DOCSLIB.ORG

Randol Wehrbein Thesis.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Randol Wehrbein Thesis.Pdf Comparisons of Paleoenvironments, Taxa, and Taphonomy of the Late Carboniferous Garnett and Hamilton Quarry Localities, Eastern Kansas ______________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Department of Physical Sciences EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY ______________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Sciences ______________________________ by Randol Louis Wehrbein May 2017 iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Department of Physical Sciences at Emporia State University (ESU) for funding my research through the NASA Space grant and graduate assistant position during my time at ESU. Additionally, I would like to thank the Graduate School at ESU for funding my research thought the Harold Durst Graduate Research Award and Graduate Research grant. I would also like to thank the Kansas Geological Foundation for funding through their student scholarship. I would like to thank the Denver Museum on Nature and Science for access of their collections, use of their facilities and equipment, and use of a copyrighted photograph. I would like to thank Brian Madeira for aid in museum work at ESU, and Derrick Stockton for aid in both field and museum work at ESU. I would like to thank the Interlibrary Loan personnel at ESU, for I made them work a lot. I also wish to extend thanks to the members of my committee. Furthermore, I would like to thank my friend, Jared Krenke, for copy editing my thesis because we both know (to quote the late Dr. Larry Martin) “I can’t spell my way out of a wet paper bag.” Finally, I wish to acknowledge the late Dr. Larry Martin for piquing my interest in both Garnett and Hamilton Quarry as an undergraduate. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………..iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………iv List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...xiii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………..xviii Chapter 1: Introduction and History of Study……………………………………………..1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1 History of Study…………………………………………………………………...2 Garnett Locality…………………………………………………………...3 Hamilton Quarry…………………………………………………………10 Global Comparisons……………………………………………………………...18 Toronto Locality…………………………………………………………18 Montceau-les-Mines……………………………………………………..19 Robinson Locality………………………………………………………..20 Bushong Locality and Elkridge Locality………………………………...21 Chapter 2: Methods………………………………………………………………………23 Introduction………………………………………………………………………23 Literature Research………………………………………………………………24 v Museum Research………………………………………………………………..24 Field and Lab Work……………………………………………………………...25 Photography……………………………………………………………………...25 Taxonomic Equivalence………………………………………………………….26 Taxonomic Classification………………………………………………………..28 Geology, Taphonomy, and Paleoenvironment…………………………………...29 Comparison to Other Localities………………………………………………….29 Chapter 3: Garnett Locality……………………………………………………………...30 Introduction………………………………………………………………………30 Geographic Location……………………………………………………………..30 Geomorphic Setting……………………………………………………………...32 Stratigraphy………………………………………………………………………32 Stoner Limestone………………………………………………………...36 Rock Lake Shale…………………………………………………………36 Facies I…………………………………………………………...36 Facies II...………………………………………………………...36 Facies III.………………………………………………………...37 Facies IV………………………………………………………....37 vi Facies V..………………………………………………………...37 Facies VI…………………………………………………………39 Facies VII...………………………………………………………39 Facies VIII……………………………………………………….39 South Bend Limestone…………………………………………………...40 Environment of Deposition………………………………………………………40 Nearshore Marine………………………………………………………...40 River-Fed Lagoon………………………………………………………..40 Tidal Mudflat…………………………………………………………….42 Transgressive Channel Fill………………………………………………42 Marine……………………………………………………………………43 This Study………………………………………………………………..43 Paleontology……………………………………………………………………..45 Taxonomic Classification………………………………………………………..46 Aquatic Invertebrates…………………………………………………………….52 Foraminiferans (Retaria)…………………………………………………53 Sponges (Porifera)……………………………………………………….53 Rugose Coral (Cnidaria)…………………………………………………53 vii Echinoderms (Echinodermata)…………………………………………...53 Crustacean (Arthropoda)…………………………………………………54 Polychaetes (Annelida)…………………………………………………..54 Bivalves (Mollusca)……………………………………………………...54 Brachiopods (Brachiopoda)……………………………………………...54 Bryozoans (Bryozoa)…………………………………………………….54 Terrestrial Invertebrates………………………………………………………….55 Scorpion (Chelicerate)…………………………………………………...55 Blattodea (Hexapoda)……………………………………………………55 Megasecoptera (Hexapoda)……………………………………………...55 Vertebrates……………………………………………………………………….56 Cartilaginous Fish (Chindrichthyes)……………………………………..56 Coelacanth (Sarcopterygiia)……………………………………………...56 Amphibians (Amphibia)…………………………………………………56 Diapsid (Reptilia)………………………………………………………...57 Eupelycosaurs (Synapsida)………………………………………………57 Megaflora………………………………………………………………………...57 Lycopods (Lycopodiophyta)……………………………………………..58 viii Ferns and Horsetails (Pteridophyta)……………………………………...58 Seed Ferns (Pteridospermatophyta)……………………………………...59 Conifers (Pinophyta or Coniferophyta)………………………………….59 Microflora………………………………………………………………………..59 Trace Fossils……………………………………………………………………..60 Taphonomy………………………………………………………………………61 Chapter 4: Hamilton Quarry……………………………………………………………..71 Introduction………………………………………………………………………71 Geographic Location……………………………………………………………..72 Geomorphic Setting……………………………………………………………...72 Stratigraphy………………………………………………………………………74 Introduction………………………………………………………………74 Deer Creek Limestone Formation………………………………………..75 Calhoun Shale Formation………………………………………………..75 Topeka Limestone Formation……………………………………………77 Hamilton Channel Fill: Basal Conglomerate…………………………….78 Northern Area……………………………………………………………78 Main Quarry……………………………………………………………...79 ix Marlin Quarry……………………………………………………………84 Southern Area……………………………………………………………85 Environment of Deposition………………………………………………………85 Stream or Delta………………………………………………………......86 Freshwater Stream...……………………………………………………..86 Near Shore Marine……………………………………………………….87 Tidal Estuary.…………………………………………………………….87 Marine……………………………………………………………………89 This Study………………………………………………………………..89 Paleontology……………………………………………………………………..91 Taxonomic Classification………………………………………………………..91 Aquatic Invertebrates…………………………………………………………….99 Foraminiferans (Retaria)………………………………………………..100 Sponges (Porifera)……………………………………………………...100 Echinoderms (Echinodermata)………………………………………….100 Eurypterids (Arthropoda)……………………………………………….100 Crustacean (Arthropoda)………………………………………………..101 Polychaetes (Annelida)…………………………………………………101 x Bivalves (Mollusca)…………………………………………………….101 Gastropods (Mollusca)………………………………………………….102 Brachiopods (Brachiopoda)…………………………………………….102 Bryozoans (Bryozoa)…………………………………………………...102 Terrestrial Invertebrates………………………………………………………...102 Arachnids (Chelicerate)………………………………………………...102 Millipedes (Myriapoda)………………………………………………...103 Blattodea (Hexapoda)…………………………………………………..103 Pterygota (Hexapoda)……………………………………………..........103 Vertebrates……………………………………………………………………...104 Conodonts (Conodonta)………………………………………………...104 Cartilaginous Fish (Chindrichthyes)……………………………………104 Acanthodes (Acanthodii)……………………………………………….105 Actinopterygii (Osteichthyes)…………………………………………..105 Sarcopterygii (Osteichthyes)…………………………………………...105 Amphibians (Amphibia)………………………………………………..106 Captorhinomorphs (Reptilia)…………………………………………...106 Diapsid (Reptilia)……………………………………………………….106 xi Caseasaurid (Synapsida)………………………………………………..107 Eupelycosaurs (Synapsida)……………………………………………..107 Megaflora……………………………………………………………………….107 Lycopods (Lycopodiophyta)……………………………………………108 Ferns and Horsetails (Pteridophyta)…………………………………….108 Seed Ferns (Pteridospermatophyta)…………………………………….108 Conifers (Pinophyta or Coniferophyta)………………………………...108 Microflora………………………………………………………………………109 Trace Fossils……………………………………………………………………110 Taphonomy……………………………………………………………………..110 Chapter 5: Comparisons and Conclusions……………………………………………...154 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..154 Environment of Deposition……………………………………………………..154 Taxonomic Equivalence and Diversity…………………………………………156 Aquatic Invertebrates…………………………………………………...158 Terrestrial Invertebrates………………………………………………...162 Vertebrates……………………………………………………………...164 Megaflora……………………………………………………………….169 xii Microflora………………………………………………………………173 Summary………………………………………………………………..179 Trace Fossils……………………………………………………………179 Taphonomy……………………………………………………………..180 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..181 Global Comparisons…………………………………………………….183 Importance of Full Examinations……………………………………….185 Future Work…………………………………………………………….185 References………………………………………………………………………………187 Appendix A: Bibliography of Garnett Texts…………………………………………...208 Appendix B: Bibliography of Hamilton Quarry Texts...………………………………..218 Appendix C: Bibliography of Related Texts…………………………………………...234 xiii List of Figures Figure 1: Map of Kansas illustrating geographic locations of Garnett and Hamilton Quarry……………………………………………………………………………..1 Figure 2: Moore et al. (1936)’s Figure 4 showing hypothetical stratigraphic and structural relationships required for Garnett to be Permian…………………………………4 Figure 3: Geographic location and topography of the Garnett study area……………….31 Figure 4: Stratigraphic chart of the Garnett locality……………………………………..33 Figure 5: Geologic map of the Garnett study area……………………………………….33 Figure 6: Cross section of the Garnett locality…………………………………………..34 Figure 7: Coastal lagoon in the Late Pennsylvanian of Kansas………………………….41 Figure 8: Reconstruction of Garnettius hungerfordi…………………………………….62 Figure 9: Holotype
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Comparative Study of the Primary Vascular System Of
    Amer. J. Bot. 55(4): 464-472. 1!16'>. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PRIMARY VASCULAR SYSTE~1 OF CONIFERS. III. STELAR EVOLUTION IN GYMNOSPERMS 1 KADAMBARI K. NAMBOODIRI2 AND CHARLES B. BECK Department of Botany, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor ABST RAe T This paper includes a survey of the nature of the primary vascular system in a large number of extinct gymnosperms and progymnosperms. The vascular system of a majority of these plants resembles closely that of living conifers, being characterized, except in the most primitive forms which are protostelic, by a eustele consisting of axial sympodial bundles from which leaf traces diverge. The vascular supply to a leaf originates as a single trace with very few exceptions. It is proposed that the eustele in the gyrr.nosperms has evolved directly from the protostele by gradual medullation and concurrent separation of the peripheral conducting tissue into longitudinal sympodial bundles from which traces diverge radially. A subsequent modification results in divergence of traces in a tangential plane, The closed vascular system of conifers with opposite and whorled phyllotaxis, in which the vascular supply to a leaf originates as two traces which subsequently fuse, is considered to be derived from the open sympodial system characteristic of most gymnosperms. This hypothesis of stelar evolution is at variance with that of Jeffrey which suggests that the eustele of seed plants is derived by the lengthening and overlapping of leaf gaps in a siphonostele followed by further reduction in the resultant vascular bundles. This study suggests strongly that the "leaf gap" of conifers and other extant gymnosperms is not homologous with that of siphonostelic ferns and strengthens the validity of the view that Pterop­ sida is an unnatural group.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared in Cooperation with the Lllinois State Museum, Springfield
    Prepared in cooperation with the lllinois State Museum, Springfield Richard 1. Leary' and Hermann W. Pfefferkorn2 ABSTRACT The Spencer Farm Flora is a compression-impression flora of early Pennsylvanian age (Namurian B, or possibly Namurian C) from Brown County, west-central Illinois. The plant fossils occur in argillaceous siltstones and sand- stones of the Caseyville Formation that were deposited in a ravine eroded in Mississippian carbonate rocks. The plant-bearing beds are the oldest deposits of Pennsylva- nian age yet discovered in Illinois. They were formed be- fore extensive Pennsylvanian coal swamps developed. The flora consists of 29 species and a few prob- lematical forms. It represents an unusual biofacies, in which the generally rare genera Megalopteris, Lesleya, Palaeopteridium, and Lacoea are quite common. Noegger- athiales, which are seldom present in roof-shale floras, make up over 20 percent of the specimens. The Spencer Farm Flora is an extrabasinal (= "upland1') flora that was grow- ing on the calcareous soils in the vicinity of the ravine in which they were deposited. It is suggested here that the Noeggerathiales may belong to the Progymnosperms and that Noeggerathialian cones might be derived from Archaeopteris-like fructifica- tions. The cone genus Lacoea is intermediate between Noeggerathiostrobus and Discini tes in its morphology. Two new species, Lesleya cheimarosa and Rhodeop- teridi urn phillipsii , are described, and Gulpenia limbur- gensis is reported from North America for the first time. INTRODUCTION The Spencer Farm Flora (table 1) differs from other Pennsylvanian floras of the Illinois Basin. Many genera and species in the Spencer Farm Flora either have not been found elsewhere in the basin or are very l~uratorof Geology, Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
    [Show full text]
  • Supra-Familial Taxon Names of the Diplopoda Table 4A
    Milli-PEET, Taxonomy Table 4 Page - 1 - Table 4: Supra-familial taxon names of the Diplopoda Table 4a: List of current supra-familial taxon names in alphabetical order, with their old invalid counterpart and included orders. [Brackets] indicate that the taxon group circumscribed by the old taxon group name is not recognized in Shelley's 2003 classification. Current Name Old Taxon Name Order Brannerioidea in part Trachyzona Verhoeff, 1913 Chordeumatida Callipodida Lysiopetalida Chamberlin, 1943 Callipodida [Cambaloidea+Spirobolida+ Chorizognatha Verhoeff, 1910 Cambaloidea+Spirobolida+ Spirostreptida] Spirostreptida Chelodesmidea Leptodesmidi Brölemann, 1916 Polydesmida Chelodesmidea Sphaeriodesmidea Jeekel, 1971 Polydesmida Chordeumatida Ascospermophora Verhoeff, 1900 Chordeumatida Chordeumatida Craspedosomatida Jeekel, 1971 Chordeumatida Chordeumatidea Craspedsomatoidea Cook, 1895 Chordeumatida Chordeumatoidea Megasacophora Verhoeff, 1929 Chordeumatida Craspedosomatoidea Cheiritophora Verhoeff, 1929 Chordeumatida Diplomaragnoidea Ancestreumatoidea Golovatch, 1977 Chordeumatida Glomerida Plesiocerata Verhoeff, 1910 Glomerida Hasseoidea Orobainosomidi Brolemann, 1935 Chordeumatida Hasseoidea Protopoda Verhoeff, 1929 Chordeumatida Helminthomorpha Proterandria Verhoeff, 1894 all helminthomorph orders Heterochordeumatoidea Oedomopoda Verhoeff, 1929 Chordeumatida Julida Symphyognatha Verhoeff, 1910 Julida Julida Zygocheta Cook, 1895 Julida [Julida+Spirostreptida] Diplocheta Cook, 1895 Julida+Spirostreptida [Julida in part[ Arthrophora Verhoeff,
    [Show full text]
  • Biochemical Divergence Between Cavernicolous and Marine
    The position of crustaceans within Arthropoda - Evidence from nine molecular loci and morphology GONZALO GIRIBET', STEFAN RICHTER2, GREGORY D. EDGECOMBE3 & WARD C. WHEELER4 Department of Organismic and Evolutionary- Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology; Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. ' Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitdtJena, Instituifiir Spezielte Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, Jena, Germany 3Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW, Australia Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A. ABSTRACT The monophyly of Crustacea, relationships of crustaceans to other arthropods, and internal phylogeny of Crustacea are appraised via parsimony analysis in a total evidence frame­ work. Data include sequences from three nuclear ribosomal genes, four nuclear coding genes, and two mitochondrial genes, together with 352 characters from external morphol­ ogy, internal anatomy, development, and mitochondrial gene order. Subjecting the com­ bined data set to 20 different parameter sets for variable gap and transversion costs, crusta­ ceans group with hexapods in Tetraconata across nearly all explored parameter space, and are members of a monophyletic Mandibulata across much of the parameter space. Crustacea is non-monophyletic at low indel costs, but monophyly is favored at higher indel costs, at which morphology exerts a greater influence. The most stable higher-level crusta­ cean groupings are Malacostraca, Branchiopoda, Branchiura + Pentastomida, and an ostracod-cirripede group. For combined data, the Thoracopoda and Maxillopoda concepts are unsupported, and Entomostraca is only retrieved under parameter sets of low congruence. Most of the current disagreement over deep divisions in Arthropoda (e.g., Mandibulata versus Paradoxopoda or Cormogonida versus Chelicerata) can be viewed as uncertainty regarding the position of the root in the arthropod cladogram rather than as fundamental topological disagreement as supported in earlier studies (e.g., Schizoramia versus Mandibulata or Atelocerata versus Tetraconata).
    [Show full text]
  • New Record of a Primitive Brachiopod Benthic Fauna from the North- East Coast of India
    ISSN: 2347-3215 Volume 2 Number 3 (March-2014) pp. 70-73 www.ijcrar.com New record of a primitive brachiopod benthic fauna from the North- East coast of India S.Samanta1*, A.Choudhury2 and S.K.Chakraborty3 1Department of Zoology,Vidyasagar University Midnapore-721102, West Bengal, India 2S.D.Marine Biological Research Institute, Sagar Island, Sundarban, 24 Parganas(S)- 743373.West Bengal, India 3Faculty of Science, Department of Zoology, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore-721102, West Bengal, India *Corresponding author KEYWORDS A B S T R A C T The intertidal belt at the confluence of Subarnarekha estuary, a transboundary Brachiopoda; with Bay of Bengal is an example of physically stressed heterogeneous Lingula anatina; habitats possessing a number of mudflats and sand flats that support the lives Living fossil; of an assemblage of diversified macrobenthic fauna. The Brachiopods West Bengal; (Lampshells) make up a major macrobenthic faunal group in this area which Subarnarekha estuary. includes several morphotypes of Lingula anatina distributed in some restricted areas of the world. The morpho-anatomic study of Lingula anatina- a Precambrian living fossil as a new record from the eastern part of West Bengal has been undertaken in the present study. Introduction The intertidal belt of Midnapore coast, shelled marine animal. About 30000 especially the studied area supports species and 120 genera under the phylum diversified forms of macrobenthic fauna of brachiopoda have been described in a which include good number of fossil record which extends into the lower brachiopodans which has not been reported Cambrian period of which 300 or so earlier from West Bengal coast-Talsari species of brachiopods remain.
    [Show full text]
  • Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of Central Montana
    Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of Central Montana GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 348 Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of Central Montana By W. H. EASTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 348 A study of the stratigraphic and ecologic associa­ tions and significance offossils from the Big Snowy group of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian rocks UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1962 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows : Eastern, William Heyden, 1916- Carboniferous formations and faunas of central Montana. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1961. iv, 126 p. illus., diagrs., tables. 29 cm. (U.S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 348) Part of illustrative matter folded in pocket. Bibliography: p. 101-108. 1. Paleontology Montana. 2. Paleontology Carboniferous. 3. Geology, Stratigraphic Carboniferous. I. Title. (Series) For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, B.C. CONTENTS Page Page Abstract-__________________________________________ 1 Faunal analysis Continued Introduction _______________________________________ 1 Faunal relations ______________________________ 22 Purposes of the study_ __________________________ 1 Long-ranging elements...__________________ 22 Organization of present work___ __________________ 3 Elements of Mississippian affinity.._________ 22 Acknowledgments--.-------.- ___________________
    [Show full text]
  • Type and Figured Fossils in the Worthen Collection at the Illinois
    s Cq&JI ^XXKUJtJLI 14oGS: CIR 524 c, 2 TYPE AND FIGURED FOSSILS IN THE WORTHEN COLLECTION AT THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Lois S. Kent GEOLOGICAL ILLINOIS Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIVISION CIRCULAR 524 1982 COVER: This portrait of Amos Henry Worthen is from a print presented to me by Worthen's great-grandson, Arthur C. Brookley, Jr., at the time he visited the Illinois State Geological Survey in the late 1950s or early 1960s. The picture is the same as that published in connection with the memorial to Worthen in the appendix to Vol. 8 of the Geological Survey of Illinois, 1890. -LSK Kent, Lois S., Type and figured fossils in the Worthen Collection at the Illinois State Geological Survey. — Champaign, III. : Illinois State Geological Survey, 1982. - 65 p. ; 28 cm. (Circular / Illinois State Geological Survey ; 524) 1. Paleontology. 2. Catalogs and collections. 3. Worthen Collection. I. Title. II. Series. Editor: Mary Clockner Cover: Sandra Stecyk Printed by the authority of the State of Illinois/1982/2500 II I IHOI'.MAII '.I 'II Of.ir.AI MIHVI y '> 300 1 00003 5216 TYPE AND FIGURED FOSSILS IN THE WORTHEN COLLECTION AT THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Lois S. Kent | CIRCULAR 524 1982 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Robert E. Bergstrom, Acting Chief Natural Resources Building, 615 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 TYPE AND FIGURED FOSSILS IN THE WORTHEN COLLECTION AT THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Introduction 2 Organization of the catalog 7 Notes 8 References 8 Fossil catalog 13 ABSTRACT This catalog lists all type and figured specimens of fossils in the part of the "Worthen Collection" now housed at the Illinois State Geological Survey in Champaign, Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quantitative Study of Benthic Faunal Patterns Within the Pennsylvanian and Early Permian
    PALAIOS, 2006, v. 21, p. 316–324 Research Report DOI: 10.2110/palo.2005.P05-82e A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF BENTHIC FAUNAL PATTERNS WITHIN THE PENNSYLVANIAN AND EARLY PERMIAN NICOLE BONUSO* AND DAVID J. BOTTJER Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, 3651 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, California, 90089-0740, USA e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT primary literature. Mudge and Yochelson’s (1962) monograph describes the stratigraphy and paleontology of the Pennsylvanian–Permian Mid- Using abundance data, this study explores quantitative patterns from continent of Kansas using over 300 fossil collections. Yancey and Stevens marine benthos, including implications for paleogeography, deposi- (1981) studied the Early Permian of Nevada and Utah extensively, re- tional environment, stratigraphic position, taxonomic groups (bra- corded abundance data from 55 localities, and identified paleocommun- chiopod or mollusc), substrate preferences, and ecological niches. ities based on the faunal comparisons and relative abundances within each Twenty-nine brachiopod- and bivalve-dominated fossil assemblages sample collected. As a result, three groups of commonly occurring com- from the Pennsylvanian and Early Permian of North and South Amer- munities emerged: (1) nearshore, mollusc-dominated; (2) open-shelf, non- ica, Thailand, and Australia were analyzed from carbonate-platform molluscan; and (3) deeper water, offshore mollusc-dominated. More re- environments; specifically, Nevada, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, cently, Olszewski and Patzkowsky (2001) documented the reoccurrence New Mexico, Venezuela, Kanchanaburi (Thailand), and Queensland of Pennsylvanian–Permian Midcontinent brachiopod and bivalve associ- (Australia). Samples were categorized by paleogeographic location, de- ations through time (Olszewski and Patzkowsky, 2001). Using a combi- positional environment, and age to help differentiate factors control- nation of data from Mudge and Yochelson (1962) and their own data, ling the faunal patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • MYRIAPODS 767 Volume 2 (M-Z), Pp
    In: R. Singer, (ed.), 1999. Encyclopedia of Paleontology, MYRIAPODS 767 volume 2 (M-Z), pp. 767-775. Fitzroy Dearborn, London. MYRIAPODS JVlyriapods are many-legged, terrestrial arthropods whose bodies groups, the Trilobita, Chelicerata, Crustacea, and the Uniramia, the are divided into two major parts, a head and a trunk. The head last consisting of the Myriapoda, Hexapoda, and Onychophora (vel- bears a single pair of antennae, highly differentiated mandibles (or vet worms). However, subsequent structural and molecular evidence jaws), and at least one pair of maxillary mouthparts; the trunk indicates that there are several characters uniting major arthropod region consists of similar "metameres," each of which is a func- taxa. Moreover, paleobiologic, embryologie, and other evidence tional segment that bears one or two pairs of appendages. Gas demonstrates that myriapods and hexapods are fiindamentally exchange is accomplished by tracheae•a branching network of polyramous, having two major articulating appendages per embry- specialized tubules•although small forms respire through the ological body segment, like other arthropods. body wall. Malpighian organs are used for excretion, and eyes con- A fourth proposal (Figure ID) suggests that myriapods are sist of clusters of simple, unintegrated, light-sensitive elements an ancient, basal arthropod lineage, and that the Hexapoda that are termed ommatidia. These major features collectively char- emerged as an independent, relatively recent clade from a rather acterize the five major myriapod clades: Diplopoda (millipeds), terminal crustacean lineage, perhaps the Malacostraca, which con- Chilopoda (centipeds), Pauropoda (pauropods), Symphyla (sym- tains lobsters and crabs (Ballard et al. 1992). Because few crusta- phylans), and Arthropleurida (arthropleurids). Other features cean taxa were examined in this analysis, and due to the Cambrian indicate differences among these clades.
    [Show full text]
  • Brachiopods from the Mobarak Formation, North Iran
    GeoArabia, 2011, v. 16, no. 3, p. 129-192 Gulf PetroLink, Bahrain Tournaisian (Mississippian) brachiopods from the Mobarak Formation, North Iran Maryamnaz Bahrammanesh, Lucia Angiolini, Anselmo Alessandro Antonelli, Babak Aghababalou and Maurizio Gaetani ABSTRACT Following detailed stratigraphic work on the Mississippian marlstone and bioclastic limestone of the Mobarak Formation of the Alborz Mountains in North Iran, forty-eight of the most important brachiopod taxa are here systematically described and illustrated. The ranges of the taxa are given along the Abrendan and Simeh Kuh stratigraphic sections, located north of Damgham. The examined brachiopod species date the base of the Mobarak Formation to the Tournaisian, in absence of age-diagnostic foraminifers. Change in brachiopod settling preferences indicates a shift from high energy, shallow-water settings with high nutrient supply in the lower part of the formation to quieter, soft, but not soppy substrates, with lower nutrient supply in the middle part of the Mobarak Formation. Brachiopod occurrence is instead scanty at its top. The palaeobiogeographic affinity of the Tournaisian brachiopods from North Iran indicates a closer relationship to North America, Western Europe and the Russian Platform than to cold-water Australian faunas, confirming the affinity of the other biota of the Alborz Mountains. This can be explained by the occurrence of warm surface-current gyres widely distributing brachiopod larvae across the Palaeotethys Ocean, where North Iran as other peri- Gondwanan blocks acted as staging-posts. INTRODUCTION The Mississippian Mobarak Formation of the Alborz Mountains (North Iran) has been recently revised by Brenckle et al. (2009) who focused mainly on its calcareous microfossil biota and refined its biostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy and paleogeography.
    [Show full text]
  • A Stable Isotopic Investigation of Resource Partitioning Among Neosauropod Dinosaurs of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation
    A stable isotopic investigation of resource partitioning among neosauropod dinosaurs of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation Benjamin T. Breeden, III SID: 110305422 [email protected] GEOL394H University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Geology 29 April 2011 Advisors: Dr. Thomas R. Holtz1, Jr., Dr. Alan Jay Kaufman1, and Dr. Matthew T. Carrano2 1: University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Geology 2: National Museum of Natural History, Department of Paleobiology ABSTRACT For more than a century, morphological studies have been used to attempt to understand the partitioning of resources in the Morrison Fauna, particularly between members of the two major clades of neosauropod (long-necked, megaherbivorous) dinosaurs: Diplodocidae and Macronaria. While it is generally accepted that most macronarians fed 3-5m above the ground, the feeding habits of diplodocids are somewhat more enigmatic; it is not clear whether diplodocids fed higher or lower than macronarians. While many studies exploring sauropod resource portioning have focused on differences in the morphologies of the two groups, few have utilized geochemical evidence. Stable isotope geochemistry has become an increasingly common and reliable means of investigating paleoecological questions, and due to the resistance of tooth enamel to diagenetic alteration, fossil teeth can provide invaluable paleoecological and behavioral data that would be otherwise unobtainable. Studies in the Ituri Rainforest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have shown that stable isotope ratios measured in the teeth of herbivores reflect the heights at which these animals fed in the forest due to isotopic variation in plants with height caused by differences in humidity at the forest floor and the top of the forest exposed to the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • 65Th Annual Tri-State Geological Field Conference 2-3 October 2004
    65th Annual Tri-State Geological Field Conference 2-3 October 2004 Weis Earth Science Museum Menasha, Wisconsin The Lake & The Ledge Geological Links between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Winnebago Joanne Kluessendorf & Donald G. Mikulic Organizers The Lake & The Ledge Geological Links between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Winnebago 65th Annual Tri-State Geological Field Conference 2-3 October 2004 by Joanne Kluessendorf Weis Earth Science Museum, Menasha and Donald G. Mikulic Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign With contributions by Bruce Brown, Wisconsin Geological & Natural History Survey, Stop 1 Tom Hooyer, Wisconsin Geological & Natural History Survey, Stops 2 & 5 William Mode, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Stops 2 & 5 Maureen Muldoon, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Stop 1 Weis Earth Science Museum University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley Menasha, Wisconsin WELCOME TO THE TH 65 ANNUAL TRI-STATE GEOLOGICAL FIELD CONFERENCE. The Tri-State Geological Field Conference was founded in 1933 as an informal geological field trip for professionals and students in Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. The first Tri-State examined the LaSalle Anticline in Illinois. Fifty-two geologists from the University of Chicago, University of Iowa, University of Illinois, Northwestern University, University of Wisconsin, Northern Illinois State Teachers College, Western Illinois Teachers College, and the Illinois State Geological Survey attended that trip (Anderson, 1980). The 1934 field conference was hosted by the University of Wisconsin and the 1935 by the University of Iowa, establishing the rotation between the three states. The 1947 Tri-State visited quarries at Hamilton Mound and High Cliff, two of the stops on this year’s field trip.
    [Show full text]