Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T14:41:15.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First report of Sphenothallus Hall, 1847 in the middle Cambrian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Heyo Van Iten ,
Mao-Yan Zhu  and
Desmond Collins
Heyo Van Iten
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Hanover College, Hanover, Indiana 47243
Mao-Yan Zhu
Affiliation:
Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Academia Sinica, Chi-MingSsu, Nanjing 210008, People's Republic of China
Desmond Collins
Affiliation:
Department of Paleobiology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sphenothallus Hall, 1847 is a widespread Paleozoic marine taxon that has been interpreted most recently as a tubiculous annelid or other ‘worm’ or as a thecate hydrozoan or scyphozoan cnidarian (e.g., Mason and Yochelson, 1985; Feldmann et al., 1986; Van Iten et al., 1992, 1996; Neal and Hannibal, 2000; Zhu et al., 2000). Members of this genus are characterized by a very gently tapered, finely lamellar apatitic tube bearing a closed subconical holdfast and a pair of robust longitudinal thickenings situated at the ends of the tube's greatest diameter (Zhu et al., 2000). Rarely, the tube exhibits an internal transverse wall that extends adaperturally along the inner surface of the tube proper and may also exhibit a subcylindrical terminal protuberance (Van Iten et al., 1992, figs. 5, 6). The transverse wall of Sphenothallus is essentially identical in gross morphology and microstructure to the schott (apical wall) of conulariids, an extinct group of thecate cnidarians (Van Iten, 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Jerre, 1994; Van Iten et al., 1996; Hughes et al., 2000) that may have been closely related to Sphenothallus (Van Iten et al., 1992). Clarke (1913, pl. 26, figs. 16-18; see also Van Iten et al., 1992, fig. 3) illustrated a compound specimen of S. sica consisting of numerous “daughter” tubes arranged in a highly regular manner (in opposition and evenly spaced) along a single, relatively large “parent” tube whose test wall appears to be confluent with the base of the “daughter” tubes. This compound specimen is distinctly different from the more common associations of epibiontic, holdfast-bearing Sphenothallus arranged in a less orderly fashion on Sphenothallus tubes or other shells (see for example Feldmann et al., 1986, fig. 2), and probably is best interpreted as a clonal colony. Sphenothallus tubes, both solitary and branched, are most similar to thecae of solitary and colonial hydrozoan and scyphozoan polyps, differing from these relatively delicate structures mainly in being mineralized and in bearing a pair of longitudinal thickenings. Like conulariids, Sphenothallus occurs in rocks originally deposited in a broad spectrum of marine facies (open carbonate shelf to restricted shale basin), but is perhaps most conspicuous in restricted basin and shelf slope facies represented by dark shales and lime mudstones.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , September 2002 , pp. 902 - 905
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

Bischoff, G. C. O. 1989. Byroniida new order from early Palaeozoic strata of eastern Australia (Cnidaria, thecate scyphopolyps). Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 69:467–521.Google Scholar
Bolton, T. E. 1994. Sphenothallus angustifolius Hall, 1847 from the lower Upper Ordovician of Ontario and Québec. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin, 479:1–11.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Erwin, D. H., and Collier, F. J. 1994. The Fossils of the Burgess Shale. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C, 238 p.Google Scholar
Chen, J. Y., Zhou, G. Q., Zhu, M. Y., and Yeh, K. Y. 1996. The Chengjiang biota. A unique window of the Cambrian explosion. National Museum of Natural Science, Taichung (Taiwan), 222 p. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
Choi, D. K. 1990. Sphenothallus (“Vermes”) from the Tremadocian Dumugol Formation, Korea. Journal of Paleontology, 64(3):403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. M. 1913. Fosseis Devonianos do Paraná. Monographias do serviço geologico e mineralogico de Brasil, Volume I, Rio de Janeiro, 353 p.Google Scholar
Collins, D. H., Briggs, D., and Conway Morris, S. 1983. New Burgess Shale fossil sites reveal Middle Cambrian faunal complex. Science, 222:163–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway Morris, S., and Chen, M. 1992. Carinachitiids, hexangulaconulariids, and Punctatus: problematic metazoans from the Early Cambrian of South China. Journal of Paleontology, 66(3):384–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway Morris, S., and Robison, R. A. 1988. More soft-bodied animals and algae from the Middle Cambrian of Utah and British Columbia. University of Kansas Palaeontological Contributions, 122.Google Scholar
Eichwald, C. E. 1856. Beitrag zur geographischen Verbreitung der fossilen Thiere Russlands, Alte Periode. Société impérial des Naturalistes de Moscou, Bulletin, Volume 29, p. 555–608.Google Scholar
Feldmann, R. M., Hannibal, J. T., and Babcock, L. E. 1986. Fossil worms from the Devonian of North America (Sphenothallus) and Burma (“Vermes”) previously identified as phyllocarid arthropods. Journal of Paleontology, 60(2):341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, T. P., and Collins, D. H. 1998. The Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale and its relationship to the Stephen Formation in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 35(4):413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Paleontology of New-York. Volume I. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower Division of the New-York system (equivalent to the Lower Silurian rocks of Europe). C. Van Benthuysen, Albany, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hatschek, B. 1888. Lehrbuch der Zoologie. Eine morphologische bersicht der Thierreiches zur Einführung in das Stadium dieser Wissenschaft. Erste Lieferung. Fischer, Jena, 304 p.Google Scholar
Howell, B. F. 1949. New hydrozoan and brachiopod and new genus of worms from the Ordovician Schenectady formation of New York. Bulletin of the Wagner Free Institute of Science, 24(1):1–8.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C., Gunderson, G. O., and Weedon, M. J. 2000. Late Cambrian conulariids from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 74(5):828–838.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerre, F. 1994. Anatomy and phylogenetic significance of Eoconularia loculata, a conulariid from the Silurian of Gotland. Lethaia, 27:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, C., and Yochelson, E. L. 1985. Some tubular fossils (Sphenothallus: “Vermes”) from the middle and late Paleozoic of the United States. Journal of Paleontology, 59:85–95.Google Scholar
Matthew, G. F. 1899. Studies on Cambrian faunas, no. 3: Upper Cambrian fauna of Mt. Stephen, British Columbia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Series 2, 5:39–66.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. and Gurley, W. F. E. 1896. New species of Palaeozoic invertebrates from Illinois and other states. Illinois State Museum of Natural History Bulletin 11, 50 p.Google Scholar
Murchison, R. I. 1839. The Silurian System, founded in geological researches in the counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, Montgomery, Caermahrten, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcester, and Stafford. —Part I:675 p., Part II: 768 p., London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, M. L., and Hannibal, J. T. 2000. Paleoecologic and taxonomic implications of Sphenothallus and Sphenothallus-like specimens from Ohio and areas adjacent to Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 74(3):369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, Y., Van Iten, H., Cox, R. S., Zhu, M. Y., and Zhuo, E. J. 1997. A brief account of Emeiconularia trigemme, a new genus and species of protoconulariid. Acta Micropalaeontologica Sinica, 14:475–488.Google Scholar
Van Iten, H. 1991. Evolutionary affinities of conulariids, p. 145–155. In Simonetta, A. M. and Conway Morris, S. (eds.), The Early Evolution of Metazoa and the Significance of Problematic Fossil Taxa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Van Iten, H. 1992a. Morphology and phylogenetic significance of the corners and midlines of the conulariid test. Palaeontology, 35:335–358.Google Scholar
Van Iten, H. 1992b. Microstructure and growth of the conulariid test: implications for conulariid affinities. Palaeontology, 35:359–372.Google Scholar
Van Iten, H., Cox, R. S., and Mapes, R. H. 1992. New data on the morphology of Sphenothallus Hall: implications for its affinities. Lethaia, 25:135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Iten, H., Fitzke, J. A., and Cox, R. S. 1996. Problematical fossil cnidarians from the Upper Ordovician of the north-central USA. Palaeontology, 39:1037–1064.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. L., Yuan, J. L., Zhu, M. Y., Guo, Q. J., Zhuo, Z., Yang, R. D., and Van Iten, H. 1999. The Early Cambrian Taijiang Biota of Taijiang, Guizhou, PRC. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 38:108–115.Google Scholar
Zhu, M. Y., Van Iten, H., Cox, R. S., Zhao, Y. L., and Erdtmann, B. 2000. Occurrence of Byronia Matthew and Sphenothallus Hall in the Lower Cambrian of China. Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 74(3):227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar