Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:31:31.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative shell shape distributions in Jurassic-Cretaceous ammonites and Jurassic-Tertiary nautilids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Peter Ward
Peter Ward*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contours of whorl expansion rate (W), distance of the generating curve from the axis of coiling (D) and shape of the generating curve (S) were plotted from data on 988 Jurassic through Cretaceous ammonite species and 205 Jurassic through Tertiary nautilid species. The areas occupied by the ammonites and nautilids are largely nonoverlapping when plotted as WD and DS graphs.

The almost complete absence of overlap in Juro-Cretaceous ammonite and nautilid shell shape distributions is consistent with the view that ammonites and nautilids were dissimilar ecologically, and evolved different shell shapes in response to different adaptational needs. The terminal Cretaceous extinction of the ammonites may have opened up new opportunities for nautilid evolution during the Tertiary, because Tertiary nautilids are dominanted by moderately compressed, hydrodynamically efficient shell shapes which were rarely present among Jurassic and Cretacepus nautilids, but common among ammonites. The restriction of nautilids to a far more limited portion (compared to ammonites) of the theoretically available spectrum of planispiral shell shapes may be due in part to fabricational constraints imposed by the simple nautilid septum and septal suture. Nautilid shell shapes were limited to globular or slightly compressed to depressed shells, which are inherently strong due to pronounced shell wall curvature, and would be strengthened to only a small extent by buttressing from internal septa. Strongly depressed or compressed shell shapes, commonly evolved among ammonoids, had flattened shell regions which are inherently weak, and would be strengthened to a considerable extent by numerous thick, or strongly folded and fluted septa and septal sutures.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Winter 1980 , pp. 32 - 43
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

Literature Cited

Barskov, I. 1979. Geometrical form of the shells of fossil cephalopods and its biological significance. Pp. 16–18. In: Basic Directions in Application of Mathematical Methods in Paleontology (Osnovnye napravleniya primeneniya mathematicheskikh metodov v paleontologii). [An abstract in Russian available from Ward].Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. A. 1976. Flow patterns and drag coefficients of cephalopod shells. Paleontology. 19:539–563.Google Scholar
Denton, E. J. and Gilpin-Brown, J. B. 1966. On the buoyancy of the pearly Nautilus. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 46:723–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denton, E. J. and Gilpin-Brown, J. B. 1971. Further observations on the buoyancy of Spirula. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 51:363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kummel, B. 1956. Post-Triassic nautiloid genera. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard. 114:324–493.Google Scholar
Martin, A. W., Catala-Stucki, I., and Ward, P. 1978. The growth rate and reproductive behavior of Nautilus macromphalus. N. Jb. Geol. Paleontol. Abh. 156:207–225.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K. 1947. Tertiary nautilids of the Americas. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 23:1–234.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., ed. 1957. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part L (Mollusca 4). 490 pp. Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Mutvei, H. and Rayment, R. A. 1973. Buoyancy control and siphuncle function in ammonoids. Paleontology. 16:623–636.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. J. Paleontol. 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. J. Paleontol. 41:43–65.Google Scholar
Reyment, R. A. 1973. Factors in the distribution of fossil cephalopods. Part 3: Experiments with exact models of certain shell types. Bull. Geol. Inst. Univ. Uppsala, N.S. 4:7–41.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1975. Mechanische Simulation und funktionelle Evolution des Ammoniten-Septums. Palaontol. Z. 49:268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueman, A. E. 1941. The ammonite body chamber, with special reference to the buoyancy and mode of life of the living ammonite. Geol. Soc. London. Qt. J. 96:339–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, F. J. and Weiss, L. E. 1963. Structural Analysis of Metamorphic Tectonites. 545 pp. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ward, P., Stone, R., Westermann, G., and Martin, A. 1977. Notes on animal weight, cameral fluids, swimming speed, and color polymorphism of the cephalopod Nautilus pompilius in the Fiji Islands. Paleobiology. 3:377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P. 1979. Cameral liquid in Nautilus and ammonites. Paleobiology. 5:40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1973. Strength of concave septa and depth limits of fossil cephalopods. Lethaia. 6:383–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1975a. Architecture and buoyancy of simple cephalopod phragmocones and remarks on ammonites. Palaontol. Z. 49:221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1975b. Model for origin, function and fabrication of fluted cephalopod septa. Palaontol. Z. 49:235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. 1977. Form and function of orthoconic cephalopod shells with concave septa. Paleobiology. 3:300–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar