Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:52:50.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The orientation of strophomenid brachiopods on soft substrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Roy E. Plotnick ,
Benjamin F. Dattilo ,
Daniel Piquard ,
Jennifer Bauer  and
Joshua Corrie
Roy E. Plotnick
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W. Taylor St., Chicago, IL 60607, USA,
Benjamin F. Dattilo
Affiliation:
Geosciences Department, Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne, 2101 E. Coliseum Blvd, Fort Wayne, IN 46805-1499, USA,
Daniel Piquard
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W. Taylor St., Chicago, IL 60607, USA,
Jennifer Bauer
Affiliation:
3Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA, < jenebauer@gmail.com>
Joshua Corrie
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, One John Marshall Drive, Huntington, WV 25755, USA,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Strophomenid brachiopods have long been interpreted as “snowshoe” strategists, with their flattened concavo-convex valves providing resistance to foundering in very soft sediments. There has been a sharp difference of opinion in whether the shells were oriented with their convex or their concave surface in contact with the sediment. This study, along with independent evidence from sedimentology, ichnology, and morphology, indicates that the strophomenids lived with their shells concave down (convex up). Experiments indicate the force required to push shells into soft cohesive muds is much greater for the convex up than for the convex down orientation. Forces also increase with shell curvature. All measured forces greatly exceed estimates of the downward force exerted by the weight of the shell, indicating that foundering resistance may not have been the key functional requirement. Instead, a convex up orientation would have provided resistance to overturning in currents, in particular if the valves gaped widely. The “snowshoe” may not be the relevant paradigm for the shell morphology of these forms. An alternative is that they functioned more as a tip-resistant base, similar to those of garden umbrellas or stanchions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 87 , Issue 5 , September 2013 , pp. 818 - 825
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

Alexander, R. R. 1975. Phenotypic lability of brachiopod Rafinesquina alternata (Ordovician) and its correlation with sedimentologic regime. Journal of Paleontology, 49:607–618.Google Scholar
Bassett, M. G. 1984. Life strategies of Silurian brachiopods. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 32:237–263.Google Scholar
Bloom, H. M., Lescinsky, H. L., and James, T. R. 2008. Throwing geniculation a curve. A quantitative approach to shell form in Rafinesquina alternata. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 40 (5):84.Google Scholar
Bokuniewicz, H. J., Gordon, R. B., and Rhoads, D. C. 1974. Mechanical properties of the sediment-water interface. Marine Geology, 18:263–278.Google Scholar
Dattilo, B. F. 2004. A new angle on strophomenid paleoecology: τrace-fossil evidence of an escape response for the plectambonitoid brachiopod Sowerbyella rugosa from a tempestite in the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation (Edenian) of northern Kentucky. PALAIOS, 19:332–348.Google Scholar
Dattilo, B. F. 2005. Comment—A new angle on strophomenid paleoecology: Trace-fossil evidence of an escape response for the plectambonitoid brachiopod Sowerbyella rugosa from a tempestite in the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation (Edenian) of northern Kentucky (Dattilo, 2004). Reply. PALAIOS, 20:600–603.Google Scholar
Dattilo, B. F., Brett, C. E., and Schramm, T. J. 2012. Tempestites in a teapot? Condensation-generated shell beds in the Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch, U.S.A. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 367–368:44–62.Google Scholar
Dattilo, B. F., Brett, C. E., Tsujita, C. J., and Fairhurst, R. 2008. Sediment supply versus storm winnowing in the development of muddy and shelly interbeds from the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati region, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45:243–265.Google Scholar
Dattilo, B. F., Meyer, D. L., Dewing, K., and Gaynor, M. R. 2009. Escape traces associated with Rafinesquina alternata, an Upper Ordovician strophomenid brachiopod from the Cincinnati Arch region. PALAIOS, 24:578–590.Google Scholar
Dewing, K. and Dattilo, B. F. 2008. Open wide! How much is known about the gape angle in strophomenid brachiopods? Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 40 (5):84.Google Scholar
Hoel, O. A. 2005. Silurian Leptaeninae (Brachiopoda) from Gotland, Sweden. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 79:263–284.Google Scholar
Hoel, O. A. 2007. Cementing strophomenide brachiopods from the Silurian of Gotland (Sweden): Morphology and life habits. Geobios, 40:589–608.Google Scholar
Lamont, A. 1934. Lower Palaeozoic Brachiopoda of the Girvan district. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 14:161–184.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 1998. Constraining functional hypotheses: Controls on the morphology of the concavo-convex brachiopod Rafinesquina. Lethaia, 31:293–307.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 2005. Comment—a new angle on strophomenid paleoecology: Trace-fossil evidence of an escape response for the plectambonitoid brachiopod Sowerbyella rugosa from a tempestite in the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation (Edenian) of northern Kentucky (Dattilo, 2004). PALAIOS, 20:596–600.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. and Savarese, M. 1996. Functional and taphonomic implications of Ordovician strophomenid brachiopod valve morphology, p. 161–168. InCopper, P. and Jin, J.(eds.), Brachiopods. Proceedings of the 3rd International Brachiopod Congress. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Lescinsky, H. L. 1995. The life orientation of concavo-convex brachiopods: Overturning the paradigm. Paleobiology, 21:520–551.Google Scholar
Plotnick, R. and Baumiller, T. 2000. Invention by evolution: Functional analysis in paleobiology, p. 305–323. InErwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L.(eds.), Deep Time: Paleobiology's Perspective. Supplement to Vol. 26(4) of Paleobiology, Paleontological Society.Google Scholar
Plotnick, R. E. and Wagner, P. J. 2006. Round up the usual suspects: Common genera in the fossil record and the nature of wastebasket taxa. Paleobiology, 32:126–146.Google Scholar
Pope, J. K. 1976. Comparative morphology and shell histology of the Ordovician Strophomenacea (Brachiopoda). Palaeontographica Americana, 49:128–213.Google Scholar
Rhoads, D. C. 1970. Mass properties, stability, and ecology of marine muds related to burrowing activity, p. 391–406. InCrimes, T. P. and Harper, J. C.(eds.), Trace Fossils. Seel House Press, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P. 1972. Autecology of Richmondian brachiopods (Late Ordovician of Indiana and Ohio). Journal of Paleontology, 46:386–405.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1964. The inference of function from structure in fossils. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15:27–40.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil Brachiopods. Hutchinson University Library London, 199p.Google Scholar
Savarese, M. 1994. Taphonomic and paleoecological implications of flow-induced forces on concavo-convex articulate brachiopods-an experimental approach. Lethaia, 27:301–312.Google Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1975. Morphologic adaptations of benthic invertebrates to soft substrata. Journal of Marine Research, 33:177–189.Google Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1979. Biological bulldozers and the evolution of marine benthic communities. Science, 203:458–461.Google Scholar
Williams, A. and Brunton, C. H. C. 1997. Morphological and anatomical terms applied to brachiopods, p. 423–440. InKaesler, R. L.(ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H (Brachiopoda, Revised).Volume 1. Geological Society of America and Paleontological Institute, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Williams, A. and Carlson, S. J. 2007. Affinities of brachiopods and trends in their evolution, p. 2822–2877. InSelden, P. A.(ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H (Brachiopoda, Revised).Volume 6. Geological Society of America and Paleontological Institute, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar