Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: Thoroughly encrusted brachiopod from the Upper Ordovician of Indiana

March 30th, 2014

1 Rafinesquina ponderosa (Hall) ventralLast week was an intensely bored Upper Ordovician bryozoan, so it seems only fair to have a thoroughly encrusted Upper Ordovician brachiopod next. The above is, although you would hardly know it, the ventral valve exterior of a common strophomenid Rafinesquina ponderosa from the Whitewater Formation exposed just south of Richmond, Indiana (locality C/W-148). I collected it earlier this month on a trip with Coleman Fitch (’15).
2 Rafinesquina ponderosa (Hall) dorsalThis is the other side of the specimen. We are looking at the dorsal valve exterior. Enough of the brachiopod shows through the encrusters that we can identify it. Note that both valves are in place, so we say this brachiopod is articulated. Usually after death brachiopod valves become disarticulated, so the articulation here may indicate that the organism had been quickly buried. This brachiopod is concavo-convex, meaning that the exterior of the dorsal valve is concave and the exterior of the ventral valve is convex.
3 Protaraea 032314Returning to the ventral valve, this is a close-up of the encruster that takes up its entire exterior surface. It is the colonial heliolitid coral Protaraea richmondensis Foerste, 1909. (Note the species name and that it was collected just outside Richmond, Indiana.) This thin coral is a common encruster in the Upper Ordovician. Usually it is a smaller patch on a shell. This is the most developed I’ve seen the species. The holes, called corallites, held the individual polyps.
4 Bryo on Protaraea 032314The encrusting coral has an encruster on top of it. This is a trepostome bryozoan, which you can identify by the tiny little holes (zooecia) that held the individuals (zooids). The patch of coral it is occupying must have been dead when the bryozoan larva landed and began to bud.
5 Trepostome 032314Now we’re returning to the concave dorsal valve with its very different set of encrusters. This is a close-up of another kind of trepostome bryozoan, this one with protruding bumps called monticules. They may have functioned as “exhalant current chimneys”, meaning that they may have helped channel feeding currents away from the surface after they passed through the tentacular lophophores of the bryozoan zooids. For our purposes, this is a feature that distinguishes this bryozoan species from the one on the ventral valve.
6 Cuffeyella 032314There is a third, very different bryozoan on the dorsal valve. This blobby, ramifying form is a well-developed specimen of Cuffeyella arachnoidea (Hall, 1847). It is again a common encruster in the Upper Ordovician, but not usually so thick.
7 Cuffeyella on hinge 032314If we look closely at the hinge of the brachiopod on the dorsal side, we can see a much smaller C. arachnoidea spreading on the ventral valve.
8 Encrusted edge 032314Finally, this is a side view of the brachiopod with the ventral valve above and the dorsal valve below. We’re looking at the junction of the articulated valves, the commissure. For the entire extent of the commissure, the encrusting coral grows to the edge of the ventral valve and no further. This is a strong indication that the brachiopod was alive when the coral was growing on it. The brachiopod needed to keep that margin clear for its own feeding.

The paleoecological implications here are that the coral was alive at the same time as the brachiopod. This means that the convex exterior surface of the ventral valve was upwards for the living brachiopod. The concave exterior surface of the dorsal valve faced downwards. The coral and bryozoan encrusting the top of the living brachiopod were exposed to the open sea; the bryozoans encrusting the undersurface of the living brachiopod were encrusting a cryptic space. We are thus likely seeing the living relationships between the encrusters and the brachiopod — this encrustation took place during the life of the brachiopod.

Further, this demonstrates that this concavo-convex strophomenid brachiopod was living with the convex side up. This has been a controversy for decades in the rarefied world of brachiopod paleoecology. This tiny bit of evidence, combined with some thorough recent studies (see Dattilo et al., 2009; Plotnick et al., 2013), strengthens the case for a convex-up orientation. Back when I was a student these would be fighting words!

References:

Alexander, R.R. and Scharpf, C.D. 1990. Epizoans on Late Ordovician brachiopods from southeastern Indiana. Historical Biology 4: 179-202.

Dattilo, B.F., Meyer, D.L., Dewing, K. and Gaynor, M.R. 2009. Escape traces associated with Rafinesquina alternata, an Upper Ordovician strophomenid brachiopod from the Cincinnati Arch Region. Palaios 24: 578-590.

Foerste, A.F. 1909. Preliminary notes on Cincinnatian fossils. Denison University, Scientific Laboratories, Bulletin 14: 208-231.

Mõtus, M.-A. and Zaika, Y. 2012. The oldest heliolitids from the early Katian of the East Baltic region. GFF 134: 225-234.

Ospanova, N.K. 2010. Remarks on the classification system of the Heliolitida. Palaeoworld 19: 268–277.

Plotnick, R.E., Dattilo, B.F., Piquard, D., Bauer, J. and Corrie, J. 2013. The orientation of strophomenid brachiopods on soft substrates. Journal of Paleontology 87: 818-825.

Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: Intensely bored bryozoan from the Upper Ordovician of Kentucky

March 23rd, 2014

Bored Bryo 1 585Yes, yes, I’ve heard ALL the jokes about being bored, and even intensely bored. I learn to deal with it. This week we continue to highlight fossils collected during our productive expedition to the Upper Ordovician (Cincinnatian) of Indiana (with Coleman Fitch ’15) and Kentucky (with William Harrison ’15). Last week was Coleman’s turn; this week it is William’s.

The beautiful fan-like bifoliate (two-sided) trepostome bryozoan above was collected from the lower part of the Grant Lake Formation (“Bellevue Limestone”) at our locality C/W-152 along the Idlewild Bypass (KY-8) in Boone County, Kentucky (N 39.081120°, W 84.792434°). It is in the Maysvillian Stage and so below the Richmondian where Coleman is getting most of his specimens. I’ve labeled it to show: A, additional bryozoans encrusting this bryozoan; B, a very bored section; C, a less bored surface showing the original tiny zooecia, monticules, and a few larger borings.
Bored Bryo 2 585The other side of this bryozoan is more uniform. It has an even distribution of small borings and no encrusters. This likely means that at some point after the death of the bryozoan and subsequent bioerosion this side was placed down in the mud while the exposed opposite side was encrusted.
Encruster Bored Bryo 031314_585A closer view of the upwards-facing side (with the encrusting bryozoan at the top) shows just how intense the boring was prior to encrustation. Some of the borings are close to overlapping. The encrusting bryozoan has its own borings, but far fewer and significantly larger.
Close borings 031314_585In this close view of the downwards-facing side we see lots of the small borings. Some are star-shaped if they punched through the junction of multiple zooecia. Note that these borings are rather evenly spread and seem to have about the same external morphology and and erosion. Likely they were all produced about the same time. It must have been a crowded neighborhood when all those boring creatures were home.

The questions that are provoked by this specimen are: (1) Were there any borings produced while the host bryozoan was still alive? (We may find elements of bioclaustration with some holes); (2) Why are zones B and C in the top image so different in the amount of bioerosion? Could zone C have still been alive at the time and resisted most bioeroders? Maybe zone C was covered by sediment? (But the margin is very irregular); (3) Why are the later encrusting bryozoans (zone A) so much less bioeroded?; (4) How do we classify such tiny pits that are between microborings and macroborings in size? (Trypanites is becoming a very large category) (5) What kind of organism made so many small pits? Were they filter-feeders as we always say, or was something else going on? (Sectioning specimens like this may reveal some internal connections between the pits.)

William has plenty of fun work ahead of him!

References:

Boardman, R.S. and Utgaard, J. 1966. A revision of the Ordovician bryozoan genera Monticulipora, Peronopora, Heterotrypa, and Dekayia. Journal of Paleontology 40: 1082-1108

Bromley, R.G. 1972. On some ichnotaxa in hard substrates, with a redefinition of Trypanites Mägdefrau. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 46: 93–98.

Erickson, J.M. and Waugh, D.A. 2002. Colony morphologies and missed opportunities during the Cincinnatian (Late Ordovician) bryozoan radiation: examples from Heterotrypa frondosa and Monticulipora mammulata. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the International Bryozoology Association. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse; pp. 101-107..

Kobluk, D.R. and Nemcsok, S. 1982. The macroboring ichnofossil Trypanites in colonies of the Middle Ordovician bryozoan Prasopora: Population behaviour and reaction to environmental influences. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 19: 679-688.

Taylor, P.D. and Wilson. M.A. 2003. Palaeoecology and evolution of marine hard substrate communities. Earth-Science Reviews 62 (1-2): 1–103.

Vogel, K. 1993. Bioeroders in fossil reefs. Facies 28: 109-113.

Wilson, M.A. and Palmer, T.J. 2006. Patterns and processes in the Ordovician Bioerosion Revolution. Ichnos 13: 109–112.

Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: Bryozoan bored and bryozoan boring in the Upper Ordovician of Indiana

March 16th, 2014

Bored Bryo on Brach top 585This week and next we will highlight fossils collected during our brief and successful expedition to the Upper Ordovician (Cincinnatian) of Indiana (with Coleman Fitch ’15) and Kentucky (with William Harrison ’15). We found what we needed to pursue some very specific topics.

Above is a trepostome bryozoan collected from the Liberty Formation (we should be calling it the Dillsboro Formation in Indiana; our locality C/W-149) on IN-101 in southeastern Indiana (N 39.48134°, W84.94843°). You can see the regular network of tiny little holes representing the zooecia (zooid-bearing tubes) of the calcitic zoarium (colony) of the bryozoan. The larger, irregular holes (still pretty small!) are borings cut by worm-like organisms into the bryozoan skeleton shortly after the death of the colony.
Bored Bryo on Brach bottom 585Flipping the specimen over we see the most interesting parts. On the left is a remnant of the original calcitic strophomenid brachiopod shell that was encrusted by the trepostome bryozoan. On the right the shell has broken away, exposing the encrusting surface of the trepostome. We are thus looking here at the inside of a brachiopod valve and the underside of the bryozoan that encrusted it.

This is just what we hoped to find for Coleman’s project on interpreting half-borings in brachiopod shell exteriors. This specimen demonstrates two crucial events after encrustation: First, the borings in the bryozoan extended down to the brachiopod shell and turned sideways to mine along the shell/bryozoan junction (note half-borings in the bryozoan base on the right), and second, the bryozoan broke mostly free of the brachiopod shell, with only a bit remaining on the left. Somewhere there is or was a fragment of that brachiopod with an exterior showing half-borings and no bryozoan encrustation. Thus a brachiopod without bryozoan encrusters may have actually been encrusted at some point, but the bryozoans were later detached. We’ve added a bit to the uncertainty of the encrusting fossil record — even calcitic skeletal evidence on this small scale can go missing. We’ve also started on a good story about the behavior of the tiny critters that bored into this shelly complex.
Ctenostome closer 031314_585A bonus in this specimen can be seen in this closer view of that brachiopod shell interior above. That branching network is a complex ctenostome bryozoan boring called Ropalonaria. This is a particularly well developed specimen with thicker, shorter zooids than I’ve seen before. This kind of boring is the subject of a previous Fossil of the Week entry.

Coleman has a great start on his Independent Study project with specimens like these. He has a lot of sectioning and adequate peeling ahead of him!

References:

Brett, C.E., Smrecak, T., Parsons-Hubbard, K. and Walker, S. 2012. Marine sclerobiofacies: Encrusting and endolithic communities on shells through time and space. In: Talent, J.A. (ed.) Earth and Life, International Year of Planet Earth, p. 129-157. Springer.

Pohowsky, R.A. 1978. The boring ctenostomate Bryozoa: taxonomy and paleobiology based on cavities in calcareous substrata. Bulletins of American Paleontology 73(301): 192 p.

Smrecak, T.A. and Brett, C.E. 2008. Discerning patterns in epibiont distribution across a Late Ordovician (Cincinnatian) depth gradient. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 40:18.

Wilson, M.A., Dennison-Budak, C.W. and Bowen, J.C. 2006. Half-borings and missing encrusters on brachiopods in the Upper Ordovician: Implications for the paleoecological analysis of sclerobionts. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 38:514.

Ordovician bioclaustration project begins

March 10th, 2014

Bellevue outcrop 031014FLORENCE, KENTUCKY–Today it was William Harrison’s turn to collect specimens for his Independent Study project. He’ll be working a full year on what he’s putting in these bags before he turns in his thesis. William’s project is an interpretation of the processes that led to bioclaustration pits in Upper Ordovician bryozoans, along with larger questions of bioerosion of trepostome bryozoans. We found some gorgeous specimens at the outcrop above.

William is collecting from what used to be called the Bellevue Limestone, a Maysvillian unit between the Fairmount and Corryville Formations. Now it is best known as the lower part of the Grant Lake Formation. The rocks represent shallow water deposits, much like the Whitewater Formation Coleman was working in yesterday, so it is loaded with eroded and encrusted brachiopods and bryozoans. This is Locality C/W-152 in our system along the Idlewild Bypass (KY-8) in Boone County, Kentucky (N 39.081120°, W 84.792434°).

William 031014William was particularly adept at finding large bryozoan zoaria (colonies), most of which were riddled with borings. He is here holding a specimen that in life would have been erect on the sea floor like a fan with feeding zooids on each side. You may be able to make out the many little bumps or monticules on its surface.

Guess who our neighbor was during our exploration of this outcrop?

Creation Museum 031014Yes, the irony is deep. “Billions of dead things” indeed, Mr. Ham!

Later that day we collected a few bored and bioclaustrating bryozoans from an exposure of the Kope Formation at Orphanage Road to the east (N 39.02984°, W 84.54121°). We have plenty of specimens to keep both William and Coleman busy, and already some ideas for poster presentations.

Just to show the human effect of sampling and collecting, our first stop of the day was entirely unsuccessful. We visited one of my first localities, an exposure of the Kope Formation at the confluence of the Ohio River and Gunpowder Creek in Boone County, Kentucky (C/W-7; N 38.90428°, W 84.79779°). It was here in 1984 that my wife Gloria and I found hundreds of fantastic encrusted cobbles, many with gorgeous edrioasteroids and thick accumulations of bryozoans. These were for a very brief moment famous in the local collecting community. Within a few months they were all gone. William and I were there now 30 years later hoping a new cobble or two might have eroded out, but we found nothing. A future researcher would have no idea such cobbles were present, except for the one paper in the literature.

 

Ordovician bioerosion and encrustation project begins

March 9th, 2014

Coleman 030914RICHMOND, INDIANA–Meet Coleman Fitch (’15) standing on the iconic outcrop of the Whitewater Formation (Upper Ordovician) on Route 27 about a mile south of Richmond (C/W-148; N 39.78722°, W 84.90166° — which has a nice Google Maps street view). This was his first day of fieldwork for his study of the complex relationship between borings and encrusters on brachiopods and mollusks. Note that Coleman has manfully taken off one glove for fossil collection. Despite the sun, we were freezing for science. Later in the day we collected from a warmer exposure of the Liberty Formation (Locality C/W-149) on IN-101 (N 39.48134°, W84.94843°).

Our collecting was very successful today. We found numerous examples of “half-borings” on trepostome bryozoan attachment surfaces, and many other curious fossils showing an interplay of early diagenesis (especially aragonite dissolution and calcite precipitation) and biotic processes.

Richmond specimen 030914Above is an example of the fun and complex fossils at the Whitewater locality. What processes do you think this specimen represents?

Tomorrow I meet William Harrison (’15) in northern Kentucky to search for bored bryozoans and bioclaustrations. It promises to be much warmer down there!

Wooster paleontologists begin a new field season

March 8th, 2014

Southgate 030814RICHMOND, INDIANA–This is the first day of what upper midwesterners hilariously call “spring break”, so it is time to get some students in the field. I can’t say this is the first Wooster geology fieldwork of the year because that crazy Greg Wiles lab was out on the ice in deepest January. I spent today in eastern Indiana exploring field sites for a new generation of Independent Study students. Tomorrow and Monday Coleman Fitch (’15) and William Harrison (’15) will be joining me to collect specimens for their I.S. projects on Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician) fossils. We’ll highlight their work in the next couple of days.

Above is one of the best known fossil sites in southeastern Indiana. It is the Southgate Hill section (sometimes called the St. Leon roadcut) at N 39.33899°, W 84.95287°. Exposed here are (from bottom to top) the Oregonia, Waynesville, Liberty, Whitewater and Saluda units of the Cincinnatian Group. It is a rich site — and incredibly muddy today. I suppose I’ll take mud over ice. Note the blue sky. By the end of the day it was as gray as the rocks, making the search for tiny fossil details difficult. Tomorrow promises to be much sunnier. Brach Slab 030814The brachiopods at the Southgate exposure are incredibly abundant and well preserved. These are strophomenids. Crinoids Bryozoans 030814Bryozoans (the twiggy bits) and crinoids (the circular fossils with star-shaped central holes). Can’t go wrong with this combination. More tomorrow and Monday as Coleman and William get to work. Meanwhile I’m wondering how I managed to get a motel room right next to an active railway …

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: Bioclaustration-boring structures in bryozoans from the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati region

February 9th, 2014

Chimneys 149aAnother bioerosion mystery from those fascinating Upper Ordovician rocks around Cincinnati. Above you see a flat, bifoliate trepostome bryozoan (probably Peronopora) with pock holes scattered across its surface. At first you may think, after reading so many blog posts here, that these are again the simple cylindrical boring Trypanites, but then you note that they are shallow and have raised rims so that they look like little meteorite craters. These holes thus represent tiny organisms on the bryozoan surface while it was alive. The bryozoan grew around these infesters, producing the reaction tissue of the rims. This is a kind of preservation called bioclaustration (literally, “walled-in life” from the same root in claustrophobia and cloisters). The specimen is from locality C/W-149 (Liberty Formation near Brookville, Franklin County, Indiana; 39º 28.847′ N, 84º 56.941′ W).
Chimneys 153aThis is another trepostome bryozoan with these rimmed pits. It is from locality C/W-153 (Bull Fork Formation near Maysville, Mason County, Kentucky; 38º 35.111′ N, 083º 42.094′ W). The pits are more numerous and have more pronounced reaction rims.
Chimneys 153bA closer view. One of the interesting questions is whether these pits are also borings. Did they cut down into the bryozoan skeleton at the same time it was growing up around them? We should be able to answer that by making a cross-section through the pits to see what their bases look like. The bryozoan walls should be either cut or entire.
Chimneys 153cThis is an older image I made back in the days of film to show the density of the rimmed pits in the same bryozoan as above. If we assume that the pit-maker was a filter-feeding organism, how did it affect the nutrient intake of the host bryozoan? Maybe the infester had a larger feeding apparatus and took a larger size fraction of the suspended food? (This could be a project where we apply aerosol filtration theory.)  Maybe the bryozoan suffered from a cut in its usual supply of food and had a stunted colony as a result? These are questions my students and I plan to pursue this summer and next year.

It is good to get back to the glorious Cincinnatian!

References:

Ernst, A., Taylor, P.D. and Bohatý, J. 2014. A new Middle Devonian cystoporate bryozoan from Germany containing a
new symbiont bioclaustration. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59: 173–183.

Kammer, T.W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Paleontology 59: 551-560.

Palmer, T.J. and Wilson, M.A. 1988. Parasitism of Ordovician bryozoans and the origin of pseudoborings. Palaeontology 31: 939-949.

Rubinstein, D.I. and Koehl, M.A.R. 1977. The mechanisms of filter feeding: some theoretical considerations. American Naturalist 111: 981-994.

Tapanila, L. 2005. Palaeoecology and diversity of endosymbionts in Palaeozoic marine invertebrates: trace fossil evidence. Lethaia 38: 89-99.

Taylor, P.D. and Voigt, E. 2006. Symbiont bioclaustrations in Cretaceous cyclostome bryozoans. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 257: 131-136.

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: Mysterious borings in brachiopods from the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati region

February 2nd, 2014

Half borings 152a1Above is a well-used brachiopod from the Upper Ordovician of northern Kentucky (C/W-152; Petersburg-Bullittsville Road, Boone County; Bellevue Member of the Grant Lake Formation). It experienced several events on the ancient seafloor during its short time of exposure. Let’s put a few labels on it and discuss:

Half borings 152a2Our main topic will be those strange ditch-like borings (A) cut across into the exterior of this brachiopod shell. This is an example of bioerosion, or the removal of hard substrate (the calcitic shell in this case) by organisms. These structures were likely created by worm-like filter-feeders. The shell also has a nice trepostome bryozoan (B) encrusting it (and partially overlapping the borings) and the heliolitid coral Protaraea richmondensis (C), which is distinguished by tiny star-like corallites. The borings are what we need to make sense of in this tableau. Here’s another set on another brachiopod:

Half borings 152bThis closer view of a brachiopod shell exterior from the same locality shows two of these horizontal borings. The mystery is why we see only half of the boring. These are apparently cylindrical borings of the Trypanites variety, but they should be enclosed on all sides as tubes. Why is half missing? It is as if the roofs have been removed. I think that is just what happened.

Half borings 152cThis encrusted and bored brachiopod, again from the same locality, gives us clues as to what likely happened. Here we see an encrusting bryozoan and those borings together. The borings cut through the bryozoan down into the brachiopod shell. Could it be that encrusting bryozoans provided the other half of the borings?

BoringXsectHere’s a test of that idea. Above is a cross-section through the boundary between an encrusting bryozoan (above) and a brachiopod shell (below). It was made by cutting through the specimen, polishing it, and then making an acetate peel. The bryozoan shows the modular nature of its colonial skeleton, and the brachiopod displays its laminar shell structure. The two round features are sediment-filled borings running perpendicular to the plane of the section. The boring on the left is completely within the brachiopod shell; the one on the right is cut along the interface of the bryozoan and brachioopod. Remove the bryozoan and we would have a half-boring as discussed above.

Half borings 152eIf that postulate is true, it means that the encrusting byozoans must have been removed from the brachiopod shells, taking the other halves of the borings with them. We should thus find bryozoans that “popped” off the shells with the equivalent half-borings on their undersides. You know where this is going. The bryozoan above (same locality) shows its upper surface. Note that there are a scattering of tiny borings punched into it.

Half borings 152fThis is the underside of the bryozoan. We are looking at its flat attachment surface. It was fixed to a shell of some kind (I can’t tell what type) and became detached from it. You see the half-borings along with vertical borings drilled parallel to the attachment surface. It appears that small organisms drilled into the bryozoan zoarium (colonial skeleton) on its upper surface, penetrated down to the boundary with the brachiopod shell, and then turned 90° and excavated along the boundary between brachiopod and bryozoan. This makes sense if they were creating a dwelling tube (Domichnia) that they would want surrounded by shell. Punching straight through the bryozoan and brachiopod would leave them in a tube without a base. What would this look like from the inside of the brachiopod shell?

Half borings 152dThis time we’re looking at the interior of a brachiopod shell (same location) that has been exfoliated (some shell layers have been removed). The horizontal borings are visible running parallel to the shell.

Horizontal in bivalveThis view of an encrusted bivalve shell may help with the concept. In the top half you see an encrusting bryozoan. In the bottom you see bivalve shell exposed where the bryozoan has been broken away. Cutting into that shell are the horizontal borings. Their “roofs” were in the now-missing parts of the bryozoan.

There are two conclusions from this hypothesis: (1) There was a group of borers who drilled to this interface between bryozoan and brachiopod skeleton, detected the difference in skeleton type, and then drilled horizontally to maintain the integrity of their tubes; (2) the bryozoans were cemented to the brachiopods firmly enough that the borers could mine along the interface, but later some bryozoan encrusters were removed, leaving no trace of their attachment save the half-bored brachiopod shell. This latter conclusion is disturbing. A tacit assumption of workers on the sclerobionts (hard-substrate dwellers) of brachiopods and other calcitic skeletons is that the calcitic bryozoans cemented onto them so firmly that they could not be dislodged. We could thus record how many shells are encrusted and not encrusted to derive paleoecological data about exposure time, shell orientations and the like. But if the robust bryozoans could just come off, maybe that data must be treated with more caution? After all, bryozoans that were removed from unbored brachiopods could leave no trace at all of their former residence.

Two students and I presented these ideas at a Geological Society of America meeting eight years ago (Wilson et al., 2006), but we never returned to the questions for a full study. Now a new generation of students and I have started a project on this particular phenomenon of sclerobiology. It will involve collecting more examples and carefully dissecting them to plot out the relationship between the borings and their skeletal substrates. We also want to assess the impact these observations may have on encruster studies. Watch this space a year from now!

References:

Brett, C.E., Smrecak, T., Hubbard, K.P. and Walker, S. 2012. Marine sclerobiofacies: Encrusting and endolithic communities on shells through time and space, p. 129-157. In: Talent, J.A. (ed.), Earth and Life; Springer Netherlands.

Smrecak, T.A. and Brett, C.E. 2008. Discerning patterns in epibiont distribution across a Late Ordovician (Cincinnatian) depth gradient. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 40:18.

Wilson, M.A., Dennison-Budak, C.W. and Bowen, J.C. 2006. Half-borings and missing encrusters on brachiopods in the Upper Ordovician: Implications for the paleoecological analysis of sclerobionts. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 38:514.

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: Rugose corals from the Upper Ordovician of Ohio

December 22nd, 2013

585px-LibertyFormationSlab092313College of Wooster student Willy Nelson spotted and collected up this beautiful Liberty Formation slab on our 2013 Invertebrate Paleontology course field trip to the Upper Ordovician of the Caesar Creek area in southern Ohio. There are many exquisite fossils on this apparent carbonate hardground (a cemented seafloor), the most prominent of which are the four linked circular corallites in the top center. They are of the species Streptelasma divaricans (Nicholson, 1875), shown in more detail below.

Streptelasma divaricans (Nicholson, 1875) 585Streptelasma divaricans is a rugose coral, a prominent order that dominated the Paleozoic coral world from the Ordovician into the Permian. Unlike most rugose corals, it usually is found attached to some hard surface like a shell, rock or hardground. S. divaricans is relatively rare in the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati area compared to its free-living cousin Grewingkia canadensis. In its adult form (as seen here) it can have about 60 septa (vertical partitions radiating from the center), alternating from small to large and often with a twist at the center. In life there would have been a tentacle-bearing polyp sitting in each of these septate cups (corallites) catching tiny prey as it passed by in the water currents. We presume that they lived much like modern corals today. S. divaricans was, by the way, an invading species in this Late Ordovician shallow sea community.

Streptelasma divaricans was named as Palaeophyllum divaricans in 1875 by Henry Alleyne Nicholson (1844-1899). We met Dr. Nicholson in an earlier blogpost. Astonishingly, one of our  geology majors in the paleontology course this semester is Brittany Nicholson, a direct descendant. Way cool.
WillyBrachiopodLepidocyclusperlamellosus092313Another nice fossil on Willy’s slab (in the upper right) is the rhynchonellid brachiopod Lepidocyclus perlamellosus, shown closer above.
WillyBivalve092313The curved, indented line in the middle of the slab (shown above) appears to be the outline of a bivalve shell. The original shell was made of aragonite and thus dissolved away very early (possibly even on the seafloor before burial). There is not enough shape remaining to identify it. The twig-like fossil with tiny holes above the scale is, of course, a trepostome bryozoan. You didn’t need me to tell you that!

References:

Elias, R.J. 1983. Middle and Upper Ordovician solitary rugose corals of the Cincinnati Arch region. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1066-N: 1-13.

Elias, R.J. 1989. Extinctions and origins of solitary rugose corals, latest Ordovician to earliest Silurian in North America. Fossil Cnidaria 5: 319-326.

Nicholson, H.A. 1875. Description of the corals of the Silurian and Devonian systems. Ohio Geological Survey Report, v. 2, part 2, p. 181-242.

Patzkowsky, M.E. and Holland, S.M. 2007. Diversity partitioning of a Late Ordovician marine biotic invasion: controls on diversity in regional ecosystems. Paleobiology 33: 295-309.

Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: A trepostome bryozoan from the Upper Ordovician of northern Kentucky

December 15th, 2013

Heterotrypa Corryville 585First, what U.S. state does this delicious little bryozoan resemble? It’s so close I can even pick out Green Bay. This is Heterotrypa frondosa (d’Orbigny, 1850), a trepostome bryozoan from the Corryville Formation (Upper Ordovician) in Covington, Kentucky. I collected it decades ago while exploring field trip sites for future classes. This zoarium (the name for a bryozoan colony’s skeleton) is flattened like a double-sided leaf, hence the specific name referring to a frond. In the view above you can see a series of evenly spaced bumps across the surface termed monticules. A closer view is below.
Heterotrypa closer 585The monticules are composed of zooecia (the skeletal tubes for the individual bryozoan zooids) with slightly thickened walls standing up above the background of regular zooecia. The hypothesized function of these monticules was to make the filter-feeding of the colony more efficient by utilizing passive flow to produce currents and whisk away excurrents from the lophophores (feeding tentacles) like little chimneys. In 1850, Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d’Orbigny (French, of course) originally named this species Monticulipora frondosa because of the characteristic bumps.
Boring in Heterotrypa 585If you look closely at the zoarium you will see holes cut into it that are larger than the zooecia. A closer view of one is shown above. These are borings called Trypanites, which have appeared in this blog many times. They were cut by some worm-like organism, possibly a filter-feeding polychaete, that was taking advantage of the bryozoan skeleton to make its own home. It would have extended some sort of filtering apparatus outside of the hole and captured organic particles flowing by. It was a parasite in the sense that it is taking up real estate in the bryozoan skeleton that would have been occupied by feeding zooids. It may not have been feeding on the same organic material, though, as the bryozoan. It may have been consuming a larger size fraction than the bryozoan zooids could handle.

References:

Boardman, R.S. and Utgaard, J. 1966. A revision of the Ordovician bryozoan genera Monticulipora, Peronopora, Heterotrypa, and Dekayia. Journal of Paleontology 40: 1082-1108

d’Orbigny, A. D. 1850. Prodro/ne de Paleontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques & rayonnes faisant suite au cours elementaire de Paleontologie et de Geologic stratigraphiques, vol. 2. 427 pp. Masson, Paris.

Erickson, J.M. and Waugh, D.A. 2002. Colony morphologies and missed opportunities during the Cincinnatian (Late Ordovician) bryozoan radiation: examples from Heterotrypa frondosa and Monticulipora mammulata. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the International Bryozoology Association. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse; pp. 101-107..

Kobluk, D.R. and Nemcsok, S. 1982. The macroboring ichnofossil Trypanites in colonies of the Middle Ordovician bryozoan Prasopora: Population behaviour and reaction to environmental influences. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 19: 679-688.

« Prev - Next »