Paleontological Journal

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 255–275 | Cite as

Revision of Scoliocystis (Rhombifera: Echinoencrinitidae) and related cystoid genera

Article

Abstract

Species attributed to Scoliocystis Jaekel, 1899, including the type species S. pumila (Eichwald, 1860) and S. thersites Jaekel, 1899 from the Ordovician of the Leningrad Region, are reviewed. Scoliocystis sp. from the Upper Ordovician of Estonia, figured by Hecker (1964), is redescribed as Maennilocystis heckeri gen. et sp. nov. and it is attributed to the family Callocystitidae Bernard, 1895. The genus Scoliocystis is intermediate between the families Cheirocrinidae and Echinoencrinitidae in having five periproct border plates (as in cheirocrinids), but lacking plate R5 and having a reduced oral area, as in echinoencrinitids, but is retained in the Echinoencrinitidae. The similarity of Scoliocystis to the unusual North American cheirocrinid genus Sprinkleocystis is convergent. The genus Gonocrinites Eichwald, 1840, with two species, is restored among echinoencrinitids, as having four periproct border plates, whereas Echinoencrinites sensu stricto has three. The families Echinoencrinitidae and Callocystitidae arose from cheirocrinids with closed plate circlets by the loss of plate R5 and substitution of radial:lateral for radial:radial pectinirhombs. In addition, echinoencrinitids are characterized by a reduced oral area, whereas in callocystitids, the recumbent ambulacra are extensive. Scoliocystis is a stem-group genus to Echinoencrinitidae plus Callocystitidae. Several glyptocystitoid genera independently developed advanced pectinirhombs.

Keywords

Scoliocystis Maennilocystis heckeri gen. et sp. nov. Sprinkleocystis Echinoencrinitidae Callocystitidae Cheirocrinidae pectinirhombs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ausich, W.I. and Schumacher, G.A., New Lower Silurian rhombiferan cystoid (Echinodermata, Callocystitidae) from southwestern Ohio, J. Paleontol., 1984, vol. 58, pp. 9–15.Google Scholar
  2. Barrande, J., Systême Silurien du Centre de la Bohème. Première Partie: Recherches Paléontologiques, vol. 3: Classe des Mollusques. Ordre des Ptéropodes, Prague: W. Waagen, 1867.Google Scholar
  3. Barrande, J., Systême Silurien du Centre de la Bohème. Première Partie: Recherches Paléontologiques, vol. 7: Classe des Echinodermes. Ordre des Cystidées, Prague: W Waagen, 1887.Google Scholar
  4. Bassler, R.S. and Moodey, M.W., Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap., 1943, no. 45, pp. 1–733.Google Scholar
  5. Bather, F.A., A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa, Rep. Brit. Ass. Advance. Sci., 1899, vol. 68, pp. 916–923.Google Scholar
  6. Bernard, F., Eléments de Paléontologie, Paris: J.-B. Ballière et Fils, 1893–1895.Google Scholar
  7. Bockelie, J.F., The oral area of Echinoencrinites von Meyer. 1826, Norsk Geol. Tidsskr., 1981, vol. 61, pp. 79–82.Google Scholar
  8. Broadhead, T.W. and Strimple, H.L., Systematics and distribution of the Callocystitidae (Echinodermata, Rhombifera), J. Paleontol., 1978, vol. 52, pp. 164–177.Google Scholar
  9. Broadhead, T.W. and Sumrall, C.D., Heterochrony and paedomorphic morphology of Sprinkleocystis ektopios, new genus and species (Rhombifera, Glyptocystida[sic]) from the Middle Ordovician (Caradoc) of Tennessee, J. Paleontol., 2003, vol. 77, pp. 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callaway, C., On a new area of Upper Cambrian rocks in south Shropshire, with a description of a new fauna, Quart. J. Geol. Soc., Lond., 1877, vol. 33, pp. 652–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter, P.H., Report upon the Crinoidea collected during the voyage of HMS Challenger during the years 1873–76: Part 1. General morphology with descriptions of the stalked crinoids, Rep. Sci. Res. Voy. HMS Challeng., Zool., 1884, vol. 11, pp. 1–442.Google Scholar
  12. Carpenter, P.H., On certain points of the morphology of the Cystidea, J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), 1891, vol. 34, pp. 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dronov, A. and Rozhnov, S., Climatic changes in the Baltoscandian Basin during the Ordovician: Sedimentological and palaeontological aspects, Acta Palaeontol. Sin., 2007, vol. 46, suppl. no., pp. 108–113.Google Scholar
  14. Ehlers, G.M. and Leighley, J.B., Lipsanocystis traversensis, a new cystid from the Devonian of Michigan, Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. Arts Lett., 1922, vol. 2, pp. 155–160.Google Scholar
  15. Eichwald, E., Sur la système Silurien d l’Esthonie, J. Méd. Hist. Nat. Acad. Méd. St Petersburg, 1840, vol. 1, pp. 1–222.Google Scholar
  16. Eichwald, E., Beitrag zur geographischen Verbreitung der fossilien Thiere Russlands: Alte Periode, Bull. Soc. Imp. Natur. Moscou, 1856, vol. 29, pp. 88–127.Google Scholar
  17. Eichwald, E., Lethaea Rossica ou Paléontologie de la Russie: Ancienne Période: Atlas, Text, Stuttgart: Schweizerbart, 1859–1860.Google Scholar
  18. Foerste, A.F., Notes on Agelacrinidae and Lepadocystinae with descriptions of Thresherodiscus and Brockocystis, Bull. Sci. Labs. Denison Univ., 1914, vol. 17, pp. 399–487.Google Scholar
  19. Forbes, E., On the Cystideae of the Silurian rocks of the British Isles, Mem. Geol. Sur. UK, 1848, vol. 2, part 2, pp. 483–538.Google Scholar
  20. Haeckel, E.H.P.A., Amphorideen und Cystoideen. Beiträge zur Morphologie und Phylogenie der Echinodermen In: Festschrift zum Siebenzigsten Geburtstage von Carl Gegenbauer am 21 August 1896. 1896, Erster Band, W. Engelmann, Leipzig, pp. 1–180.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, J., The Natural History of New York: Part 6. Palaeontology of New York, 1852, vol. 2 (containing descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower Middle Division of the New-York System), Albany, New York: D. Appleton, and Wiley and Putnam.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, J., The Natural History of New York: Part 6. Palaeontology of New York, 1859, vol. 3 (Descriptions of the organic remains of the lower Helderberg group and the Oriskany sandstone), Albany, New York: D. Appleton, and Wiley and Putnam.Google Scholar
  23. Hecker, R.F., Class Cystoidea, Osnovy paleontologii. Iglokozhie, gemikhordovye, pogonofory i shchetinkochelyustnye, Hecker, R.F., Ed., Moscow: Nedra, 1964, pp. 30–45.Google Scholar
  24. Hisinger, W., Anteckningar I Physik och Geognosi under resor uti Sverige och Norrige, Stockholm, 1828, vol. 4.Google Scholar
  25. Jaekel, O., Über die Organization der Cystoideen, Deutsche Zoologische Geselschaft Verhandlungen auf der fünften jahresversammlung zu Strassburg, 1895, vol. 5, pp. 109–121.Google Scholar
  26. Jaekel, O., Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen: 1. Thecoidea und Cystoidea, Berlin: Julius Springer, 1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jell, P., Early Devonian echinoderms from Victoria (Rhombifera, Blastoidea and Ophiocistioidea), Mem. Assoc. Austral. Palaeontol., 1983, vol. 1, pp. 209–235.Google Scholar
  28. Kesling, R.V., An interpretation of Rhombifera bohemica Barrande, 1867, an unusual hydrophoridean cystoid, Contrib. Mus. Paleontol. Univ. Michigan, 1962, vol. 17, pp. 277–289.Google Scholar
  29. Kesling, R.V., Cystoids, in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology: Part S. Echinodermata 1 (1), Boulder, Lawrence: Geol. Soc. Amer.; Univ. Kansas Press, 1968. P. 85–267.Google Scholar
  30. Koch, D.L. and Strimple, H.L., A new Upper Devonian cystoid attached to a discontinuity surface, Iowa Geol. Surv., Rep. Invest., 1968, no. 5, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
  31. McCoy, F., A synopsis of the Silurian fossils of Ireland, Dublin, 1846.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, H., von, Beschreibung des Echino-Encrinites Senckenbergii, einer neu entdeckten Versteinerung, Archiv Ges. Natur. Herausgegeben K.W.G. Kastner, 1826, vol. 7, pp. 185–192.Google Scholar
  33. Neumayr, M., Die Stämme des Thierreiches: Wirbellose Thiere, Wien and Prag: Tempsky, 1889, vol. 1.Google Scholar
  34. Pander, C.H., Beiträge zur Geognosie des Russischen Reiches, St. Petersburg: Karl Kray, 1830.Google Scholar
  35. Parks, W.A., A new cystid from the Clinton Formation of Ontario—Lepadocystis clintonensis, Am. J. Sci., 1910, vol. 29, pp. 404–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul, C.R.C., The British Silurian cystoids, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Natur. Hist.) Geol., 1967a, vol. 13, pp. 299–355.Google Scholar
  37. Paul, C.R.C., Osculocystis, a new British Silurian cystoid, Geol. Mag., 1967b, vol. 104, pp. 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paul, C.R.C., The functional morphology and mode of life of the cystoid Pleurocystites, E. Billings, 1854, Echinoderm Biol. Symp. Zool. Soc. London, 1967c, vol. 20, pp. 105–123.Google Scholar
  39. Paul, C.R.C., Macrocystella Callaway, the earliest glyptocystitid cystoid, Palaeontology 1968a, vol. 11, pp. 580–600.Google Scholar
  40. Paul, C.R.C., Morphology and function of dichoporite pore structures in cystoids, Palaeontology, 1968b, vol. 11, pp. 697–730.Google Scholar
  41. Paul, C.R.C., Notes on cystoids, Geol. Mag., 1968c, vol. 105, pp. 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paul, C.R.C., Cheirocystella antiqua gen. et sp. nov. from the Lower Ordovician of Western Utah, and its bearing on the evolution of the Cheirocrinidae (Rhombifera: Glyptocystitida), Brigham Young Univ. Geol. Stud., 1972, vol. 19, pp. 15–63.Google Scholar
  43. Paul, C.R.C., British Ordovician cystoids: Part 2, Monogr. Palaeontogr. Soc. London, 1984, vol. 136, pp. 65–152.Google Scholar
  44. Paul, C.R.C., Callocystites fresti sp. nov., and the significance of ambulacral branching in the Callocystitidae (Echinodermata, Glyptocystitoida), Geol. J., 2014a, vol. 50, pp. 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paul, C.R.C., A cystoid with two left facets: The significance of Tetracystis in the evolution and classification of the Callocystitidae (Echinodermata, Glyptocystitoida), Geol. J., 2014b. DOI: 10:1002/gj.2578Google Scholar
  46. Paul, C.R.C. and Bolton, T.E., A new Middle Silurian callocystitid cystoid from the Lake Timiskaming Region, Northern Ontario, Bull. Geol. Surv. Can., 1991, vol. 412, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
  47. Paul, C.R.C. and Donovan, S.K., A review of the British Silurian cystoids, Geol. J., 2011, vol. 46, pp. 434–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paul, C.R.C., Donovan, S.K., Muir, L.A., et al., Primitive Ordovician (Floian) echinoderms from Sandu, Guizhou Province, South China, and their significance, Geol. J., 2014, vol. 51, pp. 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pearce, J.C., On an entirely new form of encrinite from the Dudley Limestone, Proc. Geol. Soc., Lond., 1843, vol. 4, pp. 1–160.Google Scholar
  50. Phleger, F.B., Some Ordovician cystids from Russia, Bull. Mus. Compar. Zool., Harvard Coll., 1935, vol. 76, pp. 191–201.Google Scholar
  51. Regnéll, G., Non-crinoid Pelmatozoa from the Paleozoic of Sweden, Meddel. Lunds Geol.–Min. Inst., 1945, no. 108, pp. 1–255.Google Scholar
  52. Rozhnov, S.V., Morphogenesis and evolution of crinoids and other pelmatozoan echinoderms in the Early Paleozoic, Paleontol. J., 2002, vol. 36, suppl. no. 6, pp. 525–674.Google Scholar
  53. Rozhnov, S.V., Sibling echinoderm taxa on isolated Ordovician continents: Problem of center of origin, Bull. Geosci., 2010, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schuchert, C., On new Siluric Cystidea, and a new Camarocrinus, Am. Geol., 1903, vol. 32, pp. 230–240.Google Scholar
  55. Schuchert, C., On Siluric and Devonic Cystidea and Camarocrinus, Smithson. Misc. Coll., 1904, vol. 2, pp. 201–272.Google Scholar
  56. Sinclair, G.W., An Ordovician faunule from Quebec, Can. Field Nat., 1945, vol. 59, pp. 71–74.Google Scholar
  57. Sinclair, G.W., Some Ordovician echinoderms from Oklahoma, Am. Mid. Nat., 1845, vol. 34, pp. 707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sinclair, G.W., Three notes on Ordovician cystids, J. Paleontol., 1948, vol. 22, pp. 301–314.Google Scholar
  59. Sprinkle, J., New rhombiferan cystoids from the Middle Ordovician of Nevada, J. Paleontol., 1974, vol. 48, pp. 1174–1201.Google Scholar
  60. Sprinkle, J., Cylindrical and globular rhombiferans, in Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma, Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib., 1982, Monogr. 1. pp. 231–273.Google Scholar
  61. Sprinkle, J. and Wahlman, G.P., New echinoderms from the Early Ordovician of West Texas, J. Paleontol., 1994, vol. 68, pp. 324–338.Google Scholar
  62. Sumrall, C.D. and Brett, C.E., A revision of Novacystis hawkesi Paul and Bolton 1991 (Middle Silurian: Glyptocystitida, Echinodermata) and the phylogeny of early callocystitids, J. Paleontol., 2002, vol. 76, pp. 733–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sumrall, C.D. and Carlson, D.T., Suture modification and pectinirhomb growth in Lepadocystis decorus, a new species of callocystitid glyptocystitid rhombiferan (Echinodermata) from Illinois, J. Paleontol., 2000, vol. 74, pp. 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sumrall, C.D. and Waters, J.A., Universal element homology in glyptocystitoids, hemicosmitoids, coronoids and blastoids: Steps towards echinoderm phylogenetic reconstruction in derived Blastozoa, J. Paleontol., 2012, vol. 86, pp. 956–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ulrich, E.O. and Kirk, E., Amecystis, a new genus of Ordovician Cystidea, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 1921, vol. 34, pp. 147–148.Google Scholar
  66. White, C.A., Description of new species of fossils from the Palaeozoic rocks of Iowa, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 1876, vol. 28, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
  67. Wood, E., A critical summary of Troost’s unpublished manuscript on the crinoids of Tennessee, Bull. US Nat. Mus., 1909, vol. 64, pp. 1–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zuykov, M.A., Terentiev, S.S., and Harper, D.A.T., New endemic brachiopod and echinoderm genera from the Upper Ordovician of the St Petersburg region, northwestern Russia, Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förhandl., 2008, vol. 130, pp. 87–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Earth SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Borissiak Paleontological InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations