Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:26:44.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogeny and heterochrony in the ostracode Cavellina Coryell from Lower Permian rocks in Kansas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Peter N. Schweitzer ,
Roger L. Kaesler  and
G. P. Lohmann
Peter N. Schweitzer
Affiliation:
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program in Oceanography, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Roger L. Kaesler
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045
G. P. Lohmann
Affiliation:
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Animals evolve by changing their form and by changing the rate at which they develop. Since evolution of development through time may be directly related to the adaptation of their life histories, study of ontogeny in fossils may yield information about the ecology of extinct animals. We need to know how to measure animals' ontogeny and at what taxonomic level structural differences overshadow differences in development. Two closely related species of the Permian ostracode Cavellina were compared to determine how much of the morphological difference between them is due to differences in their ontogenies. Most of the difference is not related to ontogeny. They also differ in a way that could be explained by heterochrony, although this difference is secondary in importance to the structural difference. These findings suggest that ecological adaptation might best be studied by examining the changes in development that occur within species through time and space.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Summer 1986 , pp. 290 - 301
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., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology. 5(3):296–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L., Chernoff, B., Elder, R. L., Humphries, J. M., Smith, G. R., and Strauss, R. E. 1985. Morphometrics in Evolutionary Biology. Special Publication 15, Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia. 277 pp.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, R. and Weinberg, B. 1970. An exact method for characterization of grain shape. J. Sedimentary Petrol. 40:205–212.Google Scholar
Ferson, S., Rohlf, F. J., and Keohn, R. K. 1985. Measuring shape variation of two-dimensional outlines. Syst. Zool. 34:59–68.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology. 8(3):254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap Press; Cambridge, MA. 501 pp.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology. 3(2):115–151.Google Scholar
Healy-Williams, N., Ehrlich, R., and Williams, D. F. 1985. Morphometric and stable-isotopic evidence for subpopulations of Globorotalia truncatulinoides. J. Foram. Res. 15(4):242–253.Google Scholar
Heip, C. 1976. The life cycle of Cyprideis torosa (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Oecologia. 23:229–245.Google Scholar
Horne, D. J. 1983. Life-cycles of podocopid Ostracoda—a review (with particular reference to marine and brackish-water species). Pp. 581–590. In: Maddocks, R. F., ed. Applications of Ostracoda. Univ. Houston Geosci.Google Scholar
Kellett, B. J. 1935. Ostracodes of the Upper Pennsylvanian and the Lower Permian strata of Kansas. III. Bairdiidae (concluded), Cytherellidae, Cypridinidae, Entomoconcidae, Cytheridae and Cypridae. J. Paleontol. 9(2):132–166.Google Scholar
Lohmann, G. P. 1983. Eigenshape analysis of microfossils: a general morphometric procedure for describing changes in shape. Math. Geol. 15(6):659–672.Google Scholar
Reyment, R. A. 1983. Phenotypic evolution in microfossils. Pp. 209–254. In: Kecnet, M. K., Wallace, B., and Prance, C. T., eds. Evolutionary Biology, vol. 16. Plenum; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. and Archie, J. 1984. A comparison of Fourier methods for the description of wing shape in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Syst. Zool. 33:302–317.Google Scholar
Shaver, R. H. 1953. Ontogeny and sexual dimorphism in Cytherella bullata. J. Paleontol. 27(3):471–480.Google Scholar
Siegel, A. F. and Benson, R. H. 1982. A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics. 38(2):341–350.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia Univ. Press; New York. 302 pp.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1976. Life history tactics: a review of the ideas. Q. Rev. Biol. 51(1):3–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stearns, S. C. 1977. The evolution of life history traits: a critique of the theory and a review of the data. Ann. Rev. of Ecol. Syst. 8:145–171.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1980. A new view of life-history evolution. Oikos. 35:266–281.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1982. The role of development in the evolution of life histories. Pp. 237–258. In: Bonner, J. T., ed. Evolution and Development. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.Google Scholar
Zahn, C. T. and Roskies, R. Z. 1972. Fourier descriptors for plane closed curves. IEEE Trans. Computers C-21 (3):269–281.Google Scholar