DOCSLIB.ORG

Two-Phase Increase in the Maximum Size of Life Over 3.5 Billion Years Reflects Biological Innovation and Environmental Opportunity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Two-Phase Increase in the Maximum Size of Life Over 3.5 Billion Years Reflects Biological Innovation and Environmental Opportunity Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity Jonathan L. Paynea,1, Alison G. Boyerb, James H. Brownb, Seth Finnegana, Michał Kowalewskic, Richard A. Krause, Jr.d, S. Kathleen Lyonse, Craig R. McClainf, Daniel W. McSheag, Philip M. Novack-Gottshallh, Felisa A. Smithb, Jennifer A. Stempieni, and Steve C. Wangj aDepartment of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 320, Stanford, CA 94305; bDepartment of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; cDepartment of Geosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061; dMuseum fu¨r Naturkunde der Humboldt–Universita¨t zu Berlin, D-10115, Berlin, Germany; eDepartment of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560; fMonterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, CA 95039; gDepartment of Biology, Box 90338, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; hDepartment of Geosciences, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118; iDepartment of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; and jDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Swarthmore College, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081 Edited by James W. Valentine, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved November 14, 2008 (received for review July 1, 2008) The maximum size of organisms has increased enormously since and avoids the more substantial empirical difficulties in deter- the initial appearance of life >3.5 billion years ago (Gya), but the mining mean, median, or minimum size for all life or even for pattern and timing of this size increase is poorly known. Conse- many individual taxa. For each era within the Archean Eon quently, controls underlying the size spectrum of the global biota (4,000–2,500 Mya) and for each period within the Proterozoic have been difficult to evaluate. Our period-level compilation of the (2,500–542 Mya) and Phanerozoic (542–0 Mya) eons, we ob- largest known fossil organisms demonstrates that maximum size tained the sizes of the largest known fossil prokaryotes, single- increased by 16 orders of magnitude since life first appeared in the celled eukaryotes, metazoans, and vascular plants by reviewing fossil record. The great majority of the increase is accounted for by the published literature and contacting taxonomic experts. Sizes 2 discrete steps of approximately equal magnitude: the first in the were converted to volume to facilitate comparisons across middle of the Paleoproterozoic Era (Ϸ1.9 Gya) and the second disparate taxonomic groups (see Data and Methods). The data- during the late Neoproterozoic and early Paleozoic eras (0.6–0.45 base is deposited in Data Dryad (www.datadryad.org) and can Gya). Each size step required a major innovation in organismal be accessed at http://hdl.handle.net/10255/dryad.222. complexity—first the eukaryotic cell and later eukaryotic multicel- lularity. These size steps coincide with, or slightly postdate, in- Results creases in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen, suggesting The maximum body volume of organisms preserved in the fossil latent evolutionary potential was realized soon after environmen- record has increased by Ϸ16 orders of magnitude over the last tal limitations were removed. 3.5 billion years (Fig. 1). Increase in maximum size occurred episodically, with pronounced jumps of approximately 6 orders body size ͉ Cambrian ͉ oxygen ͉ Precambrian ͉ trend of magnitude in the mid-Paleoproterozoic (Ϸ1.9 Gya) and during the Ediacaran through Ordovician (600–450 Mya). Thus, espite widespread scientific and popular fascination with Ϸ75% of the overall increase in maximum body size over Dthe largest and smallest organisms and numerous studies of geological time took place during 2 geologically brief intervals body size evolution within individual taxonomic groups (1–9), that together comprise Ͻ20% of the total duration of life on the first-order pattern of body size evolution through the history Earth. of life has not been quantified rigorously. Because size influences Paleoproterozoic size increase occurs as a single step in Fig. (and may be limited by) a broad spectrum of physiological, 1, reflecting the presence of Grypania spiralis in the Paleopro- ecological, and evolutionary processes (10–16), detailed docu- terozoic (Orosirian) Negaunee Iron Formation of Canada (19). mentation of size trends may shed light on the constraints and The taxonomic affinities of these fossils are controversial: Their innovations that have shaped life’s size spectrum over evolu- morphological regularity and size suggest they are the remains of tionary time as well as the role of the body size spectrum in eukaryotic organisms (19, 20), but they have also been inter- structuring global ecosystems. Bonner (17) presented a figure preted as composite microbial filaments (21). Possible trace portraying a gradual, monotonic increase in the overall maxi- fossils of similar age and comparable size occur in the Stirling mum size of living organisms over the past 3.5 billion years. The Quartzite of Australia and the Chorhat Sandstone of India, pattern appears consistent with a simple, continuous underlying suggesting Orosirian size increase may not have been confined process such as diffusion (18), but could also reflect a more to Grypania (22, 23). Slightly younger specimens of similar sizes complex process. Bonner, for example, proposed that lineages from the Changzhougou and Changlinggou formations of China evolve toward larger sizes to exploit unoccupied ecological niches. For decades, Bonner’s has been the only attempt to quantify body size evolution over the entire history of life on Author contributions: J.L.P., A.G.B., J.H.B., S.F., M.K., R.A.K., S.K.L., C.R.M., D.W.M., Earth, but the data he presented were not tied to particular fossil P.M.N.-G., F.A.S., J.A.S., and S.C.W. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, specimens and were plotted without consistent controls on and wrote the paper. taxonomic scale against a nonlinear timescale. Hence, we have The authors declare no conflict of interest. lacked sufficient data on the tempo and mode of maximum size This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. change to evaluate potential first-order biotic and abiotic con- Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. trols on organism size through the history of life. 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. Here, we document the evolutionary history of body size on This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/ Earth, focusing on the upper limit to size. Use of maximum size 0806314106/DCSupplemental. allows us to assess constraints on the evolution of large body size © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA 24–27 ͉ PNAS ͉ January 6, 2009 ͉ vol. 106 ͉ no. 1 www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0806314106 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 history of maximum size at the taxonomic and temporal scales giant 14 14 addressed. Larger fossils and larger fossil species tend to be pO2 < 0.1% PAL pO2 1%-10% PAL pO2 ~ 100% PAL sequioa 12 remarked upon in the paleontological literature; genus and blue species names with roots meaning ‘‘large’’ or ‘‘giant’’ are com- cephalopod 10 10 whale monly applied to particularly sizeable taxa, making them easy to 8 arthropod ) identify in the literature. Because we treat size data on a 3 Dickinsonia 6 largest 6 single-celled logarithmic scale, even moderate sampling biases are unlikely to eukaryote 4 cause observed maxima to vary by Ͼ1 or 2 orders of magnitude. Grypania Ͼ 2 2 In contrast, species in the maximum size dataset span 16 orders of magnitude, and the sizes of all living organisms span Ͼ22 0 largest prokaryote orders of magnitude (27). Although the upper bound error bars -2 -2 for the individual data points cannot be readily estimated, these Biovolume (log mm Biovolume -4 errors are likely to be negligible given the size range addressed Primaevifilum -6 -6 in our study. For example, it is unlikely that dinosaurs, whales, Ͼ -8 or cephalopods 10 times the size of the largest known speci- EoarchaeanPaleoar. Mesoar. Neoar. Paleoproterozoic Mesoprot. Neoprot. Pz. Mz. C Archaean Proterozoic Phan. mens have ever existed. That the largest living plant and animal 4000 3000 2000 1000 species are not much bigger than the largest known fossils (Fig. Age (Ma) 1) suggests fossils reliably sample not only trends but also absolute values of maximum size at the temporal and taxonomic Fig. 1. Sizes of the largest fossils through Earth history. Size maxima are scales considered in this study. Trends in trace fossil sizes are illustrated separately for single-celled eukaryotes, animals, and vascular plants for the Ediacaran and Phanerozoic. The solid line denotes the trend in generally concordant with the body fossil record (28), indicating the overall maximum for all of life. Increases in the overall maximum occurred that the apparent size increase from the Ediacaran through in discrete steps approximately corresponding to increases in atmospheric Ordovician does not merely reflect an increase in preservation oxygen levels in the mid-Paleoproterozoic and Ediacaran–Cambrian–early potential of large animals. Moreover, large-bodied fossils occur Ordovician. Sizes of the largest fossil prokaryotes were not compiled past 1.9 in both well-fossilized clades (e.g., cephalopods) and taxa that Gya. Estimates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ediacaran) of Earth – Nature’S Experiments
    The Early Animals (Ediacaran) of Earth – Nature’s Experiments Donald Baumgartner Medical Entomologist, Biologist, and Fossil Enthusiast Presentation before Chicago Rocks and Mineral Society May 10, 2014 Illinois Famous for Pennsylvanian Fossils 3 In the Beginning: The Big Bang . Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago Fossil Record Order 95% of higher taxa: Random plant divisions domains & kingdoms Cambrian Atdabanian Fauna Vendian Tommotian Fauna Ediacaran Fauna protists Proterozoic algae McConnell (Baptist)College Pre C - Fossil Order Archaean bacteria Source: Truett Kurt Wise The First Cells . 3.8 billion years ago, oxygen levels in atmosphere and seas were low • Early prokaryotic cells probably were anaerobic • Stromatolites . Divergence separated bacteria from ancestors of archaeans and eukaryotes Stromatolites Dominated the Earth Stromatolites of cyanobacteria ruled the Earth from 3.8 b.y. to 600 m. [2.5 b.y.]. Believed that Earth glaciations are correlated with great demise of stromatolites world-wide. 8 The Oxygen Atmosphere . Cyanobacteria evolved an oxygen-releasing, noncyclic pathway of photosynthesis • Changed Earth’s atmosphere . Increased oxygen favored aerobic respiration Early Multi-Cellular Life Was Born Eosphaera & Kakabekia at 2 b.y in Canada Gunflint Chert 11 Earliest Multi-Cellular Metazoan Life (1) Alga Eukaryote Grypania of MI at 1.85 b.y. MI fossil outcrop 12 Earliest Multi-Cellular Metazoan Life (2) Beads Horodyskia of MT and Aust. at 1.5 b.y. thought to be algae 13 Source: Fedonkin et al. 2007 Rise of Animals Tappania Fungus at 1.5 b.y Described now from China, Russia, Canada, India, & Australia 14 Earliest Multi-Cellular Metazoan Animals (3) Worm-like Parmia of N.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Invasive Imaging Methods Applied to Neo- and Paleo-Ontological Cephalopod Research
    Biogeosciences, 11, 2721–2739, 2014 www.biogeosciences.net/11/2721/2014/ doi:10.5194/bg-11-2721-2014 © Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Non-invasive imaging methods applied to neo- and paleo-ontological cephalopod research R. Hoffmann1, J. A. Schultz2, R. Schellhorn2, E. Rybacki3, H. Keupp4, S. R. Gerden1, R. Lemanis1, and S. Zachow5 1Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Universitätsstrasse 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany 2Steinmann-Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Paläontologie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Nussallee 8, 53115 Bonn, Germany 3Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ Sektion 3.2, Geomechanik und Rheologie, Telegrafenberg, D 429, 14473 Potsdam, Germany 4Institut für Geologische Wissenschaften, Fachrichtung Paläontologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Malteserstrasse 74–100, 12249 Berlin, Germany 5Zuse Institut Berlin, Takustrasse 7, 14195 Berlin, Germany Correspondence to: R. Hoffmann ([email protected]) Received: 28 October 2013 – Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 29 November 2013 Revised: 14 March 2014 – Accepted: 29 March 2014 – Published: 22 May 2014 Abstract. Several non-invasive methods are common prac- tially preserved within the surrounding rocks, requires imag- tice in natural sciences today. Here we present how they ing methods that are primarily used in non-destructive test- can be applied and contribute to current topics in cephalo- ing. The conservation of the specimen is of main importance pod (paleo-) biology. Different methods will be compared in using these methods since former techniques used destruc- terms of time necessary to acquire the data, amount of data, tive methods leading to the loss of the specimen or parts accuracy/resolution, minimum/maximum size of objects that of the specimen.
    [Show full text]
  • Palaeontological Society of Japan
    Transactions and Proceedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan New Series No. 87 Palaeontological Society of Japan September 30, 1972 Editor: Takashi HAMADA Associate editor: Yasuhide IWASAKI Officers for 1971 -1972 President: · Tokio SHIKAMA Councillors (* Executives): Kiyoshi ASANO*, Kiyotaka CHINZEI*, Takashi HAMADA*, Tetsuro HANAI*, Kotora HATAI, Itaru HAYAMI, Koichiro IcHIKAWA, Taro KANAYA, Kametoshi KANMERA, Tamio KOTAKA, Tatsuro MATSUMOTO*, Hiroshi OZAKI*, Tokio SHIKAMA *, Fuyuji TAKA!*, Yokichi TAKA YANAGI Secretaries: W ataru HASHIMOTO, Saburo KANNO Executive Committee General Affairs: Tetsuro HANAI, Naoaki AOKI Membership: Kiyotaka CHINZEI, Toshio KOIKE Finance: Fuyuji T AKAI, Hisayoshi !Go Planning : Hiroshi OZAKI, Kazuo ASAMA Publications Transactions : Takashi HAMADA, Y asuhide IwASAKI Special Papers: Tatsuro MATSUMOTO, Tomowo OzAWA " Fossils": Kiyoshi ASANO, Toshiaki TAKAYAMA All communications relating to this journal should be addressed to the PALAEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF JAPAN c/o Business Center for Academic Societies, Japan Yayoi 2-4-16, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan. Sole agent: University of Tokyo Press, Hongo, Tokyo Trans. Proc. Palaeont. Soc. Japan; N.S., No. 87, pp. 377-394, pl. 47, September 30, 1972 601. TWO SMALL DESMOCERATID AMMONITES FROM HOKKAIDO (STUDIES OF THE CRETACEOUS AMMONITES FROM HOKKAIDO AND SAGHALIEN-XXIV)* TATSURO MATSUMOTO!), TATSUO MURAMOT02> and AKITOSHI INOMN> ~l::.ffljitffti:-T:A.:c-e 7 :Af31.'H~~7 :..-'.:C-;1-1 ~ 2 f!fi: -t'O) 1 fi~~}]IJ!I!!)JJ3.!1E.;'f-O)r$-e / ~ =- 7 :..-'0) Mantelliceras japonicum 1\'.'17• t?:>iit L. t: "b 0)'"(', Wfr~Wfrm! C. VC:::.. :::.lr.ilcl!lXT .Qo :::.. hvinl<:f*~O)fE:Q~ 2 em JE.l?:>fO)'J''!!'t', JLI:l~v'ijWiWTrilfi~ "b t:,, mi»EEIB~Jl!:Q~y L.
    [Show full text]
  • Palaeobiology and Diversification of Proterozoic-Cambrian Photosynthetic Eukaryotes
    Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 1308 Palaeobiology and diversification of Proterozoic-Cambrian photosynthetic eukaryotes ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS ISSN 1651-6214 ISBN 978-91-554-9389-9 UPPSALA urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-265229 2015 Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Hambergsalen, Geocentrum, Villavägen 16, 752 36, Uppsala, Friday, 11 December 2015 at 10:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Professor Shuhai Xiao (Geosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Abstract Agić, H. 2015. Palaeobiology and diversification of Proterozoic-Cambrian photosynthetic eukaryotes. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 1308. 47 pp. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ISBN 978-91-554-9389-9. One of the most important events in the history of life is the evolution of the complex, eukaryotic cell. The eukaryotes are complex organisms with membrane-bound intracellular structures, and they include a variety of both single-celled and multicellular organisms: plants, animals, fungi and various protists. The evolutionary origin of this group may be studied by direct evidence of past life: fossils. The oldest traces of eukaryotes have appeared by 2.4 billion years ago (Ga), and have additionally diversified in the period around 1.8 Ga. The Mesoproterozoic Era (1.6-1 Ga) is characterised by the first evidence of the appearance complex unicellular microfossils, as well as innovative morphologies, and the evolution of sexual reproduction and multicellularity. For a better understanding of the early eukaryotic evolution and diversification patterns, a part of this thesis has focused on the microfossil records from various time periods and geographic locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Papers in Press
    Papers in Press “Papers in Press” includes peer-reviewed, accepted manuscripts of research articles, reviews, and short notes to be published in Paleontological Research. They have not yet been copy edited and/or formatted in the publication style of Paleontological Research. As soon as they are printed, they will be removed from this website. Please note they can be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI, as follows: Humblet, M. and Iryu, Y. 2014: Pleistocene coral assemblages on Irabu-jima, South Ryukyu Islands, Japan. Paleontological Research, doi: 10.2517/2014PR020. doi:10.2517/2017PR005 Globusphyton Wang et al., an Ediacaran macroalga, crept on seafloor in the Yangtze Block, South China AcceptedYE WANG1 AND YUE WANG2 1School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China 2School of Resources and Environments, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract. The Ediacaran genus Globusphyton Wang et al., only including one species G. lineare Wang et al., is a eukaryotic macroalgamanuscript in the Wenghui biota from black shale of the upper Doushantuo Formation (ca. 560–551 Ma) in northeastern Guizhou, South China. It was assigned as one of significant fossils in the assemblage and biozone divisions in the middle-late Ediacaran Period. Morphologically, Globusphyton is composed of several structural components, displaying that it had tissue differentiation to serve various bio-functions. Its prostrate stolon, a long ribbon bundled by unbranching filaments, crept by holdfasts on the seafloor. Its pompon-like thalli, the circular to oval thallus-tuft composed of many filamentous dichotomies, may have served for photosynthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline 11: Fossil Record of Early Life Life in the Precambrian Time Line
    Outline 11: Fossil Record of Early Life Life in the Precambrian Time Line • 0.545 BY – animals with hard parts, start of the Phanerozoic Eon • 0.600 BY – first animals, no hard parts • 2.0 BY – first definite eukaryotes • 2.0-3.5 BY – formation of BIF’s, stromatolites common • 3.5 BY – oldest definite fossils: stromatolites • 3.8 BY – C12 enrichment in sedimentary rocks, chemical evidence for life; not definitive of life • 4.0 BY – oldest rocks of sedimentary origin Fossil Evidence • 3.8 BY ago: small carbon compound spheres - early cells? Maybe not. • 3.5 BY ago: definite fossils consisting of stromatolites and the cyanobacteria that formed them. The cyanobacteria resemble living aerobic photosynthesizers. • 3.2 BY ago: rod-shaped bacteria Fossil Cell? 3.8 BY old from Greenland Modern stromatolites, Bahamas Modern stromatolites produced by cyanobacteria, Sharks Bay, Australia Modern stromatolites produced by cyanobacteria, Sharks Bay, Australia 2 B.Y. old stromatolites from NW Canada Stromatolites, 2 BY old, Minnesota Cyanobacteria, makers of stromatolites Microscopic views Cyanobacteria, makers of stromatolites 1.0 BY old Cyanobacteria 3.5 BY old, Australia Microscopic views Stromatolite, 3.5 BY old, Australia Closeup of stromatolite layers in last slide Modern archaea Fossil archaea or bacteria, 3.2 BY old from Africa Fossil bacteria 2BY Modern bacteria old from Minnesota The Banded Iron Formations • Billions of tons of iron ore, the world’s chief reserves. • Formed between 3.5 and 2.0 BY ago. • They record the gradual oxidation of the oceans by photosynthetic cyanobacteria. • When the oceans finished rusting, oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Record of Early Life
    Origin of Life on Earth: The Precambrian Fossil Record Geology 230 Fossils and Evolution Time Line • 0.55 BY – animals with hard parts, start of the Phanerozoic Era • 2.0 BY – first definite eukaryotes • 2.0-3.5 BY – formation of BIF’s, stromatolites common • 3.5 BY – oldest probable fossils: stromatolites • 3.8 BY – C12 enrichment in sedimentary rocks, chemical evidence for life; not definitive of life • 4.0 BY – oldest rocks of sedimentary origin Fossil Evidence • 3.8 BY ago: small carbon compound spheres - early cells? • 3.5 BY ago: probable fossils consisting of stromatolites and the microbes that formed them. • 3.2 BY ago: rod-shaped bacteria Fossil Cell? 3.8 BY old from Greenland Modern stromatolites, Bahamas Modern stromatolites produced by cyanobacteria, Sharks Bay, Australia Modern stromatolites produced by cyanobacteria, Sharks Bay, Australia 2 B.Y. old stromatolites from Canada Stromatolites, 2 BY old, Minnesota Cyanobacteria, makers of stromatolites since 2.6 Ga Microscopic views Cyanobacteria, makers of stromatolites 1.0 Ga Cyanobacteria fossils, 1 BY old Microscopic views 3.5 BY old Australia, cyanobacteria or not? Microscopic views Stromatolite, 3.5 BY old, Australia Closeup of stromatolite layers in last slide Modern archaea Fossil archaea or bacteria, 3.2 BY old from Africa Fossil bacteria 2BY Modern bacteria old from Minnesota The Banded Iron Formations • Billions of tons of iron ore, the world’s chief reserves. • Formed between 3.5 and 2.0 BY ago. • They record the gradual oxidation of the oceans by photosynthetic cyanobacteria. • When the oceans finished rusting, oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • (Campanian and Maestrichtian) Ammonites from Southern Alaska
    Upper Cretaceous (Campanian and Maestrichtian) Ammonites From Southern Alaska GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PI SSIONAL PAPER 432 Upper Cretaceous (Campanian and Maestrichtian) Ammonites From Southern Alaska By DAVID L. JONES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 432 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1963 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: Jones, David Lawrence, 1930- Upper Cretaceous (Campanian and Maestrichtian) am­ monites from southern Alaska. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1963. iv, 53 p. illus., maps, diagrs., tables. 29 cm. (U.S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 432) Part of illustrative matter folded in pocket. 1. Amnionoidea. 2. Paleontology-Cretaceous. 3. Paleontology- Alaska. I. Title. (Series) Bibliography: p. 47-^9. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract-__________________________ 1 Comparison with other areas Continued Introduction. ______________________ 1 Vancouver Island, British Columbia.. 13 Stratigraphic summary ______________ 2 California. ______________--_____--- 14 Matanuska Valley-Nelchina area. 2 Western interior of North America. __ 14 Chignik Bay area._____._-._____ 6 Gulf coast area___________-_-_--_-- 15 Herendeen Bay area____________ 8 Madagascar. ______________________ 15 Cape Douglas area______________ 9 Antarctica ________________________ 15 Deposition and ecologic conditions___. 11 Geographic distribution ________________ 16 Age and correlation ________________ 12 Systematic descriptions.________________ 22 Comparison with other areas _ _______ 13 Selected references._________--_---__-__ 47 Japan _________________________ 13 Index._____-______-_----_-------_---- 51 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates 1-5 in pocket; 6-41 follow index] PLATES 1-3.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael A. Murphy and Peter U. Rod Da
    18 MICHAEL A. MURPHY AND PETER U. ROD DA of the flank, but the first lateral lobe is whorl 32 mm., width of whorl 30 mm., um- trifid, complexly frilled, and about twice as bilicus diameter 23 mm. deep as the external lobe and very similar Remarks.—Puzosia sullivanae n. sp. re- to the corresponding elements in the geno- sembles P. dilleri (Anderson) (Anderson, type as figured by Wright (1957, p. L364, 1938, pi. 42, fig. 1, not pi. 42, figs. 2,3) more fig. 476-5c). The maximum size was prob- closely than any of the other California spe- ably over 8 inches in diameter as the holo- cies but has a much smaller umbilicus than type measures more than 6 inches in diam- the latter. eter (reconstructed) and is septate through- The species is named for Mrs. Catherine out. Sullivan near whose ranch the holotype was Holotype.—The holotype is specimen found. number 28656 U.C.L.A. Invert. Paleo. Cat. Genus MESOPUZOSIA Matsumoto, 1954 It was collected at locality 3477 on Coyote MESOPUZOSIA COLUSAENSE (Anderson) Creek. Dimensions: height of whorl 27 PI. 102, fig. 10 mm., width of whorl 16 mm. (approximate), width of umbilicus 25 mm. All measure- Desmoceras colusaense Anderson, 1902, p. 96,97. pi. v, figs. 128,129, pi. x, fig. 200. ments at 73 mm. diameter. Puzosia (Parapuzosia) colusaense (Anderson), Remarks.—P. puma n; sp. can be differ- Anderson, 1958, p. 236, pi. 10, fig. 1. entiated from other puzosids described from Pachydesmoceras colusaense (Anderson), Matsu- California by its high flat-sided whorl, wide moto, 1958, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-Phase Increase in the Maximum Size of Life Over 3.5 Billion Years Reflects Biological Innovation and Environmental Opportunity
    Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity Jonathan L. Paynea,1, Alison G. Boyerb, James H. Brownb, Seth Finnegana, Michał Kowalewskic, Richard A. Krause, Jr.d, S. Kathleen Lyonse, Craig R. McClainf, Daniel W. McSheag, Philip M. Novack-Gottshallh, Felisa A. Smithb, Jennifer A. Stempieni, and Steve C. Wangj aDepartment of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 320, Stanford, CA 94305; bDepartment of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; cDepartment of Geosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061; dMuseum fu¨r Naturkunde der Humboldt–Universita¨t zu Berlin, D-10115, Berlin, Germany; eDepartment of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560; fMonterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, CA 95039; gDepartment of Biology, Box 90338, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; hDepartment of Geosciences, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118; iDepartment of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; and jDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Swarthmore College, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081 Edited by James W. Valentine, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved November 14, 2008 (received for review July 1, 2008) The maximum size of organisms has increased enormously since and avoids the more substantial empirical difficulties in deter- the initial appearance of life >3.5 billion years ago (Gya), but the mining mean, median, or minimum size for all life or even for pattern and timing of this size increase is poorly known. Conse- many individual taxa. For each era within the Archean Eon quently, controls underlying the size spectrum of the global biota (4,000–2,500 Mya) and for each period within the Proterozoic have been difficult to evaluate.
    [Show full text]
  • Milestones in the First 3 Billion Years of Life When Did the First Multicellular
    Milestones in the first 3 billion years of life • Origin of life - before 3.8 Ga • Origin of eukaryotes - before 1.4 Ga; before 2.7 Ga ? • Origin of multicellularity - 600-800 Ma ? • Origin of skeletons - 550 Ma ? • The Cambrian Explosion - 550-544 Ma ? When did the first multicellular eukaryotes arise? • Body fossils – “good” fossil evidence at 600-800 Ma – Questionable fossil evidence earlier (but stay tuned) • Molecular clocks – Wide variety of dates (600-1500 Ma) – Most dates focus on 800-1000 Ma 1 Grypania, ca. 2.1 Ga from Michigan Eukaryotic (triploblatic) Traces, India 1.0 or 0.6 Ga From Seilacher et al. 1998, Science 282: 80-83 2 Multicellular algae (?), Proterozoic (ca. 800 Ga), Montana and NW Canada 10 cm 3 (from Bromham & Hendy, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 2000, 267:1041) Milestones in the first 3 billion years of life • Origin of life - before 3.8 Ga • Origin of eukaryotes - before 1.4 Ga; before 2.7 Ga ? • Origin of animals (multicellularity) - 600-800 Ma ? • Origin of skeletons - 550 Ma ? • The Cambrian Explosion - 550-544 Ma ? 4 Important points about the origin of skeletons • It really seems to have happened no earlier than ca. 550-600 Ma • Not just skeletonizing formerly soft-bodied critters; skeletons make new body plans possible. • Causes? Genetic innovation vs. environmental causes The oldest known skeletonized organism | 0.5 mm Cloudina – ca 550 Ma 5 Namacalathus, a calcified metazoan 550-543 Ma Namibia From Grotzinger et al., 2000 Paleobiology 26(3) Milestones in the first 3 billion years of life • Origin of life - before 3.8 Ga • Origin of eukaryotes - before 1.4 Ga; before 2.7 Ga ? • Origin of animals (multicellularity) - 600-800 Ma ? • Origin of skeletons - 550 Ma ? • The Cambrian Explosion - 550-544 Ma ? 6 The Cambrian Explosion The relatively sudden appearance and diversification of almost all of the phyla (all but Bryozoa) in the early Cambrian.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Age of Eukaryotes: Evaluating Evidence from Fossils and Molecular Clocks
    Downloaded from http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/ on October 6, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press On the Age of Eukaryotes: Evaluating Evidence from Fossils and Molecular Clocks Laura Eme, Susan C. Sharpe, Matthew W. Brown1, and Andrew J. Roger Centre for Comparative Genomics and Evolutionary Bioinformatics, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax B3H 4R2, Canada Correspondence: [email protected] Our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships among eukaryotic lineages has im- proved dramatically over the few past decades thanks to the development of sophisticated phylogenetic methods and models of evolution, in combination with the increasing avail- ability of sequence data for a variety of eukaryotic lineages. Concurrently, efforts have been made to infer the age of major evolutionary events along the tree of eukaryotes using fossil- calibrated molecular clock-based methods. Here, we review the progress and pitfalls in estimating the age of the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) and major lineages. After reviewing previous attempts to date deep eukaryote divergences, we present the results of a Bayesian relaxed-molecular clock analysis of a large dataset (159 proteins, 85 taxa) using 19 fossil calibrations. We show that for major eukaryote groups estimated dates of divergence, as well as their credible intervals, are heavily influenced by the relaxed molec- ular clock models and methods used, and by the nature and treatment of fossil calibrations. Whereas the estimated age of LECA varied widely, ranging from 1007 (943–1102) Ma to 1898 (1655–2094) Ma, all analyses suggested that the eukaryotic supergroups subsequently diverged rapidly (i.e., within 300 Ma of LECA).
    [Show full text]