In the First Column (ACRONYM) of the Database We Refer to the Museum Catalogue Number

In the first column (ACRONYM) of the database we refer to the museum catalogue number, which identifies each specimen via a particular number (PREFIX). The third column

(TAXON) expresses taxonomic identification of echinoids with various resolution level depending on preservation. Echinoids were identified using an electronic key (Smith 2005) and monographs with illustrations and most exhaustive descriptions (Smith and Wright 1999). The state of preservation of all echinoid tests (PRESERVATION) was quantified using five arbitrary semi-quantitative classes, as previously successfully utilized e.g. by Greenstein (1992) and

Nebelsick (2008). It is gradational, ranging from 1 (“the best”) to 5 (“the worst”), where 1 refers to the complete test without signs of fragmentation or disarticulation, identifiable to the species level; 2 refers to complete test with little taphonomic overprint, identifiable to the genus, or in some cases to the species level; 3 represents specimens with >70% of test preserved, identifiable to the family level; 4 refers to test fragments (>50%), crushed and/or compacted, where closer taxonomic identification was impossible, as in 5, where the preserved test is less than 50%, but it is still possible to count particular individuals. In the column MEASUREMENT we give the size of echinoids, with respect to two (width as A and height as B) or three parameters (W- height, D- length and S- width) in relation to their preservation and expressed in centimeters. Such metrics utilize the same scheme as those used by Olszewska-Nejbert (2007, Fig. 7). Next, we record the outcrop from which the echinoid comes from (LOCALITY) and its orientation in the section

(ORIENTATION). Orientation of echinoids (see also Kudrewicz and Olszewska-Nejbert 1997) was recorded using a semi-quantitative scale as oriented in normal position (life orientation), inverse (opposite to life position), lateral position (on the side) and unknown, when it was impossible to classify the specimen in any of them. We also noted the bed of any particular specimen (BED), numbered according to local division. Further we present taxonomic designation of encrusters (TAXA), identified using available literature with good quality photographs and/or drawings (e.g. Hercegová 1988; Žitt and Nekvasilová 1996). The resolution level ranges from order or non-formal groups to the genus level. Further, expressed was frequency of colonisers (FREQUENCY), where “1” means one individual, ‘dispersed’ means that there are more than one but dispersed, as opposed to ‘associated’, when all individuals form a cluster, in which individuals are in contact. In the remaining columns we provide quantification of preservation of epibionts (PRESERVATION) and types of encrustation (ENCRUSTATION

TYPE). To our knowledge, such quantification of preservation quality of encrusters was not investigated previously. Thus, we do this using arbitral classes, marked symbolically as K, N, P,

F, S and when impossible to do so, was marked by “-“. K refers to completely preserved specimens, which commonly applies to spirorbins; N refers to incompletely preserved specimens and to heavily corroded specimens, e.g. foraminifera; P concerns bases and attachments, such as those of corals and bivalves, and sometimes of spirorbins; F represents fragments and pieces of organisms, e.g., in the case of some of the foraminifera, and finally S deals with traces of encrustation, e.g. traces left after detachement of serpulid or spirorbin tubes.

Of all these, traces of encrustation were most difficult to assess and thus may be underrepresented. For quantification types of encrustation, e.g. for estimating interactions, we applied biological criteria, thus recognizing four types. Among these, we distinguished encrustation of the test (when epibionts are attached only to the test), to sediment (if encrusters are cemented to sediment adhering to the echinoid test but not to the test), mixed encrustation

(test/sediment), and encrustation of test and other epibiont, labeled as test/encruster. Apart from these, a fifth type is encrustation solely to another encruster, known also as overgrowth or fouling (e.g. McKinney 1995; Fagerstrom et al. 2000). However, the latter type does not occur in our samples. The column labeled as POSITION refers to the location of epibionts on the echinoid test. It is done with maximum available precision using symbols, as those in Fig. 2 and the proposed projection. At last, we dedicated columns for the taxonomic biodiversity index (ΣB) and similar for the abundance index (ΣF), where refer to the taxa richnes per test (micro-alpha) and the number of specimens of encrusting organisms occurring on one test of the host, respectively. Biodiversity is understood as the number of taxa per basibiont. The coarse resolution, in the form of orders or non-formal groups is dictated by the preservation of the material; however, it is not a rare practice (e.g. Palmer 1982). Despite this, it is still suitable for expression of biologic diversity in the fossil record (e.g. Palmer 1982; Sepkoski 1978).

References

Fagerstrom JA, West RR, Kershaw S, Cossey PJ (2003) Spatial competition among clonal

organisms in extant and selected paleozoic reef communities. Facies 42:1-24

Greenstein BJ (1992) Taphonomic bias and the evolutionary history of the family Cidaridae

(Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Paleobiology 18:50-79

Hercegová J (1988) Acruliammina, Bdelloidina, and Axicolumella n. gen. (Foraminifera) from

the Cretaceous transgressive sediments of the Bohemian Massif. Sborn Geol Ved,

Paleont 29:145-189

Kudrewicz R, Olszewska-Nejbert D (1997) Upper Cretaceous ”Echinoidlagerstätten” in the

Kraków area. Ann Soc Geol Polon 67:1-12 McKinney FK (1995) One hundred million years of competitive interactions between

bryozoan clades: asymmetrical but not escalating. Biol J Linn Soc 56:465-481

Nebelsick JH (2008) Taphonomy of Recent Clypeaster: Implications for fossil assemblages.

In: Ausich W, Webster G (eds) Paleobiology of Echinoderms, Indiana University Press,

Bloomington, pp 114-128.

Olszewska-Nejbert D (2007) Late Cretaceous (Turonian - Coniacian) irregular echinoids of

western Kazakhstan (Mangyshlak) and southern Poland (Opole). Acta Geol Polon

57: 1-87.

Palmer T (1982) Cambrian to Cretaceous changes in hardground communities. Lethaia 15: 309-

Sepkoski JJ Jr (1978) A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine

orders. Paleobiology 4: 223–251

Smith AB (ed) (2005) The echinoid directory. World Wide Web electronic publication.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/echinoid-directory/index [accessed

June 2010]

Smith AB, Wright CW (1999) British Cretaceous echinoids. Part 5, Holectypoida,

Echinoneoida. Palaeontogr Soc Monogr 153:343-390

Žitt J, Nekvasilová O (1996) Epibionts, their hard-rock substrates, and phosphogenesis during

the Cenomanian–Turonian boundary interval (Bohemian Cretaceous Basin, Czech

Republic). Cret Res 17:715-739