Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T16:56:25.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Size, shape, and systematics of the Silurian trilobite Aulacopleura koninckii

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Paul S. Hong ,
Nigel C. Hughes  and
H. David Sheets
Paul S. Hong
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 151–747, Korea,
Nigel C. Hughes
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA,
H. David Sheets
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Canisius College, 2001 Main St, Buffalo, NY 14208, USA,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new dataset of the highest quality specimens of fully articulated, juvenile and mature exoskeletons of the Czech middle Silurian trilobite Aulacopleura koninckii offers improved resolution of original morphology by all measures considered. The degree of variation in both size and shape among later meraspid instars was constant, and suggesting targeted growth in both attributes. Size-related changes in the shape of the dorsal exoskeleton and of the segment-invariant cephalon were detected in the meraspid stage, but in the holaspid phase marked allometry was detected only in the trunk region, with the pygidium showing notable expansion in relative size. Meraspid cranidial allometry was subtle, with significant changes in instar form detectable only after several molts. This trilobite developed gradually throughout meraspid and holaspid ontogeny, with the synchronous cessation of trunk segment appearance and release at the onset of the holaspid phase. Precise development of shape and size occurs in the context of marked variability in the number of trunk segments at maturity, illustrating complex patterns of character variation within a species. A new systematic description establishes the synonymy of several subspecies with A. koninckii.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 88 , Issue 6 , November 2014 , pp. 1120 - 1138
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

Adrain, J. M. 2011. Class Trilobita Walch, 1771, p. 104–109. In Zhang, Z.-Q. (ed.), Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher-level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness. Zootaxa Monograph 3148.Google Scholar
Adrain, J. M. and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1993. A new rorringtoniid trilobite from the Ludlow of Artic Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 30:1634–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adrain, J. M. and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1995. Aulacopleurine trilobites from the Llandovery of northwestern Canada. Journal of Paleontology, 69:326–340.Google Scholar
Angelin, N. P. 1854. Palaeontologia Scandinavica. Pars 1: Crustacea Formations Transitionis. Fascicle 2: Palaeontologia Scandinavica. Berlingianis, Lund, 72 p.Google Scholar
Barrande, J. 1846a. Notice Préliminaire sur le Système Silurien et les Trilobites de Bohême. Hirschfield, Leipzig, 96 p.Google Scholar
Barrande, J. 1846b. Nouveaux Trilobites Supplément à la Notice Préliminaire sur le Système Silurien et les Trilobites de Bohême. Calve, Prague, 40 p.Google Scholar
Barrande, J. 1852. Système Silurien du Centre de la Bohême. I. Recherches Paléontologiques, vol. 1 (Crustacés: Trilobites). Prague and Paris, 935 p.Google Scholar
Bergeron, M. J. 1890. Sur la présence, dans le Languedoc, de certaines espèces de l'étage e1 du Silurien supérieur de Bohême. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, Troisième Série, 18:171–174.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Zambito, J. J., Hunda, B. R., and Schindler, E. 2012. Mid-Paleozoic trilobite lagerstätten: models of diagenetically enhanced obrution deposits. PALAIOS, 27:326–345.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E. 1980. Ontogenetic studies of middle Ordovician trilobites from the Esbataottine Formation, Mackenzie Mountains, Canada. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 171:1–74.Google Scholar
Chaubet, M.-C. 1937. Contribution á l'étude géologique du Gothlandien du versant méridional de la Montagne Noire. Travaux du Laboratoire de Géologie de la Faculté des Sciences de Montpellier, Mémoire, 1:1–224.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D. and Sherwin, L. 2001. Early Silurian (Llandovery) trilobites from the Cotton Formation, near Forbes, New South Wales, Australia. Alcheringa, 25:87–105.Google Scholar
Fatka, O. and Mergl, M. 2009. The 'microcontinent' Perunica: status and story 15 years after conception, p. 65–101. In Bassett, M. G. (ed.), Early Palaeozoic Peri-Gondwana Terranes: New Insights from Tectonics and Biogeography. Geological Society, London, Special Publication 325.Google Scholar
Frech, G. 1887. Über das Devon der Ostalpen nebst Bemerkungen über das Silur und einem paläontologischen Anhang. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 39:659–738.Google Scholar
Fusco, G., Hughes, N. C., Webster, M., and Minelli, A. 2004. Exploring developmental modes in a fossil arthropod: growth and trunk segmentation of the trilobite Aulacopleura konincki . American Naturalist, 163:167–183.Google Scholar
Fusco, G., Hong, P. S., and Hughes, N. C. 2014. Positional specification in the segmental growth pattern of an early arthropod. Proceeding of the Royal Society, Series B, 281 (1781):20133037.Google Scholar
Gärtner, H. R. 1930. Silurische und teifunterdevonische Trilobiten und Brachiopoden aus den Karnischen Alpen. Jahrbuch der Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt zu Berlin, 51:188–252.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø. and Harper, D. A. T. 2006. Paleontological Data Analysis. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, 351 p.Google Scholar
Hawle, I. and Corda, A. J. C. 1847. Prodrom einer Monographie der böhmischen Trilobiten. Abhandlungen der Königlichen böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 5:1–176.Google Scholar
Hernández Sampelayo, P. 1942. Explicación del nuevo mapa geológico de España. Tomo II. El Sistema Siluriano. Memorias del Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, 45:1–848.Google Scholar
Hertisch, F. 1929. Faunen aus dem Silur der Ostalpen. Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundersanstalt, 23:1–183.Google Scholar
Horný, R. and Bastl, F. 1970. Type specimens of fossils in the National Museum, Prague. Volume 1, Trilobita. Museum of Natural History, Prague, 354 p.Google Scholar
Horný, R., Prantl, F., and Vaněk, J. 1958. K otázce hranice mezi wenlockem a ludlowem v Barrandienu. Sborník Ústředního ústavu geologického, 24:217–278.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. 1999. Statistical and imaging methods applied to deformed fossils, p. 127–155. In Harper, D. A. T. (ed.), Numerical Palaeobiology. John Wiley, London.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. 2003a. Trilobite tagmosis and body patterning from morphological and developmental perspectives. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43:185–206.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. 2003b. Trilobite body patterning and the evolution of arthropod tagmosis. BioEssays, 25:386–395.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. 2005. Trilobite reconstruction: building a bridge across the micro- and macroevolutionary divide. p. 139–158. In Briggs, D. E. G. (ed.), Evolving Form and Function: Fossils and Development: Proceedings of a Symposium Honoring Adolf Seilacher for his Contributions to Paleontology, in Celebration of his 80th Birthday. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale Univeristy, New Haven.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. 2007. The evolution of trilobite body patterning. Annual Reviews in Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35:401–434.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. and Chapman, R. E. 1995. Growth and variation in the Silurian proetide trilobite Aulacopleura konincki and its implications for trilobite palaeobiology. Lethaia, 28:333–353.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. and Chapman, R. E. 2001. Morphometry and phylogeny in the resolution of paleobiological problems–unlocking the evolutionary significance of an assemblage of Silurian trilobites, p. 29–54. In Adrain, J. M., Edgecombe, G. D., and Lieberman, B. S. (eds.), Fossils, Phylogeny, and Form. Topics in Geobiology 19.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C., Chapman, R. E., and Adrain, J. M. 1999. The stability of thoracic segmentation in trilobites: a case study in developmental and ecological constraints. Evolution and Development, 1:24–35.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C., Haug, J. T., and Waloszek, D. 2008. Basal euarthropod development: a fossil-based perspective, p. 281–298. In Minelli, A. and Fusco, G. (eds.), Evolving Pathways: Key Themes in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. and Jell, P. A. 1992. A statistical/computer-graphic technique for assessing variation in tectonically deformed fossils and its application to Cambrian trilobites from Kashmir. Lethaia, 25:317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, N. C., Kříž, J., Macquaker, J. H. S., and Huff, W. D. 2014. The depositional environment and taphonomy of the Homerian “Aulacopleura shales” fossil assemblage near Loděnice, Czech Republic (Prague Basin, Perunican microcontinent). Bulletin of Geosciences, 89:219–238.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C., Minelli, A., and Fusco, G. 2006. The ontogeny of trilobite segmentation: a comparative approach. Paleobiology, 32:602–627.Google Scholar
Jell, P. A. and Adrain, J. M. 2003. Available generic names for trilobites. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 48:331–553.Google Scholar
Katzer, F. 1895. Beiträge zur Palaeontologie des älteren Palaeozoicums in Mittelböhmen. Sitzungsberichte der Königl, Böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 14:1–17.Google Scholar
Kegel, W. 1928. Über obersilurische Trilobiten aus dem Harz und dem Rheinischen Schiefergebirge. Jahrbuch der Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt zu Berlin, 48:616–647.Google Scholar
Kříž, J. 1992. Silurian Field Excursions: Prague Basin (Barrandian), Bohemia. National Museum of Wales, Geological Series, 13, 111 p.Google Scholar
Kříž, J. 1999. Silurian and lowermost Devonian bivalves of Bohemian type from the Carnic Alps. Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, 56:259–316.Google Scholar
Kříž, J., Dufka, P., Jaeger, H., and Schönlaub, H. P. 1993. The Wenlock/Ludlow boundary in the Prague Basin (Bohemia). Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, 136:809–839.Google Scholar
Lecointre, G. 1926. Rechereches géologiques dans la Meseta Marocaine. Mémoires de la Société des sciences naturelles du Maroc, 14:1–151.Google Scholar
Lu, Y.-H. 1975. Ordovician trilobite faunas of central and southwestern China. Palaeontologia Sinica, New Series B, 11:1–463.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, R. and Tripp, R. P. 1990. Silurian trilobites from the northern Yukon Territory. Royal Ontario Museum, Life Sciences Contributions, 153:1–59.Google Scholar
Marr, J. E. 1913. The lower Palaeozoic rocks of the Cautley District (Yorkshire). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 69:1–18.Google Scholar
Morris, S. F. and Tripp, R. P. 1986. Lectotype selections for Ordovician trilobites from the Girvan District, Strathclyde. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology, 40:161–196.Google Scholar
Owens, R. M. and Hammann, W. 1990. Proetide trilobites from the Cystoid Limestone (Ashgill) of NW Spain, and the supragenic classification of related forms. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 64:221–244.Google Scholar
Poulsen, C. 1934. The Silurian faunas of North Greenland, 1. The fauna of the Cape Schuchert Formation. Meddelelser om Gr⊘nland, 72:1–46.Google Scholar
Prantl, F. and Přibyl, A. 1950. Revise čeledi Otarionidae R. a E. Richter z českého siluru a devonu (Trilobitae). Zvláštní ostisk ve Sborníku státního geologického ústavu Československé republiky, 17:353–512.Google Scholar
Přibyl, A. 1947. Aulacopleura and the Otarionidae. Journal of Paleontology, 21:537–545.Google Scholar
Přibyl, A. and Vaněk, J. 1981. Studie zur Morphologie und Phylogenie der Familie Otarionidae R. U. E. Richter, 1926 (Trilobita). Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 173:160–208.Google Scholar
Přibyl, A., Vaněk, J., and Hörbinger, F. 1985. New taxa of Proetacea (Trilobita) from the Silurian and Devonian of Bohemia. Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii, 30:237–251.Google Scholar
Reed, F. R. C. 1904. The Lower Palaeozoic Trilobites of the Girvan District, Ayrshire. Part II. Palaeontological Society Monograph, 47 p.Google Scholar
Rickards, R. B. 1967. The Wenlock and Ludlow succession in the Howgill Fells (north-west Yorkshire and Westmoreland). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Soceity of London, 69:1–18.Google Scholar
Santel, W. 2001. Trilobiten aus dem Silur der Karnischen Alpen/Österreich Teil I. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 262:87–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindewolf, O. H. 1924. Vorläufige Übersicht über die Obersilur-Fauna des “Elbersreuther Orthoceratitekalkes,” 1. Allgemeine Vorbemerkungen und Trilobitenfauna. Senckenbergiana, 6:187–221.Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M. 1975. New Trilobita from the Llandovery at Hýskov in the Beroun area, central Bohemia. Věstník Ústředního ústavu geologického, 50:311–316.Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M. 1978. The Llandoverian trilobites from Hýskov (Barrandian area). Sborník geologických veěd, Paleontologie, 21:7–45.Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M. 1990. Bohemian Trilobites. Geological Survey, Prague, 265 p.Google Scholar
Štorch, P. 2006. Facies development, depositional settings and sequence stratigraphy across the Ordovician–Silurian boundary; a new perspective from the Barrandian area of the Czech Republic. Geological Journal, 41:163–192.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. T. 1978. British Wenlock Trilobites Part 1. Palaeontographical Society Monographs, 552, 56 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. T. and Owens, R. M. 1978. A review of the trilobite family Aulacopleuridae. Palaeontology, 21:65–81.Google Scholar
Tomczykowa, E. 1957. Trylobity z łupków graptolitowych wenloku i dolnego ludlowu Gór Świętokrzyskich. Biuletyn Instytutu Geologicznego, 122:83–114.Google Scholar
Törnquist, S. L. 1884. Undersökningar öfver Siljansomradets trilobitfauna. Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning (Serie C), 66:1–101.Google Scholar
Wang, Q.-Z. 1989. Early Silurian trilobites from Wulong, southeastern Sichuan (China). Journal of Hebei College of Geology, 12:422–440.Google Scholar
Webster, M. 2011. The structure of cranidial shape variation in three early ptychoparioid trilobite species from the Dyeran–Delamaran (traditional “lower–middle” Cambrian) boundary interval of Nevada, U.S.A. Journal of Paleontology, 85:179–225.Google Scholar
Yuan, W.-W., Li, L.-Z., Zhou, Z.-Y., and Zhang, C.-S. 2001. Ontogeny of the Silurian trilobite Aulacopleura (Aulacopleura) wulongensis Wang of western Hubei and its implications for the phylogeny of the Aulacopleurinae. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 40:388–398.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L. 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Academic Press, San Diego, 443 p.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hong et al. supplementary material

Hong et al. supplementary material

Download Hong et al. supplementary material(File)
File 6.3 MB