to maintain the genetic diversity from which speciation could proceed at normal rates. As estimated by both cladistic and nearest-neighbor morphologic-stratigraphic methods, the three Venezuelan species occupy quite different positions in the inferred phylogeny of Metrarabdotos. Thus, the elevated level of clonal propagation in these species appears to be a response to local conditions, most probably high productivity associated with upwelling, that promoted more rapid vegetative growth while leaving the level of sexual reproduction unchanged.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 75 , Issue 3: Special Issue , May 2001 , pp. 564 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 2001

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

Aguilera, O., and Rodrigues de Aguilera, D. In press. An exceptional coastal upwelling fish assemblage in the Caribbean Neogene. Journal of Paleontology.Google Scholar
Banta, W. C. 1969. The body wall of cheilostome Bryozoa, II: Interzooidal communication organs. Journal of Morphology, 129:149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boardman, R. S., and Cheetham, A. H. 1973. Degrees of colony dominance in stenolaemate and gymnolaemate Bryozoa, p. 121–220. In Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Oliver, W. A. Jr. (eds.), Animal Colonies: Development and Function through Time. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 603 p.Google Scholar
Budd, A. F., Johnson, K. G., and Stemann, T. A. 1996. Plio-Pleistocene turnover and extinctions in the Caribbean reef-coral fauna, p. 168–204. In Jackson, J. B. C., Budd, A. F., and Coates, A. G. (eds.), Evolution and Environment in Tropical America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 425 p.Google Scholar
Canu, F. 1914. Les bryozoaires fossiles des terrains du Sud-Ouest de la France. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 14:465–474.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1968. Morphology and systematics of the bryozoan genus Metrarabdotos . Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 153,121 p.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1986a. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: rates of morphologic change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology, 12:190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1986b. Branching, biomechanics, and bryozoan evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, B, 228:151–171.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1987. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: are trends in single morphologic characters misleading? Paleobiology, 13:286–296.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., and Hayek, L. C. 1983. Geometric consequences of branching growth in adeoniform Bryozoa. Paleobiology, 9:240–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., and Hayek, L. C. 1988. Phylogeny reconstruction in the Neogene bryozoan Metrarabdotos: A paleontologic evaluation of methodology. Historical Biology, 1:65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., and Jackson, J. B. C. 1996. Speciation, extinction, and the decline of arborescent growth in Neogene and Quaternary cheilostome Bryozoa of tropical America, p. 205–233. In Jackson, J. B. C., Budd, A. F., and Coates, A. G. (eds.), Evolution and Environment in Tropical America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 425 p.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., and Thomsen, E. 1981. Functional morphology of arborescent animals: Strength and design of cheilostome bryozoan skeletons. Paleobiology, 7:355–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., Hayek, L. C., and Thomsen, E. 1981. Growth models in fossil arborescent cheilostome bryozoans. Paleobiology, 7:68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L. C. 1993. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution, I: Rate tests for random change versus selection in differentiation of living species. Evolution, 47:1526–1538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., and Hayek, L. C. 1994. Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution, II: Analysis of selection and random change in fossil species using reconstructed genetic parameters. Evolution, 48:360–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheetham, A. H., Rucker, J. S., and Carver, R. E. 1969. Wall structure and mineralogy of the cheilostome bryozoan Metrarabdotos . Journal of Paleontology, 43:129–135.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., Jackson, J. B. C., Sanner, J., and Ventocilla, Y. 1999. Neogene cheilostome Bryozoa of tropical America: comparison and contrast between the Central American isthmus (Panama, Costa Rica) and the north-central Caribbean (Dominican Republic), p. 159–192.. In Collins, L. S. and Coates, A. G. (eds.), The Neogene of the Isthmus of Panama: a paleobiotic survey of the Caribbean coast. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 357, 351 p.Google Scholar
Collins, L. S. 1999. Panama Paleontology Project, <http://www.fiu.edu/~collinsl/>..>Google Scholar
Collins, L. S., and Coates, A. G. (eds.). 1999. The Neogene of the Isthmus of Panama: A paleobiotic survey of the Caribbean coast. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 357,351 p.Google Scholar
Collins, L. S., Aguilera, O., Borne, P. F., and Cairns, S. D. 1999. A paleoenvironmental analysis of the Neogene of Caribbean Panama and Costa Rica using several phyla, p. 81–87. In Collins, L. S. and Coates, A. G. (eds.), The Neogene of the Isthmus of Panama: a paleobiotic survey of the Caribbean coast. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 357, 351 p.Google Scholar
Cook, P. L. 1973. Settlement and early colony development in some Cheilostomata, p. 65–71. In Larwood, G. P. (ed.), Living and Fossil Bryozoa. Academic Press, London and New York, 634 p.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1988. Hennig86 Reference, version 1.5. Farris. Stony Brook, New York, 17 p.Google Scholar
Hageman, S. J., Bayer, M. M., and Todd, C. D. 1999. Partitioning phenotypic variation: genotypic, environmental and residual components from bryozoan skeletal morphology. Journal of Natural History, 33:1713–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, E., and Thomsen, E. In press. Asexual propagation in the cheilostome Bryozoa: evolutionary trends in a major group of colonial animals. In Jackson, J. B. C., Lidgard, S., and McKinney, F. K. (eds.), Process from Pattern in the Fossil Record.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H. 1990. Evolutionary significance of morphospecies: A test with cheilostome Bryozoa. Science, 248:579–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H. 1994. Phylogeny reconstruction and the tempo of speciation in cheilostome Bryozoa. Paleobiology, 20:407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Coates, A. G. 1986. Life cycles and evolution of clonal (modular) animals, p. 7–22. In Harper, J. L., Rosen, B. R., and White, J. (eds.), The Growth and Form of Modular Organisms. The Royal Society, London, 250 p.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., Budd, A. F., and Coates, A. G. (eds.). 1996. Evolution and Environment in Tropical America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 425 p.Google Scholar
Marcus, E., and Marcus, E. 1962. On some lunulitiform Bryozoa. Zoologia, Faculdade de Filosophia, Ciencias e Letras, Universidade de Sao Paulo, 24:281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1983. Asexual colony multiplication by fragmentation: an important mode of genet longevity in the Carboniferous bryozoan Archimedes . Paleobiology, 9:35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norusis, M. J. 1994. SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, 385 p.Google Scholar
Ostrovsky, A. N. 1997. Rejuvenation in colonies of some Antarctic tubuliporids (Bryozoa, Stenolaemata). Ophelia, 46:175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, J. B., Jung, P., and Biju-Duval, B. 1986. Neogene paleontology in the northern Dominican Republic. 1. Field surveys, lithology, environment, and age. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 323,79 p.Google Scholar
Thomsen, E., and Håkansson, E. 1995. Sexual versus asexual dispersal in clonal animals: examples from cheilostome bryozoans. Paleobiology, 21:496–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar