Advertisement

Morphological Evolution in an Atrypid Brachiopod Lineage from the Middle Devonian Traverse Group of Michigan, USA: A Geometric Morphometric Approach

  • Rituparna Bose
Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

Geometric morphometrics were used to assess evolutionary mode and correlation with environmental factors in the shell morphology of an atrypid brachiopod species lineage. Seven landmark measurements were taken on the dorsal valve, ventral valve, anterior and posterior regions of over 1,100 specimens of Pseudoatrypa cf. lineata taxon from the Middle Devonian Traverse Group of Michigan State to quantify shell shape. Specimens were partitioned by their occurrence in four stratigraphic horizons (Bell Shale, Ferron Point, Genshaw and Norway Point) from the Traverse Group of northeastern Michigan outcrop. Geometric morphometric and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to test patterns and processes of morphological shape change of species over 5 m.y. interval of time. Maximum-likelihood method was used to determine the evolutionary rate and mode in morphological divergence in this species over time. Three hypotheses were tested regarding patterns of evolutionary change: (1) if the species conforms to a punctuated equilibrium model, there should be no significant differences between successive stratigraphic samples; (2) if the species evolved in a gradual, directional manner, then samples from successive stratigraphic units should be more similar than ones more separated in time; (3) if morphological shape was affected by change in environmental factors like water depth, etc. then we would expect a strong correlation between changes in such factors and changes in shell shape. MANOVA showed significant shape differences in mean shape between stratigraphic units (p ≤ 0.01), but with considerable overlap in morphology. There was little change in the lower part of the section, but a large jump in morphology between the Genshaw Formation and the overlying Norway Point Formation at the top of the section. Maximum likelihood estimation suggests that morphological evolution was lightly constrained, but was not subject to strong stasis. Rates of evolutionary change were slow to moderate. Euclidean based cluster analysis demonstrated that samples from successive units were more similar than widely separated ones. Changes in water depth do not show any statistical correlation with changes in shell shape. However, shallow water depth samples were significantly different than medium depth samples. Collectively, these results suggest that shell morphology did not change through the lower 61 m, but made a sharp jump between the Genshaw and Norway Point formations. Erosional unconformities below Norway Point Formation coupled with environmental heterogeneity during this time interval, may have lead to provinciality in the Michigan Basin sections, thus resulting in greater morphological change. Thus, the change in the Norway Point samples could be interpreted as the origin of a new species, either from environmental selection pressure or by an immigration event. Comparison of Michigan Basin sections with the contemporary Appalachian Basin sections suggests that morphologies from the uppermost intervals in the Traverse Group show abrupt deviation from the lowermost intervals unlike the Hamilton Group where morphological overlap was prominent between lowermost and uppermost units. Thus, the morphological trend observed in the P. cf. lineata lineage in the Michigan Basin appears to be local in scope.

Keywords

Anterior Margin Middle Devonian Ventral Valve Dorsal Valve Shell Shape 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander RR (1984) Comparative hydrodynamic stability of brachiopod shells on current-scoured arenaceous substrates. Lethaia 17:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bookstein FL (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 435Google Scholar
  3. Bartholomew AJ (2006) Middle devonian faunas of the Michigan and Appalachian Basins: comparing patterns of biotic stability and turnover between two paleobiogeographic subprovinces, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, p 300Google Scholar
  4. Bartholomew AJ, Brett CE (2007) Correlation of Middle Devonian Hamilton Group-equivalent strata in east-central North America: implications for eustasy, tectonics and faunal provinciality: geological society, vol 278. Special Publications, London, pp 105–131Google Scholar
  5. Brett CE (1986) The Middle Devonian Hamilton group of New York: an overview. In: Brett C (ed) Dynamic stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) in New York State, Part 1: New York state museum bulletin, vol 457, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  6. Brett CE, Baird GC (1995) Coordinated stasis and evolutionary ecology of silurian to Middle Devonian faunas in the Appalachian Basin. In: Erwin DH, Anstey RL (eds) New approaches to speciation. Columbia University Press, NewYork, pp 285–315Google Scholar
  7. Brett CE, Ivany LC, Bartholomew AJ, DeSantis MK, Baird GC (2009) Devonian ecological-evolutionary subunits in the Appalachian Basin: a revision and a test of persistence and discreteness: geological society, vol 314. Special Publications, London, pp 7–36Google Scholar
  8. Brett CE, Baird GC, Bartholomew AJ, DeSantis MK, Straeten CA (2011) Sequence stratigraphy and a revised sea-level curve for the Middle Devonian of eastern North America. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 304:21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson EH (1991) Minerals of Ohio: division of geological survey bulletin, vol 69, p 155Google Scholar
  10. Cooper GA, Butts C, Caster KE, Chadwick GH, Goldring W, Kindle EM, Kirk E, Merriam CW, Swartz FM, Warren PS, Warthin AS, Willard B (1942) Correlation of the Devonian sedimentary formations of North America. Geol Soc Am Bull 53:1729–1794Google Scholar
  11. Cooper G, Dutro JT (1982) Devonian brachiopods of New Mexico. Bull Amer Paleont 82–83(313):215Google Scholar
  12. Copper P (1967) Adaptations and life habits of Devonian atrypid brachiopods. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 3:363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copper P (1973) New Siluro-Devonian atrypoid brachiopods. J Paleontol 47:484–500Google Scholar
  14. Day J (1992) Middle-Upper Devonian (Late Givetian–Early Frasnian) brachiopod sequence in the Cedar Valley Group of central and eastern Iowa. In: Day J, Bunker BJ (eds) The stratigraphy, paleontology, depositional and diagenetic history of the Middle-Upper Devonian Cedar Valley Group of Central and Eastern Iowa: Iowa department of natural resources guidebook series, vol 16, pp 53–105Google Scholar
  15. Day J (1996) Faunal signatures of Middle-Upper Devonian depositional sequences and sea level fluctuations in the Iowa Basin: U.S. midcontinent. In: Witzke BJ, Ludvigson GA, Day J (eds) Paleozoic sequence stratigraphy, views from the North American craton. Geological society of America special paper, vol 306, pp 277–300Google Scholar
  16. Day J, Copper P (1998) Revision of latest Givetian-Frasnian Atrypida (Brachiopoda) from central North America. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 43:155–204Google Scholar
  17. Dorr JA, Eschman DF (1970) Geology of Michigan. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, p 479Google Scholar
  18. Ehlers GM, Kesling RV (1970) Devonian strata of Alpena and Presque Isle counties, Michigan. Michigan basin geological society, p 130Google Scholar
  19. Eldredge N, Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria. In: Schopf TJM (ed) Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper and company, San Francisco, pp 82–115Google Scholar
  20. Ettensohn FR (1985) The Catskill Delta complex and the Acadian orogeny: a model. In: Woodrow DL, Sevon WD (eds) The Catskill Delta, special paper—geological society of America, Boulder, vol 201, pp 39–50Google Scholar
  21. Felsenstein J (1988) Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fenton CL, Fenton MA (1932) Orientation and Injury in the Genus Atrypa. Am Midl Nat 13:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fenton CL, Fenton MA (1935) Atrypae described by Clement L. Webster and related forms (Devonian, Iowa). J Paleontol 9:369–384Google Scholar
  24. Gingerich PD (1993) Quantification and comparison of evolutionary rates. Am J Sci 293A:453–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gingerich PD (2001) Rates of evolution on the time scale of the evolutionary process. Genetica 112–113:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldman D, Mitchell CE (1990) Morphology, systematics, and evolution of Middle Devonian Ambocoeliidae (Brachiopoda), Western New York. J Paleontol 64:79–99Google Scholar
  27. Gould SJ, Eldredge N (1977) Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115–151Google Scholar
  28. Hunt G (2007) The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:18404–18408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Isaacson PE, Perry DG (1977) Biogeography and Morphological Conservatism of Tropidoleptus (Brachiopoda, Orthida) during the Devonian. J Paleontol 51:1108–1122Google Scholar
  30. Johnson JG, Klapper G, Sandberg CA (1985) Devonian eustatic fluctuations in Euramerica. Geol Soc Am Bull 96:567–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kesling RV, Segall RT, Sorensen HO (1974) Devonian strata of Emmet and Charlevoix counties, Michigan. Michigan Museum Paleontol Papers Paleontol 7:1–187Google Scholar
  32. Koch WF (1978) Brachiopod paleoecology, paleobiogeography, and biostratigraphy in the upper middle Devonian of Eastern North America: an ecofacies model for the Appalachian, Michigan, and Illinois basins. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Oregon, p 311Google Scholar
  33. Lande R (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lieberman BS, Brett CE, Eldredge N (1994) Patterns and processes of stasis in two species lineages from the Middle Devonian of New York State. AMNH 3114:1–23Google Scholar
  35. Lieberman BS, Brett CE, Eldredge N (1995) A study of stasis in two species lineages from the Middle Devonian of New York State. Paleobiology 21:15–27Google Scholar
  36. Lieberman BS, Dudgeon S (1996) An evaluation of stabilizing selection as a mechanism for stasis. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 127:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maynard Smith J, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P, Campbell J, Goodwin B, Lande R, Raup D, Wolpert L (1985) Developmental constraints and evolution. Q Rev Biol 60:265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris PJ (1995) Coordinated stasis and ecological locking. Palaios 10:101–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris PJ, Ivany LC, Schopf KM, Brett CE (1995) The challenge of paleoecological stasis: reassessing sources of evolutionary stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 92:11269–11273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Orr W (1971) Conodonts from Middle Devonian Strata of the Michigan Basin. Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin, vol 45, p 110Google Scholar
  41. Polly PD (2001) Paleontology and the comparative method: ancestral node reconstructions versus observed node values. Am Nat 157:596–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Polly PD (2004) On the simulation of morphological shape: mutivariate shape under selection and drift. Palaeontologia Electronica 7(7A):1–280Google Scholar
  43. Polly PD (2008) Adaptive zones and the pinniped ankle: a three-dimensional quantitative analysis of carnivoran tarsal evolution. Mammalian evolutionary morphology, pp 167–196Google Scholar
  44. Rohlf FJ (1990) Fitting curves to outlines. In: Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop, pp 167–177Google Scholar
  45. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (1990) Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rohlf FJ (1999) Shape statistics: procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J Classif 16:197–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roopnarine PD, Byars G, Fitzgerald P (1999) Anagenetic evolution, stratophenetic patterns, and random walk models. Paleobiology 25:41–57Google Scholar
  49. Roopnarine PD (2001) The description and classification of evolutionary mode: a computational approach. Paleobiology 27:446–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roopnarine PD (2003) Analysis of rates of morphologic evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Systs 34:605–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheldon PR (1987) Parallel gradualistic evolution of ordovician trilobites. Nature 330:561–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slice DE (2001) Landmark coordinates aligned by procrustes analysis do not lie in kendall’s shape space. Syst Biol 50:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Springer KB, Murphy MA (1994) Punctuated stasis and collateral evolution in the Devonian lineage of Monograptus hercynicus. Lethaia 27:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stanley SM (1979) Macroevolution. W.H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  55. Stumm EC (1951) Check list of fossil invertebrates described from the middle Devonian Traverse group of Michigan: contributions from the museum of paleontology, University of Michigan vol 9, pp 1–44Google Scholar
  56. Vrba ES, Eldredge N (1984) Individuals, hierarchies and processes: towards a more complete evolutionary theory. Paleobiology 10:146–171Google Scholar
  57. Webster CL (1921) Notes on the genus Atrypa, with description of new species. Am Midl Nat 7:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiedman LA (1985) Community paleoecological study of the silica shale equivalent of northeastern Indiana. J Paleontol 59:160–182Google Scholar
  59. Wylie AS, Huntoon JE (2003) Log-curve amplitude slicing: visualization of log data and depositional trends in the Middle Devonian Traverse Group, Michigan Basin, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City College of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations