Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-k7rjm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T20:22:23.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harmostocrinus jonesi n. sp. (Crinoidea): an evolutionary intermediate between Abrotocrinus and Harmostocrinus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Christopher G. Maples ,
Johnny A. Waters  and
H. Thomas Walsh
Christopher G. Maples
Affiliation:
Kansas Geological Survey, Lawrence 66047
Johnny A. Waters
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, West Georgia College, Carrollton 30118
H. Thomas Walsh
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Harmostocrinus jonesi n. sp. (Mississippian: Chesterian) is described from the upper part of the Monteagle Limestone in northern Alabama, and is distinguished from all other species of the genus by bifurcation of the A-ray arm on IBr2 instead of IBr1. Reduction in overall number of arms, A-ray arm bifurcation, and reduction of cup-size demonstrate that H. jonesi is a paedomorphic evolutionary intermediate between the stratigraphically older Mississippian genus Abrotocrinus, and other, younger species of Harmostocrinus. Both peramorphosis (cup characters) and paedomorphosis (arm characters) were important factors in the evolution of Harmostocrinus jonesi.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 141 - 146
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Broadhead, T. W. 1987. Heterochrony and the achievement of the multibrachiate grade in camerate crinoids. Paleobiology, 13:177–186.Google Scholar
Burdick, D. W., and Strimple, H. L. 1982. Genevievian and Chesterian crinoids of Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin, 121:1–277.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1861. Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea from the Carboniferous rocks of the Mississippi Valley. Journal of the Boston Society of Natural History, 7:261–328.Google Scholar
Horowitz, A. S., and Waters, J. A. 1972. A Mississippian echinoderm site in Alabama. Journal of Paleontology, 46:660–665.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen. Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 3:1–128.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. M. 1984. Paleocology [sic] and paleontology of the Indiana Springs Shale Member, Big Clifty Formation (middle Chesterian) in south-central Indiana. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, 463 p.Google Scholar
Kirk, E. 1941. Four new genera of Mississippian Crinoidea Inadunata. Journal of Paleontology, 15:82–88.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G., and Webster, G. D. 1980. Crinoidea, p. 144–157. In Broadhead, T. W. and Waters, J. A. (eds.), Echinoderms. University of Tennessee, Department of Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology 3.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1984. Allometry and heterochrony in an Eocene echinoid lineage: morphological change as a by-product of size selection. Paleobiology, 10:407–419.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology, 60:4–13.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1987. Taxonomy, evolution, and functional morphology of southern Australian Tertiary hemiasterid echinoids. Palaeontology, 30:319–352.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1988. The abundance of heterochrony in the fossil record, p. 287–325. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution—A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Maples, C. G., and Waters, J. A. 1987. Redefinition of the Meramecian/Chesterian boundary (Mississippian). Geology, 15:647–651.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1869. Descriptions of new Carboniferous fossils from the western states. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, 22:137–172.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S. 1821. A Natural History of the Crinoidea or Lily-shaped Animals, with Observation on the Genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula, and Marsupites. Bryan & Co., Bristol, England, 150 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A., and Gurley, W. F. E. 1890. Description of some new genera and species of Echinodermata, from the Coal Measures and Subcarboniferous rocks of Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa. Cincinnati Society of Natural History Journal, 13:3–25.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America, Special Paper, 46:1–153.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C., and Strimple, H. L. 1973. Lower Pennsylvanian (Morrowan) crinoids from Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 12, 60:1–84.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1961. Late Desmoinesian crinoid faunule from Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin, 93:1–189.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L. 1975. New Chesterian (Upper Mississippian) crinoids from Illinois. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 79:1–9.Google Scholar
Termier, G., and Termier, H. 1950. Paleontologie Marocaine II—Invertebres de L'ere Primaire, Fascicule IV—Annelides, Arthropodes, Echinodermes, Conularides et Graptolithes. Service des Mines et de la Carte Geologique du Maroc, Notes et Memoires, No. 79, p. 1–279 [Paris, Hermann & Cie Editeurs].Google Scholar
Thomas, W. A. 1972. Mississippian stratigraphy of Alabama. Alabama Geological Survey Monograph 12:1–121.Google Scholar
Van Sant, J. F. 1964. Crawfordsville crinoids, p. 34–136. In Van Sant, J. F. and Lane, N. G., Crawfordsville (Indiana) Crinoid Studies. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Echinodermata, Article 7, 136 p.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1880. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Pt. 1, The families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, Proceedings, 1879:226–378 (1-153).Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea, Pt. 3, sec. 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate crinoids, and conclusions of the generic descriptions. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, Proceedings, 1884:223–364 (1-162).Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., Horowitz, A. S., and Macurda, D. B. 1985. Ontogeny and phylogeny of the Carboniferous blastoid Pentremites . Journal of Paleontology, 59:701–712.Google Scholar
Worthen, A. H. 1882. Descriptions of fifty-four crinoids from the Lower Carboniferous and Coal Measures of Illinois and Iowa. Illinois State Museum of Natural History, Bulletin, 1(1):3–38.Google Scholar