Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:10:55.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iterative progenesis in Upper Cretaceous ammonites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Neil H. Landman
Neil H. Landman*
Affiliation:
Department of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, 79th St. and Central Park West, New York, New York 10024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pteroscaphites are small, rare species of scaphitid ammonites from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian-Santonian) of the Western Interior of North America. Their evolution appears to parallel that of the larger species of Scaphites or Clioscaphites, with which they co-occur. To investigate this evolutionary pattern, I constructed a phylogeny of all these species based on their distribution of shared derived characters including ornamentation, ammonitella size, whorl shape, umbilical diameter, sutures, number of whorls, adult size, shape of the adult body chamber, and apertural modifications. This analysis revealed numerous instances of congruence in the preadult morphology of the pteroscaphites and that of the co-occurring scaphites or clioscaphites. However, there is a marked divergence at maturity. Adult pteroscaphites are uniformly small (2.5 postembryonic whorls in their phragmocone) and develop apertural projections. The scaphites and clioscaphites exhibit a number of morphological changes at approximately the same whorl number, but secrete as many as two more whorls in their phragmocone before forming a mature body chamber with a relatively unmodified aperture. Both groups display sexual dimorphism. The process of progenesis may explain this conflicting pattern of congruence prior to maturity and divergence at maturity. Adult pteroscaphites are not mature replicas of the juvenile shells of the larger scaphites or clioscaphites, because maturation produces its own set of morphological modifications. Nevertheless, such features as the apertural projections on adult pteroscaphites may be interpreted as extrapolations of juvenile patterns of growth into maturity. The repeated associations of pteroscaphites with scaphites or clioscaphites in the Upper Cretaceous suggest that progenesis was iterative and may have represented an optional developmental pathway common to all of these species.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , Spring 1989 , pp. 95 - 117
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

Alberch, P. 1985. Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences. Systematic Zoology 34:46–58.Google Scholar
Cobban, W. A. 1951. Scaphitoid cephalopods of the Colorado Group. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 239.Google Scholar
Cobban, W. A. 1969. The Late Cretaceous ammonites Scaphites leei and Scaphites hippocrepis (DeKay) in the Western Interior of the United States. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 618.Google Scholar
Cobban, W. A. 1987. Some Middle Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) acanthoceratid ammonites from the Western Interior of the United States. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1445.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1981. Pattern and process in paleobiology: the role of cladistic analysis in systematic paleontology. Paleobiology 7:465–468.Google Scholar
Crick, R. E. 1978. Morphological variations in the ammonite Scaphites of the Blue Hill Member, Carlile Shale, Upper Cretaceous, Kansas. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper 88.Google Scholar
Crick, R. E. 1979. A pteroscaphitid (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) of Kansas. Journal of Paleontology 53:98–102.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J. L. 1982. L'evolution des Liparoceratidae “capricornes” (Ammonitina, Jurassique, Lias Moyen); diversité des rythmes évolutifs. Pp. 107–113. In Chaline, J. (ed.), Modalités, Rythmes et Mécanismes de l'Évolution Biologiques. C.N.R.S.; Paris.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J. L. 1987. L'évolution chez les Ammonitina du Lias moyen (Carixien, Domérian basal) en Europe Occidentale. Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie Lyon 98.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J. L., David, B., and Marchand, D. 1986. Les rélations ontogenèse-phylogenèse: applications paléontologiques. Géobios 19:335–356.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 8:254–264.Google Scholar
Geyssant, J. R. 1988. Diversity in mode and tempo of evolution within one Tithonian ammonite family, the Simoceratids. Pp. 79–88. In Wiedmann, J., and Kullmann, J. (eds.), Cephalopods—Present and Past. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung; Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Glenister, B. F., and Furnish, W. M. 1988. Terminal progenesis in Late Paleozoic ammonite families. Pp. 51–61. In Wiedmann, J., and Kullmann, J. (eds.), Cephalopods—Present and Past. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung; Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hewitt, R. A. 1985. Numerical aspects of sutural ontogeny in the Ammonitina and Lytoceratina. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 170:273–290.Google Scholar
Jeletzky, J. A., and Waage, K. M. 1978. Revision of Ammonites conradi Morton, 1834 and the concept of Discoscaphites Meek, 1870. Journal of Paleontology 52:1119–1132.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W. J. 1988. Late Cenomanian and Turonian ammonite faunas from northeast and central Texas. Special Papers in Palaeontology 39:1–131.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W. J., and Wright, C. W. 1985. Evolutionary patterns in Late Cretaceous ammonites. Special Papers in Palaeontology 33:131–143.Google Scholar
Kullmann, J., and Wiedmann, J. 1982. Bedeutung der Reka-pitulationsentwicklung in der Paläontologie. Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg (Neue Folge) 25:71–92.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H. 1987. Ontogeny of Upper Cretaceous (Turonian-Santonian) scaphitid ammonites from the Western Interior of North America: systematics, developmental patterns, and life history. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 185:117–241.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H. 1988. Heterochrony in ammonites. Pp. 159–182. In McKinney, M. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H. 1989. Systematic revision of Scaphites (Pteroscaphites) Wright. Submitted to American Museum Novitates.Google Scholar
Makowski, H. 1962. Problems of sexual dimorphism in ammonites. Palaeontologia Polonica 12:1–92.Google Scholar
Marchand, D., and Dommerques, J. L. 1988. Rythmes évolutifs et hétérochronies du développement: exemples pris parmi les Ammonites Jurassiques. Pp. 67–78. In Wiedmann, J., and Kullmann, J. (eds.), Cephalopods—Present and Past. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung; Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Matyja, B. A. 1986. Developmental polymorphism in Oxfordian ammonites. Acta Geologica Polonica 36:37–67.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology 60:4–13.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1988. The abundance of heterochrony in the fossil record. Pp. 287–325. In McKinney, M. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Wake, D. B., and Larson, A. 1987. Multidimensional analysis of an evolving lineage. Science 238:42–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, P. D. 1985. Periodicity of chamber formation in chambered cephalopods: evidence from Nautilus macromphalus and Nautilus pompilius. Paleobiology 11:438–450.Google Scholar
Wiedmann, J. 1965. Origin, limits, and systematic position of Scaphites. Palaeontology 8:397–453.Google Scholar
Wiedmann, J., and Kullmann, J. 1980. Ammonoid sutures in ontogeny and phylogeny. Pp. 215–255. In House, M. R., and Senior, J. R. (eds.), Systematic Association Special Volume 18, The Ammonoidea. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
Wiedmann, J., and Marcinowski, R. 1985. Scaphamites passendorferi n.g. n. sp. (Ammonoidea, Cretaceous)—ancestor of Scaphitaceae Meek? Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paláontologie Monatshefte 8:449–463.Google Scholar
Wright, C. W. 1953. Notes on Cretaceous ammonites. I. Scaphitidae. Annals and Magazine Natural History 6:473–476.Google Scholar